perce % to 30% and there was no complaint at all to who the support was for. when the race tightened up a bit, at once we had complaints about who was supporting who. i merely want to say that in this primary election, i have had generous support from the rank and file of our people. in the district of columbia yesterday, i saw kennedy support for senator morris, one of his prime workers. now, despite that, i didn't call it a gang-up. i went ahead and proceeded with the election and won it. i hope to be able to do exactly the same thing here in west virginia but to do it honorably. thank you. thank you, gentlemen, for appearing on this open face-to-face debate this evening from west virginia. >> the preceding political debate between senator john f. kennedy and senator hubert h. humphrey was presented by wch tv, the charleston gazette and participating stations as a public service. this has been a wchs tv studio presentation.

directed by doug martin. technical director, william e. dixon. during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. each week leading up to the 2016 presidential election, american history tv brings you archival coverage of presidential races. next, the 1980 republican debate between former california governor ronald reagan and former cia director, george h.w. bush which took place in houston ten days before the texas primary. governor reagan went on to win the primary with 53% of the vote on his way to securing his party's nomination. he then picked mr. bush as his running mate at the gop convention that summer. the reagan/bush ticket won 44 states in the 1980 general

election, defeating incumbents jimmy carter and walter mondale. our coverage of this hour-long debate is courtesy of the league of women voters and the reagan presidential library and museum. >> good evening. i'm national president of the league of women voters. welcome to the houston forum, the third event in our 1980 presidential forum series. this series is part of a very important league tradition, providing the public with nonpartisan election information about issues and about candidates. tonight, i'm particularly pleased to be able to tell you that the league of women voters is going to continue on with that tradition. we announced today that we are going to sponsor the 1980

presidential debates, a series of four debates that will be held next september and october. the enthusiastic response of the public to the 1976 ford/carter presidential debates sponsored by the league and to our current forum series provides evidence of the fact that americans will expect the candidates to participate in face-to-face debates next fall. now, on with tonight's event and our moderator, the distinguished news correspondent howard k. smith. >> thank you. good evening, ladies and gentlemen. we are very pleased tonight to have two candidates for the republican nomination for the presidency of the united states. former ambassador george bush of

texas, former governor ronald reagan of california. gentlemen, before we begin, in response to the league of women voters' announcement today that it will sponsor the presidential debates after the conventions as it did four years ago in 1976, let me ask if nominated by your party, would you agree to participate? >> i would love to debate in the rose garden. i think that would be an extraordinarily -- yes, sir, i would. >> thank you. >> i can't wait. >> thank you very much, gentlemen. this evening's forum will last just 60 minutes. as you both have agreed, there will be no specific time limits to what you have to say. you will have an open discussion on the issues. you can address comments and questions to one another. i will reserve the chairman's privilege of occasionally asking a question if i want to change the subject and think it's wise to do so, and towards the end of the forum we will accept questions from the audience and after that, there will be brief closing statements by you.

the first question, ambassador bush, everyone including your opponent has congratulated you on your stunning victory in pennsylvania yesterday. in the course of the program "face the nation" on sunday you said you hoped to win because you had adopted the strategy of hammering away at the differences between you and mr. reagan, and one difference you mentioned was you said in your words, was mr. reagan was over-promising the american people. could you explain that and when the spirit moves you, could you respond? >> first, it was "meet the press." i don't want to put any plug for the wrong outfit. secondly, i also made the point that what we must do is defeat jimmy carter. i got that into focus in that i wanted to get these differences out with the governor, so the voters could make a good determination. i hope that's what happened in pennsylvania. a big difference, for example,

that the governor and i have regards this tax cut. he feels, i don't want to put words in his mouth, and he's here to defend or explain his position, that you can cut taxes by $70 billion the first year. the "wall street journal" attributed the figure to that tax cut idea to $90 billion the first year, cut inheritance and gift taxes. we computed that at $5.4 billion and still balance the budget and still increase defense spending. president kennedy suggested this cut, it was implemented by johnson. the cut was $11.4 billion. it resulted in a $4.4 billion revenue loss. inflation then was 1.8%. today it's 18%. investor confidence was out there. today there's none. so in my judgment, that economic program would exacerbate the

deficit, it would result in less stimulation of the economy because of the conditions and i believe that before we can have massive across the board tax cuts, we have got to get the budget in balance. so i am proposing a $20 billion as opposed to 70 or 90, supply side tax cut to stimulate savings, to stimulate business. that's the major difference. there are plenty of others but i do want to give the governor a chance to respond. >> governor? that is indeed a major difference. i still believe firmly and i think there are some differences of opinion about figures. four times in this century we have had across the board tax cuts, all of which have resulted in such an increase in prosperity that the government even in the first year got increased revenues, not less. in the kennedy year, the total revenues for government and of course, government was much smaller then, about $109 billion instead of the 600 that will be coming up in '81. but according to the figures

then, the federal government got some $5 billion in additional revenue and got about $1.1 billion additional revenue in the income tax. but let me point something out. george mentioned the differences here. under jimmy carter, the tax burden as a percentage of the gross national product has reached the highest level in the history of our nation. it is also the highest percentage of personal income that it has ever been in our history. now, under the president's revised '81 budget, the total federal taxes are projected as $628 billion. of that, $283.1 will be individual income tax. that's 115% increase in that tax since he took office. now, over the next ten years, if things aren't changed, it is estimated that the total tax increase on the people of america will be $1.5 trillion.

now, rather than the kemp-roth bill which i support, the idea of a 10% cut across the board in the income tax, administered over a three-year informperiod total of 30% will stimulate the economy, will create jobs but will not reduce federal incomes. it will only reduce the increase in taxes. because we are going to be faced with an increase in taxes that is far beyond our comprehension right now. and if we figured that cut as a percentage of $628 billion, you would be reducing the first year less than 5%, perhaps about 4% in the total tax revenues that the government is going to be getting. but i believe at the same time, history has proven in all those other tax cuts, i believe will stimulate the economy, more people will be working and it will be contrary to the carter policy now of fighting inflation

by adding millions to the unemployment rolls. and so i support and stand by the idea of incentive taxes geared to the free enterprise system that will provide incentive to increase productivity so we can compete in the international market which we can't do on even terms today. >> i agree with that, but the difference we have is it is my understanding the kennedy tax cut implemented by johnson resulted in a $4.4 billion deficit and inflation then was 1.8%, not 18%. investor confidence was high, not low. and it is my perception that that tax cut applied today in the same percentages, the same numbers, would result in an inflation rate of about 30% to 32%. so i couldn't agree more about the percent of our gross national product taken by taxes. but i believe the first thing we must do is get in balance. incidentally, not the way jimmy carter proposes, by higher and

higher taxes. get in balance by the reduction of expenditures, get in balance by a $20 billion supply side tax cut and then begin to reduce rates. but if we risk with investor confidence where it is, our deficit that's going to be up already i think $37 billion, $30 billion on top of that, i'm afraid we can't break inflation and we have got to do that and do it fast. >> george, we have got to do that and of course, it goes without saying and i certainly believe in reducing the cost of government far more than the phony decrease that mr. carter has proposed. but when you suggest it as you have about a $20 billion tax cut, that is less than the federal government is going to get in a single year undeserved from people that just received cost of living pay raises and were pushed up into higher tax brackets. that amounts to more than $20 billion. if we get that in balance and then do what i say, start reducing the rates, that is the key thing.

your plan in my judgment and the judgment of many economists would risk exacerbating that deficit and today, our creditors abroad, our economy is linked to foreign economy and they take a look at us and see us living at deficit after deficit, you cite the kennedy tax cut. there wasn't any surplus then. there was a deficit resulting from that scheme. arthur laffer, the economist who proposed it, said i don't know whether it will work. i don't believe we can take that kind of risk, governor and i would not propose it. >> george, how much risk is there in just going along with what we have been doing? >> that's not what i proposed. i proposed something very different than what we have done. >> i have heard for a great many years that we can't possibly reduce taxes, this is washington's cry -- >> i agree. >> we can't reduce taxes until we reduce government spending. i have to point out that government does not tax to get the money it needs.

government always needs the money it gets. your son can be extravagant with his allowance and you can lecture him day after day about saving money and not being extravagant or you can solve the problem by cutting his allowance. >> the program i'm putting forward is -- [ applause ] >> the program i'm putting forward cuts the allowance, cuts on the spending side but doesn't risk this promise everybody everything because you cut taxes $210 billion and you want to favor increasing defense and you favor cutting out inheritance and gift taxes and i believe that you are going to end up with a much bigger deficit, and that's where you and i differ. listen, you talk to me about gross national product and percent of taxes. my whole program is based on getting tax relief. but i'm not going to do it in a way popular though it may be that's going to in my view make that deficit unsupported. >> one last point i want to make. there's one last point we

haven't touched on. we are talking as if those dollars that are saved in taxes are not going to have any effect, the multiplier effect when they're in the people's pockets and are used out there in society. and it has been proven that there is a far greater multiplier effect and creation of prosperity in people or money spent by the people and invested by the people than there is when it is spent by government. therefore, we have got to recognize that that money isn't to be buried in a tin can in the backyard. it's going to be used to buy things. when we buy things, productivity is going to increase. people are going to put it in a savings account. then we will have the capital to invest in new plant and equipment and research and development. we have the highest percentage today of outmoded industrial plant and equipment of any of the industrial nations in the world. we can't compete evenly with them because we don't have the capital investment to put into business. >> that's right. that's why i favor the supply side tax cut.

stimulate production. >> you are getting close to something you agree on. i want to try to keep you from agreeing. governor reagan, there's a question i have to ask you. the frontrunner always gets shot at more than anybody else. he's the point man and there's a volley i must ask you about and you should have a chance to answer. many observers have said that many of the facts you use in your arguments are wrong. you have spoken of the kennedy 30% tax cut when it was really 18%. >> no, that was the first year. it was i ta two-year tax cut. it was 27%. i think that's close enough to round up to 30%. >> you have spoken of government accounting office study showing either $11 billion or $50 billion waste in government and the gao says it doesn't have such a -- >> turns out it was the justice department that gave that figure. >> you said that it cost the government $3 to provide $1 worth of benefits and hew says it costs 12 cent fors for a dol of benefits. >> i wouldn't believe hew if they were here in the room

saying it. [ applause ] >> there were several other facts like that cited. you dispute those? >> i would like -- something just happened tonight. upi, a pretty good writer just has come out with a story that has to do with one set of figures i used about how many employees the carter administration had added back. it seems that one of the networks which shall be nameless went on the air and they have gone to a fellow in government to ask him and he said why, there were only 6,000 added in all these years under the carter administration. but the writer goes on to say that while my figures might not have been fully accurate at this time, i appear to be closer to the mark. he says that in the last three years the total number of government workers has grown by at least 63,282, not 6,000.

i had said 131,000. but then, he went on to point out that there are about 145,000 persons officially work for the department of hew. however, hew is also paying the salaries of one million additional workers who labor for hew in state and local governments, universities, consulting firms and other organizations. moreover, federal revenue pays the salaries of 77,000 state workers in the u.s. employment and unemployment offices around the country. all these workers who collectively add millions to the rolls are excluded from the records. how many numbers have increased over the last three years, no one knows because no official count has ever been taken. when this is added to the nearly five million civilian and military employees on the government's official rolls, we see that as many as 14 million people are working for the government and this means that at least one u.s. worker out of eight owes his job to washington

and he concludes saying thus, reagan's 131,000 increase is perfectly possible and may in fact actually understate the real rise in federal employment. >> you covered that point. now how about the other points? do you think that occasionally you do make a misstep? >> certainly. anyone that's standing up without notes and ad libbing answers to questions is going to slip up. on figures comparing alaska and saudi arabia, the figures weren't wrong but of all the things i read and studied and researched on that, i attributed them to the wrong report. gave u.s. geological survey the responsibility for using those figures. they checked with u.s. geological survey who said those figures aren't in our report. i found that that's all i had done in that particular one. what were some of the others you mentioned there? >> well, let's see. >> i have been waiting for an opportunity to do this. i have confidence in the facts and figures that i have used.

>> i don't want to exist on them. you said it cost $3 to deliver $1 of benefits. >> this one did appear in an account by an economist and i will admit that not having any chance to check it with the economist, i took the figure that was used for redistribution of income outside of social security to people below the poverty level and i took the figure of those below the poverty level and divided it into the total figure and it came out that if the people below the poverty level were getting all of the money in that budget, a family of four would be receiving $27,000 a year which is about four times as much as they are receiving and i figured that made three to one overhead. >> let me -- >> you want to talk? >> yeah. in my view, what we ought to be doing something about the employee thing. you know, jimmy carter fought the leach amendment that would have set a ceiling on federal employment through attrition. nobody would have been thrown

out of a job, but as people left, some would not be replaced. he fought against that. he campaigned on less people employed. i drove by teshhe eob the othery and across is a building i'm told people who are really working for the white house. white house staff don't feel any of this recession or any layoffs the steel workers felt or people around here are beginning to feel. so that's what i do on that one. on energy, i don't believe frankly that there's enough oil in alaska within a reasonable future to replace the nine million barrels a day we get from overseas. i believe a decline curve has already set in on alaskan oil. some companies have already starting pulling out of alaska. so my energy program is not just figuring we can get it all in alaska but it's to use alternate sources of energy. go with control, of course, but use alternate sources of energy as well. >> let me ask you both something

that is just about something that is just developing now. that is that famous recession we have been waiting for which is now at last beginning to happen. it may be there when either of you may become president. what is your tendency to let a recession go its length in the hope that it will reduce inflation, or try to halt recession by things like government expenditures or tax cuts that may stimulate inflation? governor reagan? >> well, i don't believe the alternative to inflation is recession. i think that's old-fashioned economics. i don't think that you have to trade unemployment and incidentally, president carter as a candidate said that he would never fight inflation by using unemployment. president carter in his present economic message has said that as part of his fight against inflation, unemployment is going to be allowed to go up 1% to 1.5% to two percentage points. this is self-destructive because for every percentage point you add to the unemployment rolls

you add $25 billion to $29 billion to the federal deficit. both in the loss of revenue from those no longer working and in the benefits that go out to them. no, i would do the things i have talked about, regard the cutting of government and i can point to experience in the same situation. when i became governor of california it was just like the federal government. bankrupt. and with a deficit, a mounting deficit. and i know that some of these things work. i would even go back to an example that happened since i was governor in california, prop 13. everyone in the country heard the horrifying tales of what was going to happen if they cut the property tax as much as proposition 13 said we were going to. it has been in effect about 18 months now. the result is there are 100,000 fewer public workers. but the private sector in these 18 months has created 532,000 new jobs and the state of california wound up with a $3 billion surplus.

>> i don't believe there is an economic total soft landing. i don't believe it. not my concept of economics. i believe you are going to see some increase in unemployment but i believe the way you fight that is to stimulate capital formation, risk taking and production. the way you do that is through this kind of approach to cutting taxes i talked about, as well as fighting the inflationary side by getting government spending under control. and i believe it will work. there are programs that will help for retraining. i like the idea of training people in the private sector for jobs that exist through tax credits rather than train them up in a program that gets some kid's hopes up. he really wants to work, gets his hopes up and then there's no government job for him, or any job for him. train him for jobs that don't exist. so i'm afraid you're going to see unemployment creep up. i would fight that by

production, supply side tax cuts, stimulating the private sector and i believe that would work if you hold government under control. but you can't go and risk making the deficit bigger at the same time. otherwise you still have that inflationary part. my problem with jimmy carter, when he came in, he addressed himself to one thing, stimulation of the employment sector and lowering unemployment. and he did that to some degree for awhile. but inflation went right off the charts because of these reckless deficits. >> he did other things to create the reckless deficits. he said he was going to streamline government. he created the energy industry which has a budget as big as the total profits of the major oil companies. he created the cabinet level national department of education with more billions of dollars. he's got the biggest staff as you pointed out in the white house i think of any president that we know of. i think that he who was going to trim things, i laughed when he

called teddy kennedy the biggest spender in the senate. he's the biggest spender that's ever been in the white house. i just, i feel when you said again, stimulate, provide incentive for increased productivity, the american worker today is saving the lowest percentage of his earnings at any time in the last 30 odd years. and a japanese worker can safe five times the percentage of his earnings that an american can. west german worker, three times. it's that money that is not going into savings accounts, not going to insurance premiums, that is not there as capital, to invest in the private sector, and the only capital investment they have been able to make has been mandated on them by this government to meet certain federal requirements either in safety or environment or whatever. it's added to production costs, it's reduced productivity. i want to see an increase in productivity, too. all i can say is i think the system you're talking about, we have been trying for a lot of years, really off and on, and i

think it is time for something new. i think what is new is let's believe in the people once again, that they can spend their money smarter than the government can. >> let me ask you a question that is almost philosophical. ladies and gentlemen, please suppress your enthusiasm until we finish because people will think someone is taking sides. we don't want them to think you are. mr. reagan and ambassador bush, you blame the government for many of our ills but in many ways, is not government absolutely essential and has many achievements to its credit. the most productive industry we have is agriculture and its productivity is due mainly to government activity in the research stations, the world war ii, the government created an aluminum industry and private industry wouldn't touch it and sold it then to private industry, and the most spectacular achievement lately, putting a man on the moon, was a government project, government plan with private enterprise carried out. aren't you underrating the effectiveness of government? >> no. i don't think government adds to production.

you can cite an example of the aluminum industry. now much better done in the private sector. when you have a wartime economy, of course you are going to have government intervention in certain things. stimulation of ship building, for example. but to tell you what's happening, government has moved in on the private sector with so much regulation. i built a business right here in texas, started it from scratch, and when we started out there into the gulf to drill a well we needed i think it was two permits. today i'm told it's 12 permits. every time you turn around, there is too much regulation. yes, government does some things and they can help people and they do help people and i'm not an anti-government person. they provide for the defense and they can -- there are certain functions that government has that are compassionate and i think good. i have a difference with the governor whether you turn everything back to the states or not. welfare, for example. i think there is room for a partnership there.

but what government does is not productive and we ought to be cutting it back because it isn't adding to this productivity that i think is essential if we are going to beat inflation and give the bypass citizen, the person in the fifth ward of houston that's been bypassed, give them an opportunity to have a running start as they get into the work force. >> mr. reagan? >> yes, howard, i brought some figures along here because i thought they might come in handy some place and here it is. if americans since 1950, the last 30 years, have been able to save and invest, if our economy are grown only 1.5% more a year, our incomes would be 50% higher, jobs would be plentiful, we would have a balanced budget, lower payroll taxes instead of higher, stable prices, a solvent social security program, and our industrial economy would be three times as great as that of the soviet union and we would

have unquestioned military superiority. now, you mentioned, i agree, too, there are legitimate functions government must perform. and the basic three that are outlined in the very basis of our government and our constitution is that the government, the federal government exists to protect us from outside aggression, our national security, to protect us from disorder within, and to guarantee the stability of our money. in all three of those at the moment, we could say this administration has failed. they have not protected our national security. they have let it decline to where we are in a most dangerous point we have been in that i can recall. they have -- we know about disorder in the streets, crime and so forth, and the third one also, the stability of our money, the dollar is worth less in relation to other currency than it's ever been in our history. >> gentlemen, you both stated your viewpoints. i want to move to another subject. there was supposed to be a third man here tonight, congressman

john anderson of illinois. we received word he would not take part and it's expected that tomorrow or perhaps the next day, he will announce that he's forming a third party and he will be the candidate. what do you think the effect of that will be on the election you hope to take part in? ambassador first? >> well, i don't really believe after the initial flurry that it's going to make that much difference. i believe that he will be more apt to pull from jimmy carter because his backing and those shoving him forward and helping him on this are those who i believe would be for teddy kennedy if they thought he was going to be if n there and have shot. i don't think it will be third party. i think he will run as an independent and i think he will have the same success that others have had who have run as independents. we are a two party system. part of our stability comes from the two party system. i asked him in the debate in illinois whether he is willing to support the nominee of the party. he made very clear then that he

was not prepared so to state and i think you are probably right, that he will do this. but i don't believe it's going to amount to much. after the initial blush and a couple trips around the country, i don't see -- he's caught. he's caught with -- because he doesn't have really the true credentials of a kennedy, yet he seems to want to move away from the credentials that got him elected to the house. that dichotomy, that contradiction, is going to hurt him some. but let him do what he wants. that's the way i look at it. >> let him do what he wants. governor reagan, a poll the other day said he could get 28% of the votes. i don't know whether the poll is accurate or not but if he did, he could throw the election you hope to be in into the house of representatives where the democrats have the majority. wouldn't that be a threat to you? >> that would be a disaster. i agree with george, though. i think whatever he's going to get, he's probably going to take away from the carter side more than from our side. and i know that i speak for george when i say we sure do miss him tonight.

>> gentlemen, let's turn to foreign affairs. both of you have been unsatisfied with how the president has been handling the iranian crisis lately. now he apparently is having some thoughts of using force, which i think you have indicated in a general way you approve of. let me run some forcible options past you, and see whether you approve or disapprove. the most often quoted one is mining the oil ports of persia, blockading the oil ports, isn't there a daing fer thnger if tha adopted? we would have to either shoot or shut up. do you find that? >> well, it's difficult to talk about what is a viable option now as we are late in the sixth month of their captivity, because first of all, is the fear of something that might

endanger them further but second is also if you do have a good idea of something that should be done, i don't think we should say it out loud and let the iranians hear about it. my criticism, i don't mind criticizing what has been done. frankly, i don't think the president has done anything that he couldn't have done five months ago or longer. and then was the time to when all means of diplomacy failed, then was the time to look at the options which only the president knows that he has as to what he thought might with the least chance of any violence that might exert the greatest pressure on them and then give them a date certain and say either the hostages are released on that date or this goes into effect. and he has used the term military force now as a possibility but that could include what you said, mining, it could include blockade. if we mined and i'm sure those would be, those would be the

kind of mines activated by radio and can be deactivated, but we would have to also prevent russian mine sweepers from going in there and trying to take them out if they wanted to try that. i wonder whether they are prepared for a possible escalation of conflict with us at this time. they are aggressive in afghanistan and in africa and so forth, and even though they have a lead on us in virtually everything, i don't think that maybe they are prepared at this time to dare the possible, well, they don't want the confrontation directly with the united states. >> wouldn't it be quite a risk to find out whether they were willing or not, ambassador bush, when they are operating just on the other side of the border from their supply depots and we would be operating 8,000 miles away from ours? >> no. it would not be that big a risk in my judgment. i have been to that part of the gulf. i did business in that part of the world. in my judgment, the situation in

iraq where you see iraq pulling away from the soviet union has a bearing on this. in my judgment, the situation in pakistan, where you have both china concerned and us concerned about afghanistan for very different reasons, the chinese with their special relationship with pakistan where you had islam concern, almost united in their concern about the soviet, where you have a soviet union that is overcommitted in afghanistan as it is. i don't believe your hypothesis is correct, mr. smith. i don't believe the soviets would escalate. i believe that is an option that the president should give very serious consideration to. and you're not talking when you get into a situation of mining of having to cede it away. once you mine, doesn't matter how many mines you put in, insurance rates skyrocket and for all intents and purposes, commerce screeches to a halt.

and i think it should be considered. i think it's for the president to make the determination. one thing i learned from my experience in foreign affairs is that there's a highly classified body of information that only a handful of people properly, in my judgment, have access to. that's the president and handful of his top people. so if that decision is made by them, it would have my support and i don't believe that the risk you cite is the risk to be concerned about. i think the risk would rather be internally in iran when you are dealing with outrageous, reckless people who have no respect for international law. they have already made a hostile act under any interpretation of international law, seizing our embassy. i wouldn't worry about the soviets in this context for the reasons i have given you. [ applause ] >> what about the option of doing nothing at all? the most important fact about

iran today is it's a country that hasn't completed its revolution. they are probably more pro-u.s. people in iran than we realize from watching television and seeing the anti-u.s. militants. if a showdown inside iran which may have begun already with the students fighting one another, might see our side, the side that wants to get ago with us, win but if we use force, we may force iran into russian arms and en danger the hostages. wouldn't it pay to wait awhile longer since the hostages are physically in good condition? >> i don't think they have seen it as patience. i think they see it as weakness. they have no respect for us. they humiliated us. one of the officials we sent back just the other day, one of the diplomats, his speech when he arrived was boasting of how they rubbed our face in the dirt all this time. but what did the united states have in those first hours? it had used all the diplomatic things that we have done. not that commission from the u.n. because that isn't even in

the u.n. charter and i think it was a terrible precedent for us to set that the u.n. could do such a thing outside the charter. but all the diplomatic efforts we could make peacefully to get them back. and then have used one of these and let us say hypothetically, the mining of the harbor and the blockade. first of all, at that time they were greatly dependent on outside commerce and dependent for about 30% of their food. now, they have adjusted and for us to put sanctions on our trade is shrunk down to the place this is hardly going to affect them at all. but then if we had done that forcefully and in those first few days and gotten our hostages back, then we could have said to them now look, we don't want any trouble with you, we would like to be friends with you, we would like to work with you and we could be helpful to you, and you have got a neighbor up north that i'm sure you don't want in here, and i think they would have listened to us. but now, why would they listen to us when they look to

themselves as stronger than we are? because of the way we have gone on month after month, letting this humiliation occur? >> how about afghanistan? congressman sam stratton of new york who has been to the pakistan border with afghanistan says the afghan rebels are using ancient weapons, rifles of world war i vintage and he feels we should sent them very considerable aid since the russians are accusing us of it anyhow. you believe we should? >> absolutely. i have said it from the very beginning. look, if you have a brutal aggression and you are not willing to help and i think the way to do it was through pakistan, if you are not willing to help, what possible hope do countries have that want to be free of this kind of aggression? you have to start in foreign policy with your definition of what the soviet union intends. now, i believe the evidence is overwhelming that they seek superiority, not parity, and i

believe when they see us weak, saying [ inaudible ] in africa are a stabilizing influence, they will go in there and using that influence to spread hegemony as the chinese would say. my view is the soviets are aggressive, they have overstated in afghanistan, they have bitten off more than in my judgment they should be allowed to digest and i think that the best answer to it is for them to know that the united states is going to keep its commitments. our allies, everybody gripes about our allies and yes, they ought to be out supporting us for what we have done but they don't know that they can believe jimmy carter. they think that he's going to change his mind on whatever he does in the mideast just as he did on the enhanced radiation weapon in germany. >> it took him three years to find out the soviets couldn't be trusted. i agree completely. where people want to be free, from soviet or cuban domination,

where the proxy troops are used, the united states should be willing to provide weapons to any men that want to fight for their freedom against those hostile forces. >> do you believe governor reagan still that there should be a blockade of cuba? >> i suggested that as a hypothetical. again, it was -- and it was based on this thing we both have said here and that is that only the president and a few people have knowledge of all the options. but i said with regard to afghanistan, the president i think lowered the credibility of the united states when he made in diplomatic language what was an extremely serious warning to the soviets not to invade afghanistan, indeed he even used the term serious consequences would follow. now, he knew we had no way to back that up. there wasn't anything to do. we weren't going to put in troops and try to chase them out. so they invaded and the world saw us once again still standing here just as we are still standing after he made the speech that he wouldn't accept the soviet brigade in cuba.

he accepted it. and so my feeling is that or what i said at the time was that we ought to have a plan. we ought to have a strategy of our own. we ought to have contingency plans where we can look ahead and say whether they do this or that, this what is we can do. i propose there might be pressures we could exert on the soviet union where the logistics are not 10,000 miles against us, that not in their become yaackyi said let me give one hypothetical ideas and there may be better options than this. but here we have a soviet satellite 90 miles off our shore and instead of threatening sanctions or threatening the olympics or anything else, why couldn't we blockade cuba and then say to them when your troops get out of afghanistan, we will drop the blockade around cuba? >> may i ask about that? here we have a fundamental

difference because it wasn't cubans that invaded afghanistan. it was russia. we have a hemispheric problem today it seems to me and i believe that if you go back and look, blockade connotes in naval parlance, war. int int interdiction of shipping and aircraft. to quarantine cuba would require today because of the decline in the united states navy, according to a former chief of naval operations, the entire atlantic fleet. now, i don't believe, i have a difference with governor reagan. as much as i detest what castro is doing, if afghanistan were invaded or some place in the middle east were threatened when i was president, i would not respond against cuba. i believe that would be bad in terms of -- we have problems with cuba, one-on-one on those problems. don't link them in in order to solve something halfway around the world. that's my view of foreign policy.

>> there's a disagreement in naval circles, then, too. because i had some naval advice about the practicality of the blockade also. but don't we have to realistically face up to the fact that our troubles in this hemisphere, in central america and on down in south america, are being generated by castro's cuba as well as in the caribbean, where they are also threatening now to choke off our lifelines and it's a problem that has to be faced one day. but i think that russia has enough of a presence there. it has fighter bombers there, it has submarines there, it has i brigade we know about that holds combat maneuvers there. russia provides i guess about a tanker a week with oil for cuba. i don't think they could stand a blockade very long. and i think a little call on the hotline with this kind of a threat might get the withdrawal

of the troops from afghanistan. because it would be a pressure on them. >> ambassador bush, what do we do about cuba which is as everyone says 90 miles off our border, it is virtually a soviet outpost, has an imitator now in the island of grenada, has five 00 advisors in jamaica and some in guyana, the influence is spreading all the time. what makes it seem ridiculous, it's a bask basket case of a nation. >> when jimmy carter came in, he stopped the flights and treated cuba with civility while knocking the hell out of some of our allies in the further part of latin america. people look at us and say what's going on there. this man made a conscience decision in my judgment, castro, to export revolution, not support it. communists make this very interesting dialectic distinction between the support of revolution and the export. they have made this decision. and yes, grenada is now heading their alliance with castro.

guyana has been in trouble before. jamaica, their police and security forces being trained by cuba. but that is just the tip of the iceberg. the rest of it is down in central america today, where i am absolutely convinced that castro is not only fomenting but smi supplying the military equipment to stimulate revolution. what do you do about it? you change your foreign policy that considers this guy as some kind of person that is really going to live comfortably inside that island and then you adhere to human rights. the united states always must adhere to that. jimmy carter didn't invent morality in foreign policy. i would keep our strategic interests in mind as i push for equity and change. >> the next debate, i'm going to ask what you would do about cuba. now we are going to have some questions from the audience. >> yes.

my name is david grossberg. i would like to know, do you think the children of illegal aliens should be allowed to attend texas public schools free, or do you think their parents should pay for their education? >> who are you addressing that to? >> i think you first in this. he was looking right at you. >> look, i would like to see something done about theillegal alien problem that would be so sensitive and so understanding about labor needs and human needs that that problem wouldn't come up. but today, if those people are here, i would reluctantly say i think they would get whatever it is that, you know, what society is giving to their neighbors. but it has -- the problem has to be solved. the problem has to be solved, because as we have kind of made illegal some kinds of labor that i would like to see legal, we are doing two things. we are creating a whole society of really honorable, decent family-loving people that are in violation of the law, and secondly, we are exacerbating

relations with mexico. the answer to your question is much more fundamental than whether they attend houston schools, it seems to me. i don't want to see, if they are living here, i don't want to see a whole thing of 6 and 8-year-old kids being made, you know, one totally uneducated and made to feel that they are living outside the law. let's address ourselves to the fundamental. these are good people, strong people. part of my people is mexican. >> can i add to that, i think the time has come that the united states and our neighbors, particularly our neighbor to the south, should have a better understanding and a better relationship than we have ever had, and i think we haven't been sensitive enough to our size and our power. another problem of 40% to 50% unemployment. now, this cannot continue without the possibility arising with regard to that other country that we talked about of cuba and what it is stirring up, of the possibility of trouble

below the border and we could have a very hostile and strange neighbor on our border. rather than making them or talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit and then while they're working and earning here, they pay taxes here and when they want to go back, they can go back and they can cross and open the border both ways by understanding their problems. this is the only safety valve right now they have with that unemployment that probably keeps the lid from blowing off down there. and i think we could have a fine relationship and it would solve the problem you mentioned also. >> yes, sir. >> i'm michael appel. i hope both of you gentlemen will address yourselves to this one. local filling stations are said to be cutting the gasoline prices so as to exhaust their currently abundant supplies on the advice of their parent

companies in order that their need allocations will not be decreased. how do you feel about this practice? >> is that one for me, too? i will be >> well, here again, this is part of what i think is the great energy crisis like inflation is caused by government. and part of it is from that energy agency and the allocation system. once upon a time, the allocation of that product, like any product, was made by the marketplace. supply and demand. today, you have a goth agency that is dictating where the gasoline, where the heating oil, where the diesel, where it will go and trying to guess how much should go where. recently, while you're talking about too much here, in florida, they were running into a shortage because agency had decided in the wintertime people drive less than they do in the summertime and they didn't stop to think it's summertime in

south florida all winter. and people were driving just as much and probably even more people coming down there as tourists. california, they based our allocation on 1972 figures. we've got 4 million more automobiles in california than we had in 1972. let us turn the energy industry back and let the marketplace dictate things like that and we won't have these problems. >> the only thing i would add is that example makes a good case against wage and price controls. you've given a good example in the energy business, energy department is saying put the gasoline where the people aren't, back when we had a gasoline proub. and i oppose wage and price controls. and this is a good example of a price control that has distorted supply rather than helped in my judgment. >> mr. bush, mr. reagan, i would like to ask, with college costs

up to $6,000 per year even at state universities, would you okay tax cuts for families with college students? this is particularly important to students who are in middle income families who are above financial need scholarships but still feel the strain of college education. >> i have supported as a member of the united states congress tuition tax credits. how big they can be has to in my judgment be considered along with the entire economy. i don't want so say we're going to maximize that to the fullest when i'm saying cut back on some expenditures. but i favor tuition tax credits, the student loan program. i don't favor abuses in the student loan program that permit people at $100,000 income to get families that way, to get loans at subsidized rates. >> we're in agreement on that.

i supported the idea of tuition tax credits also. and the loan program. in california we had a state scholarship program that was $4 million when i got into the government and $43 million when i left. i had to wash dishes in the dormitory. that was the best job i had. but we're getting back to the problem, that again is a casualty of inflation. until we get back down to common sense reasonable prices we're going to have these kind of problems. >> mr. bush, mr. reagan, would you please tell us who some of the people are that you are considering as your vice presidential running mate when you are nominated? >> i think this is mr. reagan's turn. >> i thought i answer the other one first.

i don't know what the answer is going to be from the other end of the stage, whether it's fear of jinxing myself or whatever it is, i have refused to allow myself to even consider that. i think there's a wealth of talent in our party. and i have refused to let myself even turn my mind to that unless and until i am much closer to seeing the required number be of delegates for the nomination. >> mr. bush? >> even with my newfound optimism out of pennsylvania, i have not gotten far enough along to think about the name of the person. two criteria, he or she must be able to take over the minute the president is incapacitated. and secondly, a certain degree of loyalty to the president's view. nonideological conformity, not total agreement on every single one of these troubling issues that face this country, but a willingness to support the president.

i'll be honest with you, and i don't b agragree with him on ha any issue, vice president mondale has been a good president in this second regard for jimmy carter. those are the two major criteria that i would look for. >> i must say also, it goes without saying that i would think that anyone that you would recommend to the convention, you would have to feel would carry out the programs that you have promised the people you were going to implement. therefore whoever i pick would have to agree with the tax bill. >> thank you, gentlemen. now we have about one minute for closing statements. three seconds off your closing statement. one minute for your closing statement. >> i'm very pleased to be back in texas. i'm looking forward to the campaign in many, my home state, where i've lived for 30 years. i believe this kind of function

is an extraordinarily good thing. spell out the differences, spell them out, who can beat jimmy carter. my view is this, if we have a sensible economic policy that does not overpromise and we couple that with a foreign policy based on experience, where the united states will keep its word, strengthen its intelligence capability and adhere to the values that have made us strong and earned us respect, we can help people at home, and we can restore the respect we've lost abroad. thank you very much. >> in the 18th century we created here in this land, the freest, most unique society that has ever been known to man. in the 19th century, we built

the greatest industrial power that the world has ever seen, and we spent most of the 20th century apologizing. and i don't know what they're apologizing for. i think living americans today have fought harder, done more for the dignity of man than any people that have ever lived on this earth. and i also share the view that jimmy carter must be removed from office. if i thought someone else had a better chance to beat him than i did, i wouldn't be a candidate, i would be supporting that someone else. but in these last 20 years of this century, we must make sure that the young people and the people that are going to follow us will have the same opportunity, the same glittering opportunity that has been ours for 200 years of our history. it is all here, it is all possible for the american people and i want to see the american people have that chance without government crowding them down and becoming the all-powerful instrument in their eyes, controlling their destinies. thank you.

>> ladies and gentlemen, that conclude our forum for tonight. on behalf of the league of women voters, i want to thank ambassador bush and governor rean for being with us. we did agree on some very important things. i hope you kept note of that. but they didn't disagree as much as i wanted them to, which is very bad for showbiz, but probably very good for the republican party. the league of women voters believes that this forum series and its upcoming presidential debate series is vital to the interests of our nation, especially at this time. thank you all and good night. on news maker, david mcindosh, president for the club for growth, he talks about the stop trump movement in wisconsin. the republican presidential campaigns, the club's recent endorsement of ted cruz and more. newsmakers, sunday at 10:00 a.m.

and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> each week leading up to the 2016 election, we bring you coverage of presidential races. next, a 1982 democratic debate in atlanta between former respect walter mondale, senators gary heart of colorado and john glenn of ohio. former presidential nominee george mcgovern and the reverend jesse jackson. the debate is best remembered for walter mondale's question on the death of gary hart's policy proposals. he asked, where's the beef? a slogan from a popular wendy's tv commercial. vice president mondale finished the primary season with the lead in delegates but he did not secure the nomination over senator hart until the democratic convention in july. he then lost the general election in a landslide to incumbent ronald reagan, with the president winning 49 out of 50 states.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the league's second presidential debate of 1984. as we've done in previous presidential election years, the league of women voters is sponsoring a series of primary and general election debates so that you, the voter, can make side by side comparisons of the candidates and their views. john chancellor is our moderator for today's debate. john? thank you. back in new hampshire, there were eight of you. now there are only five. you survivors look pretty chipper to me. and since then, four of you have not done as well, candidly, as you would have liked. let me describe your positions. jesse jackson, if he doesn't get 20% of the vote in a primary before april 6, he will use his elib