accountable for it and require disclosure. that's what i think would be a better approach. the people like katie who want to overturn citizens united. let's be clear what this case is about. it was a not for property corporation that we wanted to allow people to buy a documentary video of hillary clinton during the last campaign and the government's position which katie holds is that the government should be able to ban that, forbid it, disallow it. the government's argument was that they should even be able to ban books if they're about politics or politicians and the democratic senators that katie agrees with, they had a vote on the senate floor to amend the first amendment, to rewrite the first amendment like it hasn't served us adequately for 240 years to give politician it is power to control political speech. that's a terrible idea. >> senator, we are going to give ms. mcginty an opportunity to respond. >> thank you, the senator had an opportunity to vote in favor of getting the dark unaccountable

secret money out of our politics and he voted no. i not only will vote, yes, but i will help lead this effort so this we genuinely bring people's voices back to the center of politics and our democracy. >> thank you. >> i think we have a final rebuttal. >> we do, i'm sorry. >> this comes down whether or not politicians should be able to control political speech. that's what the senate democrats voted for. that's what katie mcginty supports. that's outrageous. if the first amendment is for anything the give people freedom to criticize politicians, elected officials that represent them. that's what the first amendment is about. it's about personal freedom in -- and freedom to express opinions whether you like them or not and the idea that we would give congress the power to control political speech is a terrible idea and i'm not for it. >> another quick break, more of this u.s. senate debate in just a moment. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> welcome back to u.s. senate debate. we are going to get back right back to questions, candidates as you donald trump has expressed concerns that this election in pennsylvania is going to be rigged. he has said quote, we are going to watch pennsylvania, go to certain areas, watch and study make sure that other people don't come in and vote five times. do you share this concern and if so, based on what evidence? >> let me be very, very clear about this because this is an important question maybe one of the most important questions of the evening, in my opinion. we have for 240 years, we've had the most success, most vibrant republic in the history of the world. it depends on the large degree in the american people with the outcomes. our elections may not always be completely perfect but legitimate. they have integrity and every one needs to respect the outcome. i don't know how this race, my race, the president's race is going to turn out, but we all need to respect the outcome

because that's going to be necessary to pull us all together on november 9th, the day after the election. >> ms. mcginty. >> i think it's a dangerous and reckless allegation and suggestion that donald trump has been making. you know, we have seen this movie before here in pennsylvania. not long ago we saw republican leadership in harrisburg push a voter id law, spent millions of our dollars, spent efforts to intimidate voters and here is what we found then, court proceedings following that legislation after millions spent and the court asking show us one example, one example of voter fraud and not a single example was identified. not one. the good people of pennsylvania take their democracy, take their common law and country very, very seriously and i know in

this election season and others people want their voices heard, they will show up respectfully of the process but i do think that this is another one of those reasons why it is important for senator too manymey to say donald trump is unfit to be president of the united states. >> senator, quick rebuttal, please. >> well, i mean i think i cover the point, our elections are a fundamental aspect of our democratic process. one of the most important defining features and they work. they have worked for a very long time and we all need to respect the outcomes. >> and just according to rules, you have another 20 seconds if you want them. >> well, i think it is vital that we respect the institutions of our democracy. it is one of the reasons why i'm happy to say i don't support donald trump to be president of the united states and i would invite the senator to consider sharing his views with his constituents but it's also the reason why i will be a voice to get money out of politics, to

vote to make sure the dark secret money gets out of politics that the senator voted against and keeping that money in our tem dem cri. >> thank you. it is time now for the candidates to make their closing statements, the order was determined earlier by coin toss. >> thank you, thanks to all of you for tuning in. i'm katie mcginty running for the united states of senate and i'm asking for your consideration and your vote. i come from a hard-working family where i will tell you my mom and my dad both working every day, told all 10 of us kids that we could chase and realize our dreams and if you're willing to work hard this is this is the place where it's about your grit, not your pedigree, not about your zip code, an american dream that says putting your 40 hours and you will be able to provide for

yourself and your kids. if i have the honor of serving as your united states senator, i'm going to go to bat for hard-working families, hard-working families who have gotten the short-end of the stick frankly by our own senator who started career in wall street, in many cases never left. i am going to go to bat for you because i know when we give the good people this common law and country a fair honest shot, nobody in the world can compete with us and our best and our greatest days are ahead. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator toomey. you have two minutes. >> i really appreciate this. it's really been an extraordinary honor to serve as your senator for these last six years. i really focused on three things. i'm a fiscal conservative so i have been fighting washington's wasteful spending, i have always been work to go lower

middle-class tax burdens. i'm looking after pennsylvania. whether that's saving jobs or fighting the crazy washington war on energy jobs in western pennsylvania or the opioid crisis all across our state, these things have kept me very busy. i've also been an independent voice willing to work with chuck schumer and joe. she was hand-picked by the washington power brokers to been a rubber stamp for hillary clinton. she enriched when she was running dep with money originated with taxpayer dollars, she supported all kinds of mid-class tax increases, regulation that is are holding back economy and dangerous security issues like her support for sanctuary cities. look, it's been a tough years for working-class families like the one that i grew up in and i meet with these family all of

the time and i know they just want a chance to see a brighter future. we can't have that future if we double down on all failed policies that have given us the really weak economy. if i have the honor of serving one more term as senate i will be working as hard as i can to create an environment that encourages, job creation, job growth, higher wages and the better standard of living that we've all been waiting for, thank you very much. >> thank you, senator, on behalf of everyone here thanks for the candidates for u.s. senate, thank you for watching this debate. remember election day is november 8th. i'm ken rice, see you on the news, goodnight. ♪

♪ ♪ >> c-span brings you more debates from senate races. today at 7:00 p.m. eastern live coverage on c-span2 debate from indiana to succeed republican dan coats who is not seeking reelection. republican representative todd young faces evan bayh. several candidates will take the stage, republican state treasurer john kennedy, republican congressman charles, republican congressman john fleming, caroline fayard and foster campbell at midnight republican senator ron johnson

and former democratic senator r rus debate for wisconsin seat. live on c-span thursday evening at 7:00 candidates in ohio senate race meet for another debate. republican senator rob portman and democrat ted strickland. now until election day follow key debates from house, senate and govern governors' races. c-span where history unfolds daily. >> in the south dakota race incumbent republican john thune and williams debate national debt, terrorism and cybersecurity. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> hello and welcome to election 2016 brought to you by south dakota public broadcasting and aarp south dakota. we bring you a forum between south dakota's united states senate candidates this broadcast is not a debate. it's a forum so that we can provide a conversation on the issues rather than timed answers. each candidate does have equal time to address the issues, there are no opening statements, however, candidates have the opportunity for a closing statement. our partners have solicited questions from our members and their members and i will name the source of the question. now let's meet our guests, first republican candidate united states senator john thune, welcome senator. here with us jay williams, democratic candidate for the office of united states senate, welcome, jay. >> thank you, stephanie. >> we have a lot to talk about, a lot of issues that south

dakotans want to hear about. senator, i'm going to start with you. i really want to talk about the state of politics in our nation and in south dakota. when we vote on november 8th, there are a lot of ballot questions that we are going to talk about, a few of those could change the way elections happen, maybe reform the election policy here in our state. some have suggested the reason these issues are on the ballot is because americans have lost trust with government, they don't trust politicians anymore. i'm just curious if you think we can change that as a nation and how you can help do that. >> well, thanks stephanie and thank you to public broadcasting and aarp and to my opponent jay williams to discus issues important to the election. do i think there's frustration around the country and i hear here in south dakota about the political process. one of the things that i hear probably more than anything else is it just seems like washington can't get along, things are

broken and dysfunctional and i share that frustration too because sometimes it seems that we aren't dealing with the big issues and reforming our tax code and dealing with our debt entitlement programs and that sort of thing. but what i tell people is you may not see this because it probably did you want make the cable news but there's a lot of good things behind the scenes, i serve in three economies, the finance committee which deals with taxes, trade health care, social security, issues that are important to south dakota, and i have the privilege of chairing a committee called the commerce, science and transportation committee which deals with trains, planes, automobiles, technology, space and all sorts of things. we've got a lot done. we've had a great deal of success just in the last few years. we were able to move, i authored a bill to move freight rail system. it went into the president and signed into law. first long-term highway bill. i authored major portions of that.

cuts red tape for agriculture shippers, creates funding for freight programs and provides important funding for roads and bridges in south dakota. we passed an aviation bill that went through the senate, came out of my committee and i authored that and went to the president and signed into law which creates new aviation security measures that are important for people who travel here in south dakota around the country and around the world. and we have done a lot of things that just, you know, that you have to grind them out. we were able to dramatically expand the size of the training range for air force base and that was a ten-year project. but we are getting things done. it's not often reported and i think the way you get things done to your point is you have to build a relationships, you have to build bridges, find common ground. and too often politics is very polarized and partisan and it's toxic to most people. people want results and things that we have been doing in the work that i'm doing in the united states senate, we are getting results, we are getting

things done and that's what we need more of. >> so jay, issues voters will vote on in terms of ballot questions would have us thinking they want things done differently in terms of how we vote for our politicians, finance reform, nonpartisan elections, what can you do to make things better if you make it to washington and do you think that south dakotans, the american people know -- no longer trust what's going on in terms of politics? >> thank you, stephanie. i want to thank south dakota broadcast and aarp and senator thune as well. i think you're right. i think the state of politics is kind of abysmal right now. we don't get a lot done and there seems like there's a lot of fighting going. you know, i'm not a politician, in fact, the only elected office i have served in for my local school board which is a nonpartisan position. and one of the reasons i'm running is because i feel that frustration and i talk to people

around the state and i know there's a lot of frustration because it seems like there's a my way or no way attitude specially in the u.s. congress. the u.s. congress has allow approval rating and they have earned that. the only way to change that is to elect new people. that's why, of course, i'm running. incumbents mostly get reelected and it's too bad because the voters look at their incumbents and they look at the congress and say the congress is not doing the job we want and then they say, but my particular congressman or senator is doing great so they vote for their own one and the truth is the only way we are going to change this is we put in people who really are nonpolitical much like myself. as a nonpolitical person, i think can i go to washington and reach across the aisle and work with other people and get things done. to give you a quick example of that, you know, i'm a democrat and this is a republican state. i went up to my hometown to

gettysburg and met with some friends that i met from high school. we more or less didn't agree on anything, but we sat down for an evening and had a chat where we, you know, discussed issues and sometimes in heated ways but at the end of the night, we found things that we could agree on and move forward on. the things we didn't agree on, we had to disagree on. that's what has to be done and i think that that's what the people of south dakota are looking for and really the people in the nation are looking for. i think i bring this to this election and i hope the people of south dakota will see that and will elect me and i think i can make a difference. >> senator, you talked about some of the politics that are polarized in one of those right now is our presidential election and i do want to talk about it here at the beginning. when we look at the role of the president of the united states, do we still consider that to be a role model? >> well, it should be. unfortunately this year it's not. i mean, i have made no secret of the fact that i'm not happy

about the options we have in front of us this year. we have two candidates that are deeply flawed, and i think unfortunately the american people are going to have to make a choice between the two. i have said, made it very plain that i would love to see our nominee donald trump step aside and allow mike pence to become the standard bearer of our party . we are going to prevent the next four years being from the last eight years in washington we have to defeat hillary clinton. and so that's why i suggested what i suggested. i think the best way to do that is for mike pence to be the nominee of our party. i still hope that's the case, but at this point we have to deal with the reality that the hand that we have been dealt. we have two candidates neither of whom of being a role model somebody that i would point to and say to my children this is

somebody i want you to look up to. having said that, the policies of hillary clinton in my judgment would be disastrous for south dakota. for farmers and ranchers, the avalanche of regulations would continue under her. she would double down on obamacare. she would for sure when it comes to courts appoint line ral activists judge who is would put at risk in my view many basic constitutional rights like the second amendment. there are important policy differences that are on the ballot this year, but unfortunately the candidates themselves don't represent the kind of character qualities that i would like to see, you know, in presidential candidates in this country because they need -- they should be role models. >> if donald trump does make it to our next president, do you think you could would recollect with him in this administration? >> i will work with whoever we elect as president. the challenges are too big. we need to get things done for the good of this country. i mentioned earlier a couple of things on the domestic side that are incredibly important. we have to get the economy

growing growing again. this will be the first president where the economy growth rate is more than 3%. we have sluggish growth, flat or declining wages, the country, the world is more dangerous than it has ever been before. we are going to need leadership, people that are willing to step up and whoever the president is as i pointed out early, i'm going to get results. i have proven that we can get things done even at times when the politics of our country is polarized. >> jay, same question. whoever does make it to the office of president are you going to be able to work with that person if you make it to washington? >> that's a major point of disagreement. we have two candidates all right. one of them is seriously flawed. donald trump is seriously unfit to be president. and that's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of lots and lots of mainstream republicans,

you know, george h.w. bush, formerrer president is going to vote for hillary clinton. donald trump, he is sexual predator, i mean, the man has made statements and then just today a 20 or so women came out and affirmed the statements that he made. i'm disappointed in senator thune that he's still going to vote for donald trump which is really, is troubling to me because i think donald trump is actual dangerous for our country and that -- if he was elected president sure we would have to work with him but i think it would be a really dangerous thing. so hillary clinton on on the other hand is a flawed candidate. she comes from modest mid western means, she went to public school, yale law school, she has worked for women and children all of her life. she was secretary of state, she was a senator from new york,

she's a faithful wife, she's actually been a great role model. i certainly would have my daughter take her for a role model. donald trump is exactly the opposite of that, in fact, he's so unfit that that really illustrates the problem we have really with the republican party today and senator thune says he gets things done, we don't have a supreme court in spite of the fact that it's the constitutional duty of the u.s. senate and senators thune to consider president obama's supreme court nominee. he's fought against everything president obama has done. he talked about the slow growth. actually our economy is doing great. we have since president obama took over an economy where the stock market was at 6500 and we had double digit unemployment and he brought it to stock market where we have record stock market prices and unemployment is near full employment right at 5%. and he has done a great job,

unfortunately he has had to do that with no help from the republican party. they obstructed everything. he said, well, i'm running against him because there's a lot of obstruction going on there. well, he was very cooperative with the republican president bush but when president obama took over he did the opposite. he's been fighting against everything he did. one of the maip things that senator was against with the tom dash was the judicial appointments. well, at the time president bush had 91% of judges approved. in the same time president obama has 76%. between the time that president obama was elected and the time he took office, republicans had two legislative meetings in which they said they weren't going to go along with anything that president obama was going to do. well, i think that's -- we really have to change that and i'm not republican or democrat

but i'm a nonpolitical guy. >> i want to move on for immigration. >> can i -- [laughter] >> just your follow-up. >> here is the thing. in the time that i've been in congress, i've stood up when south dakota's interests needed to be stood up for and i stood up to my own president when president bush was in the office. i've stood up to president obama when i think he's wrong for south dakota. the point is you want to have somebody who is going to represent south dakota values and stand up for the things that are important in the best interest of our state. and with respect to role models, hillary clinton has repeatedly lied to the american people about whether or not she sent or received emails on her private e-mail account. she has destroyed 33,000 emails after she received a subpoena

and told them to keep -- told her to keep them. she has been told by her, described by james comey who did the investigation as being extremely careless with national security classified information. that to me is not somebody that's a role model. >> i would like to have -- i don't want to belabor this point too long but the truth is senator -- secretary of state clinton has actually been a role model for all women. i mean, she's been working for women and children her whole entire career and this e-mail controversy it's just something made up by the republicans. i mean, anyone who knows about e-mail knows you can't just destroy e-mail because e-mail has two sides of it. so any e-mail that hillary clinton may have sent or received has another side of it and that e-mail is still out there. in fact, wikileaks is releasing emails today that certainly some of the 33,000 are in. this just isn't fair and to say

that south dakota values, i just wonder what south dakota values senator thune thinks that donald trump has. >> let's talk about the issues. i bet some of the values are going to come out. i'm going to start with you. immigration u it is something that's south dakotans they think about. what would you be able to do to help protect, secure our borders, help patrol agents on the borders, but also handle so many of those illegal immigrants that are in our country? >> it's interesting because illegal immigration has gone down under president obama and, in fact as far as illegal immigration coming across border from the south, that's almost nonexistences now. so what we really have is between 10 and 15 million people in this country who are here, they say illegally, they got here somehow or they overstayed a visa or they came across the border and those people are living, you know, underneath the curtain. they don't have the protections

of our country. we need to find a way to address that to make it so those people have a fairway to access our country and really eventually participate. these people came here in here because they see the united states for what it is, the greatest country in the world. they came here and working and paying taxes doing those kinds of things but not enjoying the things that our country has. we need to be vig lapt, of -- vigilant. i think we should bring refugees in from the middle east. that's something the republicans have walked away from. illegal immigration problem isn't the problem that it was. we have to be vigilant but what we really need to do is find ways for people that are here in the country, we need to let them

come out and participate and get the fruits for the work that they are doing. >> senator, really the same question. what more can we do to protect our border and deal with illegal immigrants that are here? >> well, there are two important points stephanie and we are a nation of immigrants. my grandfather came here from norway in 1906, didn't -- the only english they knew was apple pine and coffee. they had to learn the language, in fact, the given name wasn't even thune. galesdik and the immigration officials asked them to change the name and they picked the name of a farm where they lived in norway which was the thune farm. my grandfather. they came here according to rules and we are a nation of laws and we have to enforce the laws. the key to the immigration debate in my view is it starts with enforcement. i don't think you can deal with

the people who are here illegally until you first deal with securing the border, creating a biometric entry-exit system. that's about 40% of the people who are here illegally, have a way of verifying in the workplace whether somebody is a legal person when they come to work in this country. we have to do the enforcement first. that's something for which there's bipartisan agreement. you don't get that part done first and right, you have no trust by the american people to deal with population that is are already here and frankly, i think, that time to fix the immigration system. it is broken but it has to have enforcement first. >> national debt as we were getting questions from viewers that was one of them that was at the top of the list. americans are nervous, they're scared scared with the national debt. that want to know that it can be fixed. senator i'm going to start with you, can we fix this and how can

you be part of that solution? >> well, i've advocated since the time i ran for congress the first time. we've had actually had a couple of votes on it but haven't been able to get it passed. the federal government ought to have to do the same thing. but the debt has doubled since president obama became president and we can't fix the debt unless we address a couple of issues and one is we have to get spending under control and two-thirds of the federal spending now is what we call mandatory spending, it's not money that's appropriated each year by congress, it's on autopilot and so we have to figure out a way to reform the programs, social security, medicare to make them for efficient, more sustainable for future generations, so reforming those programs is really important but the second thing we have to have is economic growth. you have to grow the economy. if you want to see the deficit get a lot smaller by comparison, start growing the economy for 3

to 4%. going they say one percentage point increase in gross domestic product him and the size of our economy generate an additional $300 billion. that's $3 trillion over decade. we should be putting policies in place that will generate the kind of growth and that's when i getting out of washington today. the heavy hand of regulation, the heavy-handed taxes. we have a fundamental disagreement. i'm anxious to hear his answer because he believes in raising every kind of tax. he wants to raise payroll taxes.

he wants a state income tax. he wants to have a gas tax at the number i heard was 1 dollar per gallon. he wants to a carbon tax or write down the list. that's not the way you do with the deficit. that kills economic growth. a we need to get growth in our economy is tax reform that lowers rates and broadens the base and creates incentives for people to invest based on return they will get in the market place. tax reform ought not be about going to government. it ought to be about growing the economy. >> what i just want to take to washington to help with our debt? >> our debt is actually not the problem that you might think it is. the reason it's not is because interest rates are near zero. that debt isn't in the interest and that actually, some are advocating the debt is -- i will advocate that. what causes the debt, the reason for that is the deficit. that is, when spending is over revenues, okay, and since

president obama took control, president obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. republican president before him to implement the same policies that senator thune is espousing took a $1 billion surplus entered into a $1.4 trillion deficit. that became a real problem. over the eight years of president obama he turned a $1.4 trillion deficit into a $400 billion deficit. he reduced it by two-thirds. how did he do that? almost all of it was by spending cuts. the republicans refused to do any kind of revenue enhancement. my position on revenue enhancement is yes, we do need to pay more taxes. who needs to pay those taxes? the people have been benefiting from our economy and that is the people at the very top, the top 1%. those people don't pay their taxes. the presidential candidate, a

multi-billionaire donald trump took a $900 billion loss in his taxes. he doesn't pay taxes. that's the problem with his rich guys don't pay any taxes. we need to reform our tax system all right. we need to reform it so we can get taxes are everyone not just the middle class, not just to hard-working south dakotans. rabbit is a part of it. if raven had it been any part of president obama's programs we would have a balanced budget and we would be getting rid of our debt. i think a balanced budget amendment that senator thune just brought up is actually a bad idea because when things come up, we have been in were before, we that terrorist attacks. we don't know what's going to come up and make us of the federal government could not borrow money when it needed money. that would be a terrible thing. i'm totally against a balanced budget and. it works against south dakota and for the states that the big problem but the federal government is funding a

different. i think that illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding between the state governments and the federal government. >> moderator: senator, do we need to revamp our tax system so there are more equally dispersed? thune: we need tax reform for sure. but we have tax increases. jay may have forgotten that enterprise obama we had one children and $1 trillion tax increase with obamacare. there's been $1.7 trillion increase in taxes under the current administration. we are going, we are on our flight path now to get back up to trillion dollar deficits. we have a $20 trillion of debt already today. what the stuff i've seen and heard j.c. come he doesn't discriminate on who gets the tax increases. he said south dakotans are undertaxed. south dakotans the state tax. we need to repay more sales taxes, repay more property taxes.

i don't know, jay may be the most liberal democrat our government and the state of south dakota because once raise all taxes. my point is let's reform the tax system and get away a lot of exclusions and deductions and special interest loopholes that are in there today, get the rates now, create economic incentives for people to invest but the purpose of tax reform ought to be economic growth. because what solves all these problems, if you want to see deficits get small, you want to pay down debt, give economy growing at a more traditional three-3.5% rate and to set of 1% rate we've seen this year and 2% we've seen for the bounce of the obama administration. that's will help get us back on a more secure fiscal track. reduced and restrained spending and economic growth cannot before and move on to for pulse of what you to respond to the. williams: it's interesting, these policies that senator thune have been espousing up and try. george bush did those and we

almost had worldwide economic collapse. everyone economic growth we can invest in the public works programs we need to make this country better. we could build the electric grid that we desperately need to go from fossil fuels to clean energy. here in south dakota we have lots of wind. everybody knows the wind blows but we can't take that wind energy, harness it and distribute it around the country because we don't have the electric we need. to build the electric grid it's a big huge public works project on par with the interstate highway system that was a republican program. those kinds of programs will provide economic growth. the kind of growth we need to we can put the money in the hands of the working people, and for the people can spend. all the money has gone to the top. a great illustration is senator thune and my campaign contributions. senator thune start out with $11 million in his campaign war chest. i have a little under $60,000.

my campaign donations all come from regular south dakotans. people will give me small donations and quite a few of them but not the kind of huge pools at the top tight money that senator thune has. senator thune is talking about giving the people of the talk -- the top of a money. we can do that. you may think i'm a liberal democrat what i am is a practical person, practical south dakotans who wants to see everybody pay their fair share and everybody worked together to do the kind of things that can make our country grow and prosper. we've had economic growth, economic growth since president obama took over. it has about 3% but it's been steady and it provided come its reduce unemployment down to full implement. it's been great economic growth sure. it should be better but when the republicans are constructive in president obama wants to do, it's hard to get that done cannot before the a lot of viewers at home are listening and they heard the senator say

you want to raise more taxes in south dakota. i want you to respond to the. do we need to raise more taxes? williams: i'm really not focusing on state tax the on focus on federal taxes. this is a federal job i'm running for. i think we take plenty of property tax. should we have a state income tax? we should not have an income tax for our businesses. i think it is as income tax would make some sense. most states do have a state income tax. it's not a big burden on state taxpayers. i'm not opposed to taxes. i believe taxes are your duty as a citizen of this country. we have a wonderful country we live in but we have to pay for. i think south dakotans at we with it. i think south dakotans think it's not fair, not to pay for things. that's what taxes are. thune: i don't think they would agree with her 1 dollar increase in the gas tax nor do i think they would support a carbon tax which would dramatically increase the cost of

electricity. we have a lot of people living on fixed incomes in the state, and what he's advocating is not only a state income tax, and by the way, that is the position you have held. it may not be a federal issue but it is a position you have filled. these taxes are taxes that hit hard-working taxpayers in south dakota. people and fixed incomes. when you start talking about 1 dollar per gallon increase for gasoline in this country or electricity, these are things people need in everyday lives. williams: when we talk about carbon tax for instance, i will be the biggest thing that we face in our country today and really everybody in the world face is what's happening to our environment. our environment is heating at an unprecedented level. we've gone from, we got a one degree increase in temperature in our atmosphere since 1900. the reason is because of fossil fuels. we have to programs to stop that. we need to address it right now. a carbon tax that senator thune

hates action is a republican idea but it's a pretty good idea. it's a way to reduce the amount of carbon that goes into our vibrant. if we don't do that it's just going to cause us more in the future. you talk about south dakotans on fixed incomes, when we start seeing the terrible effects of the climate change which were already seeing, that becomes way, way more expensive. south dakota to pitch in as well. everybody has to pitch in to save our world. we can't just ignore that. and so i think that there are good revenue ways to do that. as well as a 1 dollar a gallon gas tax that's something i haven't actually advocated that exact number but i do think it would be a good idea to put a big tax on gasoline to make people move away from gasoline. i drive an electric car. electric is where we have to go. that technology has to happen and it has to happen soon. people say to me, but we have to wait, we have to go slow.

we can't go slow. we have to go fast. we can do it because technology is our strength in this country. they say the last carbon-based car will be manufactured in 2035. in 2050 the last will be on the road. we can move it up 10 years. we need to get away from using all this carbon that is hurting our vibrant tonight we are moving onto foreign policy. we have a growing threat of isis. americans don't feel safe. jay, i'm going to start with you and we will end with senator thune of this one. what changes need to be made implement more safety and to ensure that we are safe from groups like isis? and six we actually have been safe from groups like isis. there've been some small attacks but since the 9/11 attacks we haven't had another huge attack. president obama is the one who got osama bin laden, the guy who did those attacks against us. we need to do things like that. we need to be smart about the

way we deal with the world. especially with these fundamentalists who really for some reason take the united states. after 9/11 i advocated the united states get muslim clerics from around the country and go to afghanistan and to the middle east in general and inundate them with food and supplies and humanitarian aid to make the world better for them. instead we chose to go to war, which i think was a bad idea. having served in vietnam myself i know war is a really terrible way to do things. the way to get people to go on your site is to work with them and to be friendly and to show them that you are on their side. make allies of the. lots of muslims in this country and we can work with them and work with the people who latest in the middle east and find ways to work within. i understand that they're cutting off peoples heads and doing really atrocious things. we need to deal with that as

well but the way to deal with that is to find allies throughout the world, allies in the middle east that will work with us to eliminate the people are just completely unreasonable. we're doing that with drone strikes a special forces, that kind of thing, but the main thing is to change the attitude of those people, change it so they don't hate us. people who hate us are going to come after us. hate is a terrible thing. we need to battle hate. we need to work for love. i think we can do that. i don't think it's naïve. i think it's what we need to do. we need to address these, you know, people who are really hating us and try to convince them not to hate us. we can use our own people in this country to do that. >> moderator: is our current foreign policy making? what changed we need to make? thune: there've been some mistakes made, it's hard to know where to start. the president did not enforce

any red light in series. sign a bad iranian nuclear deal, you know, when it comes to pulling all the troops of iraqi been against the commanders recommendations. those have created the conditions that been favorable to the price of isis. and it is a threat. and it isn't, it is not our strength that cancer adversaries. it's our weakness. i appreciate jay's military service to anybody who is worn the uniform and served our country deserves our greatest respect. but he just fundamental is wrong. terrorists come and giving them food and comfort and aid is not going to be a way to stop terrorist organizations. they understand one thing, they understand the strength. we have a projected strength. one thing i think what to do is we've got to take the battle to isis, where they are in the middle east and will be a big effort to try to take back mosul and we will be supplying intelligence and training, the iraqis and the coalition forces have had the lead but we got to

fight it there and then we got to fight if you. that means we have to that people who come into this country. if they come from a region where terrorist organizations operating and they represent in the judgment of our national study officials, a security threat to americans and homeland we've got to have a more thorough vetting of people are coming here. finally, we've got to make sure that our intelligence officials have the tools they need to find lone wolf terrorists in sleeper cells and those sorts of things that might exist here in this country. we've got to protect american citizens when they fly. i mentioned the aviation security bill we passed earlier this year in congress, and the president signed into law. it has provisions that will make it harder or terrorist to attack people who were using those types of transportation opportunities and alternatives in this country. it's a multipronged effort but we've got to take the fight to them. we've got to defend the homeland

and make sure we are thoroughly vetting people who come into this country, and we got to do everything we can to ensure our intelligence community has the tools it needs and that we are taking the necessary steps when it comes to protecting the targets of these types of terrorist attacks and what of those airports and airplanes and aviation. williams: we are vetting people. we have a great vetting system. terrorist attacks we've seen in the united states that in most baseball been from homegrown terrorist. that comes back to my point. rep to work with people in our own country so that terrible state that exists, and that he is not just muslims hating us. it's also right wing fascist hating us. there's some eight and we need to deal with that and her own people right here, all the vetting in the world was not that. i want to just over a couple of things citizens of that are really wrong. for instance, by radio. i mean, we never any deal, then the kind of was negotiating senator thune signed a letter

with his republican cohorts encouraging the leadership of iran not to be kosher with the united states. if i'd done that as a naval officer i would've been court-martialed. united states senator poe not be court-martialed but it was the wrong thing to do. meanwhile, everybody was saying but we're talking with iran at the time that in a year iran will have a nuclear weapon. they all really, really quick to send in forces and kill people. instead we negotiated a deal where i do is click of a nuclear weapon. tinged out of the deal is done as we've been trading with them and working with them, iran will be our friend. we are not going to have to go to war with iran. i don't want to go to war with iran. mosul, tacking mosul, that is coalition forces. that's not used troops. we have to support coalition. that's what i suggest we do and that's what president obama's doing is working with our allies to get him to take the lead on things. we don't need to send our troops. we need to work to resolve these

issues with other people, work together. we are never so strong as when we help people. that is what projects strength. battleships our aircraft carriers and bombs really don't projects strength. what projects strength is helping people. a great example is when there's something their weapons in the world like just happened in haiti with his big hurricane, what goes there? aircraft carriers go there and get some food and supplies and help. that's what shows we are stronger that's the way we projects strength. thune: definitely help iran acquire nuclear capability because that's what this deal does. this deal puts them on a path toward nuclear capability, gave him $150 billion in sanctions were lifted the of the world's leading sponsor of terror. they fund hezbollah. they find hamas. they fund the houthis in yemen. they fund that militias in iraq.

they fund every type of terrorist organization out there. what we have done is giving them the capacity to even create more care in the region. and we did that and now we are paying ransoms to get people back. that's not projecting strength. this was a bad deal. the reason that the letter went from members of is because the president would not listen to members of congress. the president went to the united nations to give their approval. he bypassed the entire united states congress and basically what we're saying is if you do a deal, this deal is good for the duration of this administration. but if you don't have the involvement of the legislative branch, the article one branch of the constitution and, therefore, make it a treaty which is ratified by the senate and, therefore, durable come it's only as good as long as the president is in office. that wes selby the point we're making. i think it's important in the that the president decided to bypass congress, go to the united nations for their

approval to sign a really bad deal that puts iran on the path to a nuclear capability and freed up $150 billion sensibly that they can use to fund terrorist activities. williams: that so disingenuous to say the. everyone said that iran will have a nuclear armed india. everyone said that. and senator thune, he went to the latest government and said don't negotiate with this. that verges on treason to i won't call senator thune countries and that is a terrible thing to do, and embarrassing thing for our state and our country. you should never have done. what we have instead is when iran took a bit of author centrifuges and to get rid of their nuclear stuff. in 10 years, and 10 years they will not have any interest in a nuclear weapon. so to say this is just not accurate traffic they don't have to distort a single centrifuge. they are on the pathway. all this does is delay. our policy in the past has been to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear capability.

this puts him on the pathway to getting it. >> moderator: will talk about social security. we've got about 165,000 south dakotans receive social security. they rely on his bed for half of their income. 20% relied on it for the whole income. they are concerned is going to be cuts. looking at nearly 25% cuts which means losing roughly 10,000 a year. if elected will you take actions to updates also security so it is financially sound and provides adequate income for current and future generations? jay, go to start with you. williams: the answer is yes, because also security is a great social program. the worst thing we could do is privatize it and take it away from like my children who will have it in another 30-40 years. so yes, i will take action. one of the first things we could do is eliminate the cap on the payroll tax.

right now your social security tax in that about one in $20,000. in spite of the fact people's incomes are much, much higher. there's no reason to have a cap on social security tax. social security tax should be, we would fund the social security if we just do that. the other thing we can do is the federal government can find other ways to pay back the socialist party trust fund that they borrowed from. social security can indeed be so but it's a matter of allowing for to take that cap off the artificial capped off the payroll tax and allow it to be funded. i think it's a great program. i am fully committed if elected to ensure that social security states and is a bear for my children and grandchildren can we've had several people from aarp census questions related to this. they also want to know what you be willing to make it a top priority if you make it to washington? social security and your idea. williams: i would.

>> moderator: there we go. senator thune, same question in terms of the concerned that people have with the future of social security. for people today that a receiving it in future generations. thune: i don't think the first impulse ought to be a tax increase which seems to be jay's answer to everything. but let me say this. social security is important to the are a lot of people as you pointed out to live on fixed incomes. i that happened to be one of the. these 97, lives in my hometown in of the house i grew up in and his existence is survive was also good, medicare programs like that. so it's important to people in south dakota. it's important that we preserve it for people who are dependent on it today that are retired or nearing retirement age. it's also portly figure out how we make a sustainable for future generations. jay talked about his kids. i'm now a grandfather, and so i'm very interested in seeing that these programs are available for future generations of americans.

in order to do that we've got to figure out ways to make them work more efficiently. one suggestion on offer, and again i think this would not apply to any but it was retired today or nearing retirement age, but for my granddaughter or my kids, maybe we start look at facing in retirement age increase over a period of time. so people working longer, living or productive lives that we want to encourage them to work longer. that might be one way. it is wonderful sure if you look at the actuarial table that you can achieve a good amount of additional sustainability for social security. i would say the same thing with regard to look at income testing. those are i think reforms that have been talked about a lot by people i'm very committed if we get through this election and we get to congress and the president that we take on these issues. otherwise it goes over a cliff. when h it goes over the cliff yu have to have a massive tax

increase or a huge reduction in benefits. and so the sooner we take action on these issues, the sooner we will get a solution in place that makes these programs sustainable for future generations turn i'm moving on because there's a couple topics i want to get you and we're running out of time. senator, agriculture. it made the top list for questions folks want us to ask tonight. part of the concern is they are not hearing the discussion of the importance of agriculture at the national level. i know both of you know how important this is for south dakota. farmers are hurting, prices are dropping. when it boiled down to the question we receive, they want to know will you keep agriculture at the forefront if you make it to washington? thune: absolutely. i've been a main member of the ag committee canals and now the senate. identify with reform bills. and author portion of those farm bills. i worked with senator max baucus

a democrat from montana in 2008 on that farm bill to get prominent livestock disaster program included. that was so important because a couple years ago we had a bad drought. went two years in a row of drought and that particular provision deliver $265 million of assistance to about 20,000 range families in western south dakota over the course of the the course of the two the course of that to your purity. that's this programs are important. as we think about the next farm bill and as for the expires in the fall of 2018, i think there are a number thinks we need to do. one isn't sure that crop insurance is strong. crop insurance is used by 90% of producers in south dakota, has become the signature safety net of the modern farm program. secondly, have a commodity title that has program, provisions in it that allawi have economic collapse liquidity with the now that will kick in and provide some stability and an additional safety net for our farmers.

make sure we get the permit this after title. that's the main thing that helps ranchers in western south dakota. i think the conservation that is something we need to continue to come up with new ideas, working lands programs that will encourage, provide incentives for farmers to put land and use conservation practices that also have the benefit of increasing wildlife production. i think we have have an incentive for beginning farmers. it's hard for farmers to get started with land prices being what they are today. we are in a downturn. we will get this thing turned around. it may not be tomorrow but most people think 2018 we'll see better times. we've got to expand markets and that's why they can sure that we are in the middle in negotiating the trade deals and making sure they get enforced is important as well tonight jay, same question. what are you going to do to help our farmers? williams: this is a place where we actually have quite a bit of agreement.

i agree the farm bill is vitally important for our family farmers. without the farm bill family farms will disappear. that would be a terrible thing because family farms are the most productive type things ever. i grew up on a family farm and i saw the kind of production they can do. but they need help. two years of crop failure can put you out of business. that's what the farm bill is therefore, this crop interest is a great idea. disaster relief for livestock producers who lose lots of livestock in the blizzard like we had in 2013, when the government was shut down. ..

during their time in office had six farm bills. they voted against four of them. >> moderator: cybersecurity. jay, i'm going to start with you. another big issue, and i'm talking here at the consumer level. people are worried about these hackers, these thieves breaking into our accounts. they want to know what can be done to help stop these folks, how big of an issue is this and what is your plan to help protect americans from being hacked. williams: you know, it is a big issue. and, in fact, we're seeing it right now with these, the wikileaks that are coming out. they've hacked into e-mails to get those. and, of course, you know, i'm a techie sort of guy. i have a master's degree in computer science, and i've worked in the high-tech industry for most of my career. and so i'm pretty aware of the security issues we have. and we need to do things to take care of that. but how do we approach that? well, the way we can approach

that is by having, you know, programs in place that make it so that our internet, for instance, our internet things have adequate firewalls, the kind of things that can prevent people from getting in there. and plus educating people about the internet and about how open it is so that when you send an e-mail out and you think that's private, just between you and the person you sent it to, you need to know that's not true. now, when you go to your bank and you put in your atm card and get your money back, those banks need to make sure that their portals to the outside internet are secure. and we can make that happen. that's a matter of technology. one thing the united states is really good at is technology. so there's things we can do. i'm very committed to seeing that happens. >> moderator: same question, senator. cybersecurity, how can we help? thune: i think that it's a real issue particularly for our seniors. our seniors get preyed on. i actually did a session with aarp and 6,000 seniors in south dakota to talk about this and to

give them suggestions about if they think that they're being preyed upon, that we can actually help them prevent that from happening. and it came right after the passage of a bill that we moved out of the senate commerce committee that give the ftc more of a focus, more authority to go after those who are perpetrating fraud on seniors in this country. and i think those are the types of things that we can do. we need to focus on this issue particularly when it comes to our elderly population here in south dakota who are constantly being preyed upon by these groups that are trying to hack in and harm them. and the other thing i would say is about three years ago i was the ranking republican at the time on the senate commerce committee. jay rockefeller was the democrat chairman. we worked together on a bill that creates a best practices, a lot of standards that government and business and others in that field can use.

and we've got to keep coming up with solutions like that so that when somebody gets hacked, if somebody's got a solution that information is shared and everybody knows what those best practices are out there. and, but it's an ongoing threat in the world of technology, it's a threat that we're going to continue to have to deal with. but i'm marley concerned about how -- particularly concerned about how it impacts seniors here in south dakota and make sure we're taking steps to prevent that. >> moderator: we've had the opportunity to talk to both of you about a lot of issues. now we're going to give you each the opportunity for a closing statement. you'll have one minute to share your thoughts, whatever you want, with the voters of south dakota. senator thune, we'll start with you. thune: thank you, stephanie, and thanks again to my opponent, for this opportunity. i've always believed elections are about policy differences. i believe that south dakota needs a strong voice in the united states senate. i believe they want somebody that will represent their interests, and i believe most

south dakotans want a limited but effective government that is efficient and accountable with their tax dollars. i believe they believe in economic freedom, in personal freedom coupled with individual responsibility. i believe most people think peace comes through strength. those are the types of values that i'll bring to representing them in the united states senate. south dakotans are hard working people. there are a lot of hard working taxpayers out there. i will continue to be an advocate for them, take on the big challenges that face this country in the future, and that's why i'm asking for their vote on november the 8th. >> moderator: all right. thank you, senator thune. jay williams, you too have about one minute, and you can visit with the viewers right now. williams: thank you, stephanie, and i want to thank aarp and you, senator thune. i appreciate you coming here and giving a chance to talk these issues over. you know, south dakotans have a chance to do something almost unprecedented in the history of senatorial elections. you can elect a person who is

not a politician. you know, i'm not a politician. i'm a south dakota boy, born and raised on a farm here in south dakota. i'm a navy veteran with service in vietnam. as a navy pilot, i served in europe as a rescue pilot and the u.s. as a rescue pilot. i have a master's degree in computer science, i've worked in the high-tech industry. i went back to south dakota and started my high-tech business and grew it and raised my family and made a home for myself there, and i bring you the opportunity to vote for somebody who is just like you, a regular south dakotan, not a politician, not beholden to a party and not beholden to special interests and big money groups. so i ask for your vote on november 8th, and i hope you'll consider me. thanks again, stephanie. >> moderator: all right, thank you. that is all the time we have. i'd like to thank our guests for being with us. thank you to the republican candidate, senator john thune, and our democratic candidate, jay williams. if you did miss part of tonight's discussion, no worries, visit us tomorrow afternoon on sdpb radio where you can hear the complete program in its entirety.

be sure to join us on thursday, next thursday as the candidates running for the office of united states house of representatives join me. it'll be another live forum, that's thursday, october 20th, with the discussion beginning at 8 p.m. central, 7 mountain. and there's still time if you want to send in your own questions for the house candidates. you can e-mail those to me, you can also post them on our social media pages. for more information on all of our election coverage, visit our web site at sdpb.org/election. on behalf of aarp south dakota and south dakota public broadcasting, i'm stephanie rissler, we thank you for watching. good night. ♪ ♪

>> c-span brings you more debates this week from key u.s. senate races. today at 7 p.m. eastern, live coverage on c-span2, a debate from indiana to succeed republican dan coats who's not seeking re-election. republican representative todd young faces former democratic senator evan bayh followed at 8 by another debate live on c-span2 to succeed a retiring member of the senate, louisiana republican david vitter. several candidates will take the stage. republican state treasurer john kennedy, republican congressman charles boustany, john fleming, democrat caroline thayer and democrat foster campbell. and at midnight on c-span be, republican senator ron johnson and former democratic senator

russ feingold debate for the wisconsin senate seat. and live on c-span thursday evening at 7, candidates in ohio meet for another debate. republican senator rob portman and democrat ted strickland. now until election day follow key debates from house, senate and governors' races on the c-span networks, c-span.org and on the c-span radio app. c-span where history unfolds daily. >> watch c-span's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday night. our live debate preview from the university of nevada-las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. the briefing for the debate studio audience is at 8:30 p.m. eastern and the 90 minute debate is at 9 p.m. eastern. stay with us following the debate for viewer reaction including your calls, tweets and facebook postings. and watch the debate live or on demand using your desktop, phone or tab met at c-span.org. -- tab

let's at c-span.org. listen to the free c-span radio app, download it from the app store or google play. >> before that last debate, here's a look back at the second presidential 1984 debate between president ronald reagan and walter mondale in kansas city, missouri. [applause] >> good evening. [applause] good evening from the municipal auditorium in kansas city. i am dorr triridings, the president of the league of women voters, the sponsor of this final presidential debate of the 1984 campaign between republican ronald reagan and democrat walter mondale.

our panelists for tonight's debate on defense and foreign policy issues are: george george i-anne geyer, marvin kalb with nbc news, morton kondracke, executive editor of the new republic magazine and henry trewhitt with the baltimore sun. edwin newman, formerly of nbc news is our moderator. ed? >> moderator: dorothy ridings, thank you. a brief word about our procedure tonight. the first question will go to mr. mondale. he'll have two and a half minutes to reply, then the panel member who put the question will ask a follow-up. the answer to that will be limited to one minute. after that the same question will be put to president reagan. again, there will be a follow-up, and then each man will have one minute for rebuttal.

the second question go to president reagan first. after that the alternating will continue. at the end, there will be four-minute summations with president reagan going last. we have asked the questioners to be brief. let's begin. ms. geyer, your question to mr. mondale. >> mr. mondale, two related questions on the crucial issue of central america. you and the democratic party have said that the only policy toward the horrendous civil wars in central america should be on the economic development and negotiations with perhaps a quarantine of maxist nicaragua -- marxist nicaragua. do you believe these in any way would solve the bitter conflicts there? do you really believe there's no need to ore sort to force at all, are not the solutions simply, again, too weak and too late? mondale: i believe that the question oversimplifies the

difficulties of what we must do in central america. our objectives ought to be to strengthen the democracies, to stop communists and other extremist influences and stabilize the community. and that area. to do that, we need a three-pronged take. one military assistance to our friends who are being pressured. secondly, a strong and sophisticated economic aid program and human rights program that offers a better life and a sharper alternative to the they were offered by the totalitarians who oppose us. and finally, a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area. that's one of big disagreements that we have with the president, that they have not pursued the diplomatic opportunities either within el salvador or as between

the countries and have lost time during which we might have been able to achieve peace. this brings up a whole question of what presidential leadership is all about. i think the lesson in central america, this recent embarrassment in nick rag a what where -- nicaragua where we are giving instructions for hired assassins, hiring criminals and the rest, all of this has strengthened our opponents. a president must not only assure that we're tough, but we must also be wise and smart in the exercise of that power. we saw the same thing in lebanon where we spent a good deal of america'ss assets, but because the leadership of this government did not pursue wise policies, we have been humiliated, and our opponents are stronger. the bottom line of national strength is that the president must be many command. -- in command. he must lead.

and when a president doesn't know that submarine missiles are recall bl, says that 70% of our strategic forces are conventional, discovers three years into his administration that our arms control efforts have failed because he didn't know that most soviet missiles were on land, these are things a president must nope to command. -- must know to command. a president is called the commander in chief, and he's called that because he's supposed to be in charge of the facts and run our government and strengthen our nation. >> mr. mondale, if i could broaden the question just a little bit. since world war ii every conflict that we as americans have been involved with has been in nonconventional or irregular terms, and yet we keep fighting in conventional or traditional term, military terms. the central american wars are very much in the same pattern as china, as lebanon, as iran, as cuba in the early days.

do you see any possibility that we are going to realize the change in warfare in our time or react to it in those terms? mondale: we absolutely must, which is why i responded to your first question the way i did. it's much more complex. you must understand the region, you must understand the politics in the area, you must provide a strong alternative, and you must show strength and all at the same time. that's why i object to the covert action in nicaragua. that's a classic example of a strategy that's embarrassed us, strengthened our opposition and undermined the moral authority of our people, our country in the region. strength requires knowledge, command. we've seen in the nicaraguan example a policy that has actually hurt us, strengthened our opposition and undermined the moral authority of our country in that region. >> mr. president, in the last few months it has seemed more

and more that your policies in central america were beginning to work. yet just at this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a cia guerrilla manual for the anti-sandinista contras whom we are backing which advocates not only assassinations of sandinistas, but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs. is this not, in effect, our own state-supported terrorism? reagan: no, and i'm glad you asked that question, because i know it's on many people's minds. i have ordered an investigation. i know that the cia is already going forward with one. we have a gentleman down in nicaragua who is on contract to the cia advising supposedly on military tactics the contras. and he drew up this manual. it was turned over to the agency head in the cia in nicaragua to

be printed, and a number of pages were excised by that agency head there, the man in charge. and he sent it on up here to cia where more pages were excised before it was printed. but some way or other there were 12 of the original copies that got out down there and were not submitted for this printing process by the cia. now, those are the details as we have them, and as soon as we have an investigation and find out where any blame lies for the few that did not get excised or changed, we are going to do something about that. we'll take the proper action at the proper time. i was very interested to hear about central america and our process down there, and i thought for a moment that instead of a debate, i was going to find mr. mondale in complete agreement with what we're doing, because the plan that he has outlined is the one that we've been following for quite some time including diplomatic

processes throughout central america. and working closely with the contador group. so i can only tell you about the manual, that we're not in the habit of assigning guilt before there has been proper evidence produced and proof of that guilt. but if guilt is established, whoever is guilty, we will treat with that situation then, and they will be removed. >> well, mr. president, you're implying then that the cia in nicaragua is directing the contras there. i'd also like to ask whether having the cia investigate its own manual in such a sensitive area is not sort of like sending the fox into the chicken coop a second time. reagan: i'm afraid i misspoke when i said a cia head in nicaragua. there's not someone there directing all activity. there are, as you know, cia men

stationed in other countries in the world and, certainly, in central america. and so it was a man down there in that area that this was delivered to. and he recognized that what was in that manual was in direct contravention of my own executive order in december of 1981 that we would have nothing to do with regard to political assassinations. >> moderator: mr. mondale, your rebuttal? mondale: what is a president charged with doing when he takes his oath of office? he raises his right hand and takes an oath of office to take care, to faithfully execute the laws of the land. the president can't know everything, but a president has to know those things that are essential to his leadership and the enforcement of our laws. this manual, several thousands of which were produced, was distributed ordering political assassinations, hiring of criminals and other forms of terrorism.

some of it was excised, but the part dealing with political terrorism was continued. how can this happen? how can something this serious occur in an administration and have a president of the united states in a situation like this say he didn't know? a president must know these things. i don't know which is worse, not knowing or knowing and not stopping it. and what about the mining of the harbors in nicaragua which violated international law? this has hurt this country, and a president's supposed to command. >> moderator: mr. president, your rebuttal. reagan: yes. i have so many things there to respond to, i'm going to pick out something you said earlier. you have been a all over the country repeating something that i will admit the press has also been repeating, that i believe that nuclear missiles could be fired and then calls back. called back. i never, ever conceived of such a thing, i never said any such thing. in a discussion of our strategic

arms negotiations, i said that submarines carrying missileses and airplanes carrying missiles were more conventional-type weapons, not as destabilizing as the land-based missiles and that there were also weapons or carriers that if they were sent out and there was a change, you could call them back before they had launched their missiles. but i hope that from here on you will no longer be saying that particular thing which is absolutely false. how anyone could think that any sane person would believe you could call back a nuclear missile, i think, is as ridiculous as the whole concept has been. so thank you for giving me a chance to straighten the record. i'm sure that you'll appreciate that. >> moderator: mr. kalb -- [laughter] mr. kalb, your question to president reagan. >> mr. president, you have often described the soviet union as a powerful, evil empire intent on world domination, but this year you have said, and i quote: if they want to keep their mickey mouse system, that's okay with

me. which is it, mr. president? do you want to contain them within their present borders and perhaps try to reestablish detaint or what goes for detente, or do you really want to roll back their empire? reagan: i have said on a number of occasions exactly what i believe about the soviet union. i are -- i retract nothing that i have said. i believe many of the things they have done are evil in any concept of morality we have. but i also recognize that as the two great superpowers in the world, we have to live with each other. we don't like their system, they don't like ours. we're not going to change their system, and they sure better not try to change ours. but between us we can either destroy the world, or we can save it. and i suggested that, certainly, it was to their common interest along with ours to avoid a conflict and to attempt to save the world and remove the nuclear

weapons. and i think that perhaps we established a little better understanding. i think that in dealing with the soviet union one has to be realistic. i though that mr. mondale in the past has made statements as if they were just people like ourselves, and if we were kind and good and did something nice, they would respond accordingly. and the result was unilateral disarmament. we canceled the b-1 under the previous administration. what did we get for it? nothing. the soviet union has been engaged in the biggest military buildup in the history of man. at the same time that we tried the policy of unilateral disarmament, of weakness, if you will. and now we are putting up a defense of our own, and i've made it very plain to them we seek no superiority, we simply are going to provide a deterrent so that it will be too costly for them -- if they are nursing any ideas of aggression against us. now, they claim they're not, and

i made it plain to them we're not. but this, there's been no change in my attitude at all. i just thought when i came into office it was time that there was some roadway listic -- realistic talk to and about the soviet union. and we did get their attention. >> mr. president, perhaps the other side of the coin a related question, sir. since world war ii the vital interests of the united states have always been defined by tree i commits and by -- treaty commitments and presidential proclamations. aside from what is obvious, which is nato, for example. which countries, which regions in the world do you regard as vital national interests of this country, meaning that you would send american troops to fight there if they were in danger? reagan: now, you've had a hypothetical there at the end, mr. kalb, about where we would send troops in to fight. i am not going to make the decision as to what the tactics could be, but obviously there

are a number of areas in the world that are of importance to us. one is the middle east, and that is of interest to the whole western world and the industrialized nations because of the great supply of energy upon which so many depend there. the, our neighbors here in america are vital to us. we're working right now and trying to be of help in southern africa with regard to the independence of namibia and the removal of the cuban surrogates, the thousands of them from angola. so i can say there are a great many interests. i believe that we have a great interest in the pacific basin. that is where i think the future of the world lies. but i am not going to pick out one and in advance hypothetically say, oh, yes, we would send troops there -- >> moderator: i'm sorry, mr. president. your time was up. >> mr. mondale, you have described the soviet leaders as,

and i'm quoting, cynical, ruthless and dangerous, suggesting an almost total lack of trust in them. in that case, what makes you think the annual summit meetings with them you've proposed will result in agreements that would satisfy the interests of this country? mondale: because the only types of agreements to reach with the soviet union are the types that are specifically defined so we know exactly what they must do subject to full verification which means we know every day whether they're living up to it and follow-ups wherever we find suggestions that they're violating it and the strongest possible terms. i have no illusions about the soviet union leadership or the nature of that state. they are a tough and a ruthless adversary, and we must be prepared to meet that challenge, and i would. where i part with the president is that despite all those differences, we must as past presidents before this one have done meet on the common ground of survival.

and that's where the president has opposed practically every arms control agreement by every president of both political parties since the bomb went off. and he now completes this term with no progress toward arms control at all, but with a very dangerous arms race underway instead. there are now over 2,000 more warheads pointed at us today than there were when he was sworn in, and that does not strengthen us. we must be very, very realistic in the nature of that leadership, but we must grind away and talk to find ways to reducing these differences particularly where arms races are concerned and other dangerous exercises of soviet power. there will be no unilateral disarmament under my administration. i will keep this nation strong. i understand exactly what the soviets are up to. but that, too, is a part of

national strength. to do that, a president must know what is essential to command and to leadership and to strength. and that's where the president's failure to master, in my opinion, the essential elements of arms control has cost us dearly. these four years -- three years into this administration he said he just discovered that most soviet missiles are on land, and that's why his proposal didn't work. i invite the american people tomorrow -- because i will issue the statement quoting president reagan. he said exactly what i said he said. he said that these missiles were less dangerous than ballistic missiles because you could fire them, and you could recall them if you decided there'd been a miscalculation -- >> moderator: i'm sorry -- >> related question, mr. mondale, on eastern europe. do you accept the conventional diplomatic wisdom that eastern europe is a soviet sphere of influence, and if you do, what

could a mondale administration realistically do to help the people of eastern europe achieve the human rights that were guaranteed to them as a result of the helsinki accords? mondale: i think the essential strategy of the united states ought not accept any soviet control over eastern europe. we ought to deal with each of these countries separately. we ought to pursue strategies with each of them, economic and the rest, that help them pull away there their dependence upon the soviet union. where soviet union has acted irresponsibly -- as they have in many of those countries, especially recently in poland -- i believe we ought to insist that the soviets pay for their irresponsibility. that is a very important objective, to make certain that we continue to look forward to progress toward greater independence by these nations and work with each of them separately.

>> moderator: mr. president, your rebuttal. reagan: yes, i'm not going to continue to respond to to the repetitions of the falsehoods already stated here, but with regard to whether mr. mondale would be strong as he said he would be, i know he has a commercial where he's appearing on the deck of the nimitz and watching the f-14s take off, and that's an image of strength. except that if he'd has his way when the nimitz was planned, he would have been deep in the water, because he was against it. [laughter] he was against the f-14 fighter, the b-1 bomber, he wanted to cut the salary are of all of the military, he wanted to bring home half of the american forces in europe, and he has a record of weakness with regard to our national defense that is second to none. indeed, he was on that side virtually throughout all his years in the senate and and he opposed even president carter

when towards the end of his term president carter wanted to increase the military budget. >> moderator: mr. mondale, your rebuttal. mondale: i want you to accept my commitment to a strong national defense -- [applause] i have proposed a budget which would increase our nation's strength by, in real terms by double that of the soviet union. i'll tell you where we disagree. it is true over ten years ago i voted to delay production of the f-14, and i'll tell you why. the plane wasn't flying the way it was supposed to be. it was a waste of money. your definition of national strength is to throw money at the defense department. my definition of national strength is to make certain that a dollar spent buys us a dollar's worth of defense. there's a big difference between the two of us. a president must manage that budget. i will keep us strong, but you'll not do that unless you command that budget and make certain we get the strength that we need.

when you pay $500 for a $5 hammer, you're not buying strength. >> moderator: i would ask the audience not to applaud. all it does is take up time that we would like to devote to the debate. mr. kondracke, your question to mr. mondale. >> you said before this country resorts to military force, american interests should be militarily feasible, internationally defensible, open to independent scrutiny and alert to regional history. now, aren't you setting up such a gauntlet of tests that adversaries could easily expect as president you would never use force to protect american interests? mondale: no. as a matter of fact, i believe every one of those standards is essential to the exercise of power by this country. and we can see that in both lebanon and in central america. in lebanon this president exercised american power all right, but the management of it

was such that our marines were killed, we had to leave in humiliation, the soviet union became stronger, terrorists became emboldened, and it was because they did not think through how power should be exercised, did not have the american public with them on a plan that worked, and we ended up the way we did. similarly in central america, what we're doing in nicaragua with this covert war which the congress, including many republicans, have tried to stop is finally end up with a public definition of american power that hurts us. where we get associated with political assassins and the rest. we have to decline for the first time in modern history jurisdiction of the world court because they'll find us guilty of illegal actions, and our enemies are strengthened from all of this. we need to be strong, we need to be prepared to use that strength, but we must understand that we are a democracy.

we are a government by the people, and when we move, it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve our national interest and end up with a stronger country behind us. it is only in that way that we can persevere. >> you've been quoted as saying that you might quarantine nicaragua. i'd like to know what that means. would you stop soviet ships, as president kennedy did in 1962, and wouldn't that be more dangerous than president reagan's covert war? mondale: what i'm referring to there is the mutual self-defense provisions that exist in the inter-american treaty, so-called rio pact, that permits the nations, our friends in that region, to combine to take steps -- diplomatic and otherwise -- to prevent nicaragua, when she acts irresponsibly in asserting power in other parts outside of her border, to take those steps whatever they might be to stop

it. the nicaraguans must know that it is the policy of our government that those people -- that that leadership must stay behind the boundaries of their nation, not interfere in other nations. and by working with all of the nations in the region, unlike the policies of this administration and unlike the president said they have not supported negotiations in that region, we will be much stronger because we'll have the moral authority that goes with those efforts. >> president reagan, you introduced u.s. forces into lebanon as neutral peacekeepers, but then you made them combatants on the side of the lebanese government. eventually, you were forced to withdraw them under fire, and now syria is dominant in the country. doesn't lebanon represent a major failure on the part of your administration and raise serious questions about your capacity as a foreign policy strategist and as commander in chief? reagan: no, morton, i don't agree to all of those things. first of all, when we and our

allies, the italians, the french and the united kingdom, went into lebanon, we went in there at the request of what was left of the lebanese government to be a stabilizing force while they tried to establish a government. but, first, pardon me, the first time we went in, we went in at their request because the war was going on right in beirut between israel and the plo terrorists. israel could not be blamed for that. those terrorists had been violating their northern border consistently, and israel chased them all the a way to there. then we went in with the a multi-national force to help remove and did remove more than 13,000 of those terrorists from lebanon. we departed. and then the government of lebanon asked us back in as a stabilizing force while they established a government and sought to get the foreign forces all the way out of lebanon and that they could then take care of their own borders. and we were succeeding. we were there for the better

part of a year. our position happened to be at the airport. there were occasional snipings and sometimes some artillery fire. but we kid not engage in -- did not engage in conflict that was out of line with our mission. i will never send troops anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody shoots at them, they can darn well shoot back. and this is what we did. we never initiated any kind of action. we defended ourselves there. but we were succeeding to the point that the lebanese government had been organized. if you will remember, there were the meetings in geneva in which they began to meet with the hostile factional forces and tried to put together some kind of a peace plan. we were succeeding, and that was why the terrorist acts began. there are forces there, and that includes syria in my mind, who don't want us to succeed, who don't want that kind of peace with a dominant lebanon dominant over its own territory. and and so the terrorist acts

began and led to the one great tragedy when they were killed in that suicide bombing of the building. then the multilateral force withdrew for only one reason. we withdrew because we were no longer able to carry out the mission for which we had been sent in. but we went in in the interest of peace and to keep israel and syria from getting into the sixth war between them. and i have no apologies for our going on a peace mission. >> mr. president, four years ago you criticized president carter for ignoring ample warnings that our diplomats in iran might be taken hostage. haven't you done exactly the same thing in lebanon not once, but three times with 300 americans not hostage, but dead? and you vowed swift retaliation against terrorists, but doesn't our lack of response suggest that you're just bluffing? reagan: morton, no. i think there's a great difference between the government of iran threatening our diplomatic personnel and

there is a government that you can see and put your hand on. in the terrorist situation, there are terrorist factions all over -- in a recent 30-day period, 37 terrorist acts in 20 countries have been committed. the most recent has been the one in brighton. in dealing with terrorists, yes, we want to retaliate, but only if we can put our finger on the people responsible and not endanger the lives of innocent civilians there in the various communities and in the city of beirut where these terrorists are operating. i have just signed legislation to add to our ability to deal, along with our allies, with this terrorist problem. and it's going to take all the nations together just as when we banded together, we pretty much resolved the whole problem of skyjackings some time ago. well, the red light went on. i could have gone on forever. [laughter] >> moderator: mr. mondale, your rebuttal.

mondale: growch cho marx said who do you believe, me or your own eyes? what we have in lebanon is something that the american people have seen. the joint chiefs urged the president not to put our troops in that barracks because they were indefensible. they went to them five days before they were killed and said, please, take them out of there. the secretary of state admitted that this morning, he did not do so. the report following the explosion of the barracks disclosed that we had not taken any of the steps that we should have taken. that was the second time. then the embassy was blown up a few weeks ago, and once again none of the steps that should have been taken were taken. and we were warned five days before that explosives were on their way, and they weren't taken. the terrorists have won each time. the president told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. he didn't. they called their bluff. and the bottom line is the

united states left in humiliation, and our enemies are stronger. >> moderator: mr. president, your rebuttal. reagan: yes. first of all, mr. mondale should know that the president of the united states did not order the marines into that barracks. that was a command decision made by the commanders on the spot and based with what they thought was best for the men there. that is one. on the other things that you've just said about the terrorists, i'm tempted to ask you what you would do. these are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off they're blown to bits because they are suicidal individuals who think that they're going to go to paradise if they perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it. we are going to, as i say, we're busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from, and retaliation will be taken.

but we are not going to simply kill some people to say, oh, look, we got even. we want to know when we retaliate, that we're retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts. terrorist acts are such that our own united states cap capitol in washington has been bombed twice. >> moderator: mr. trewhitt, your question to president reagan. >> mr. president, you already are the oldest president in history, and some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with mr. mondale. i recall yet that president kennedy, who had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the cuban missile crisis. is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances? reagan: not at all, mr. trewhitt. i want you to know i will not make age an issue of this campaign. i am not going to exploit for

political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience. [laughter] [cheers and applause] if i still have time, i might add, mr. trewhitt, i might add that it was seneca or cicero, i don't know which, that said if it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no mistake. >> you and mr. mondale have already disagreed about submarine-launched missiles. there's a similar issue that relates to -- it is said at least that you were unaware that the soviet retaliatory power was based on land-based missiles. first, is that correct. secondly, if it is correct, have you informed yourself in the meantime. and, third, is it even necessary

for the president to be so intimately involved in strategic details? reagan: yes. this had to do with our disarmament talks and the whole controversy about land missiles came up because we thought that the strategic nuclear weapons, the most destabilizing, are the land-based. you put your thumb on a button, and somebody blows up 20 minutes later. we thought it'd be simpler to negotiate first with those and then take up the submarine-launched -- the airborne missiles. the soviet union, to our surprise -- and not just mine -- made it plain when we brought this up that they placed, they thought, a greater reliance on the land-based missiles and, therefore, they wanted to take up all three, and we agreed. we said, all right, if that's what you want to do. but it was a surprise to us because they outnumbered us 64-36 in submarines and 20% more bombers capable of carrying nuclear missiles than we had. so why should we believe they had placed that much more reliance on land-based?

but even after we gave in and said, all right, let's discuss it all, they walked away from the table. we didn't. >> mr. mondale, i'm going to hang in there. should the president's age and stamina be an issue in the political campaign? mondale: no. and i have not made it an issue, nor should it be. what's at issue here is the president's application of his authority to understand what a president must know to lead this nation, secure our defense and make the decisions and the judgments that are necessary. a minute ago the president quoted cicero, i believe. i want to quote somebody a little closer to home, harry truman. he said the buck stops here. we just heard the president's answer for the problems at the barracks in lebanon where 241 marines were killed. what happened? first, the joint chiefs of staff went to the president, said

don't put those troops there. they did it. and then five days before the troops were killed, they went back to the president through the secretary of defense and said, please, mr. president, take those troops out of there because we can't defend them. they didn't do it, and we know what happened. after that, once again our embassy was exploded. this is the fourth time this has happened. an identical attack in the same region despite warnings, even public warnings from the terrorists. who's in charge? who's handling this? that's my main point. now, an arms control we're completing four years, this is the first administration since the bomb went off that made no progress. we have an arms race underway instead. a president has to lead his government or it won't be done. different people with different views fight with each other. for three and a half years, this

administration avoided arms control, resisted tabling arms control proposals that had any hope of agreeing, rebuked their negotiator in 1981 when he claim close to an agreement at least in principle on medium-range weapons, and we have this arms race underway. and a recent book that just came out by perhaps the nation's most respected author in this field concludes that this president has failed to master the essential details needed to command and lead us both in terms of security, in terms of arms control. that's why they call the president the commander in chief. good intentions, i grant. but it takes more than that. you must be tough and smart. >> this question of leadership keeps a arise anything different forms in this discussion already -- arising in different forms already, and the president, mr. mondale, has called you whining and vacillating, weak, i believe. it is a question of leadership,

and he has made the point that you have not repudiated some of the semi-diplomatic activity of the reverend jackson particularly in central america. did you approve of his diplomatic activity, and are you prepared to repudiate him now? mondale: i read his statement the other day. i don't admire fidel castro at all, and i have said that. che guevara was a contemptible figure in history. i know the cuban state as a police state, and all my life i've worked in a way that demonstrates that. but jesse jackson is an independent person. i don't control him. and let's talk about people we do control. in the last debate, the vice president of the united states said that i said the marines had died shamefully and died in shame in lebanon. i demanded an apology from vice president bush because i had instead honored these young men,

grieved for their families and think they were wonderful americans that honored us all. what does the president have to say about taking responsibility for a vice president who won't apologize for something like that? >> moderator: mr. president, your rebuttal? reagan: yes. i know it'll come as a surprise to mr. mondale, but i am in charge. and as a matter of fact, we haven't avoided arms control talks with the soviet union very early in my administration. i proposed, and i think something never proposed by any previous administration, i proposed a total elimination of intermediate-range missiles where the soviets had better than -- and still have -- better than a 10 to 1 advantage over the allies in europe. when they protested that and suggested a smaller number perhaps, i went along with that. the so-called negotiation that you said i walked out on was the so-called walk in the wood between one of our representatives and one of the

soviet union, and it wasn't me that turned it down, the soviet union disavowed it. >> moderator: mr. mondale, your rebuttal. mondale: there are two distinguished authors on arms control in this country. there are many others, but two that i want to cite tonight. one is strobe talbott in his classic book "deadly gambit," the other is john newhouse. both said that this administration turned down the walk in the woods agreement first, and that would have been a perfect agreement from the standpoint of the united states and europe and our security. when mr. in its saw, a good negotiator, returned he was rebuked and his boss was fired. this is the kind of leadership that we've had in this administration on the most deadly issue of our times. now we have a runaway arms race. all they've got to show for four years and u.s./soviet relations

is one meeting in the last weeks of an administration and nothing before. they're tough negotiator, but all previous presidents have made progress. this one has not. >> moderator: ms. geyer, your question to mr. mondale. >> mr. mondale, many analysts are now saying that, actually, our number one foreign policy problem today is one that remains almost wholly unrecognized, massive illegal immigration. from economically collapsing countries. they are saying that it is the only real territorial threat to the american nation-state. you yourself said in the 1970s that we had a, quote, hemorrhage on our borders, unquote. yet today you have backed off any immigration reform such as the balanced and and highly-crafted simpson-ma solely bill. why? what would you do instead today, if anything? mondale: this is a very serious problem in our country, and it has to be dealt with. i object to that part of the

simpson-mazzoli bill which i think is very unfair and would prove to be so. that is the part that requires employers to determine the citizenship of an employee before they're hired. i am convinced that the result of this would be that people who are hispanic, people who have different languages or speak with an accent would find it difficult to be employed. i think that's wrong. we've never had citizenship tests in our country before, and i don't think we should have a citizenship card today. that is counterproductive. i do sport support the other aspects of the simpson-mazzoli bill that strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen other ways of dealing with undocumented workers in this difficult area and dealing with the problem of settling people who have lived here for many, many years and do not have an established status. i have further strongly recommended that this administration do something it has not done, and that is to

strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen the officials in this government that deal with undocumented workers. and to do so in a way that's responsible and within the constitution of the united states. we need an answer to problem, but it must be an american answer that is consistent with justice and due process. everyone in this room practically here tonight is an immigrant. we came here loving this nation, serving it, and it has served all of our most bountiful dreams. and one of those dreams is justice. and we need a measure -- and i will support a measure -- that brings about those objectives but avoids that one aspect that i think is very serious. the second part is to maintain and improve relations with our friends to the south. we cannot solve this problem all on our own. and that's why the failure of this administration to deal in effective and good faith way

with mexico, with costa rica, with the other nations in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute in central america has undermined our capacity to effectively deal diplomatically in this area as well. >> sir, people as well balanced and just as -- [inaudible] at notre dame who headed the is select commission on immigration have pointed out repeatedly that there will be no immigration reform without employer sanctions because it would be an unbalanced bill, and there would be simply no way to reinforce it. however, putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill or with any immigration reform because of the hispanic groups. or hispanic leadership groups who actually do not represent what the hispanic-americans want, because polls show they overwhelmingly want some kind of

immigration reform. can you say, or how can you justify your position on this, and how do you respond to the criticism that this is another -- or that this is an example of your flip-flopping and giving in to special interest groups at the expense of the american nation? mondale: i think you're right that the polls show that the majority of hispanics want that bill, so i'm not doing it for political reasons are. i'm doing it because all my life i've fought for a system of justice in this country. a system in which every american has a chance to achieve the fullness in life without discrimination. this bill imposes upon employers the responsibility of determining whether somebody who applies for a job is an american or not. and just inevitably they're going to be reluctant to hire hispanics or people with a different accent. if i were dealing with politics here, the polls show the

american people want this. i am for reform in this area, for tough enforcement at the border and for many other aspects of the simpson-mazzoli bill. but all my life i've fought for a fair nation, and despite the politics of it, i stand where i stand, and i think i'm right. and before this fight is over, we're going to come up with a better bill, a more effective bill that does not undermine the liberties of our people. >> mr. president, you too have said that our borders are out of control, yet this fall you allowed the simpson-mazzoli bill which would at least have minimally protected our borders and the rights of citizenship. because of a relatively unimportant issue of reimbursement to the states for legalized aliens. given that, may i ask what priority can we expect you to give this forgotten national security element? how sip sere are you in your -- sincere are you in your efforts

to control, in effect, the nation-state that is the united states? reagan: we, believe me, supported the simpson-mazzoli bill strongly and the bill that came out of the senate. however, there were things added in on the house side that we felt made it less of a good bill. as a matter of fact, made it a bad bill. and in conference we stayed with them in conference all the way to where even senator simpson did not want the bill in the manner in which it would come out of the conference committee. there were a number of things in there that weakened that bill. i can't go into detail about them here. but it is true our borders are out of control. it is also true that this has been a situation on our borders back through a number of administrations. and i supported in this bill. i believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. with regard to the employer

sanctions, this -- we must have that not only to insure that we can identify the illegal aliens, but also while some keep protesting about what it would do to employers, there is another employer that that we shouldn't be so concerned about, and these are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into the country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country. and the individuals can't complain because of their illegal status. we don't think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free, and this was why the provisions that we had in with regard to sanctions and so forth. and i'm going to do everything i can and all of us in the administration are to join in again when congress is back at it to get an immigration bill that will give us once again

control of our borders. and with regard to friendship below the border with the countries down there, yes, no administration that i know has established the relationship that we have with our latin friends. but as long as they have an economy that leaves so many people in dire poverty and unemployment, they are going to seek that employment across our borders, and we work with those other countries. >> mr. president, the experts also say that the situation today is terribly different quantitatively, qualitatively different from what it has been in the past because of the gigantic population growth. for instance, mexico's population will go from about 60 million today to 120 million at the turn of the century. many of these people will be coming into the united states not as citizens, but as illegal workers. you have repeatedly said recently that you believe that

armageddon, the destruction of the world, may be imminent in our times. do you ever feel that we are in for an armageddon or a situation, a time of anarchy regarding the population explosion in the world? reagan: no. as a matter of fact, the population explosion -- if you look at the actual figures -- has been vastly exaggerated, overexaggerated. as a matter of fact, there are some pretty scientific is and solid -- scientific and solid figures about how much space there still is in the world and how many more people we can have. it's almost like going back to the malthusian theory when even then they were saying that everyone would starve with the limited population they had then. but the problem of population growth is one here with regard to our immigration, and we have been the safety valve whether we wanted to or not with the illegal entry here. in mexico where their population is increasing and they don't