 Good evening. I'm Ruth Heinerfeld, 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 non-partisan 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 debate 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, Mrs. Heinerfeld. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We're 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. A gentleman, 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'd love to debate in a rose garden. I think that would be an extraordinarily... Yes, sir, I would. Thank you, Ambassador. 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'll 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, Mr. Reagan was over-promising the American people. Could you explain that and the spirit moves you? Could you respond? First, it was Meet the Press. I don't want to put in a plug for the wrong outfit. And secondly, I also made the point that what we must do is defeat Jimmy Carter. I mean, I got that into focus and 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 in 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've computed that at $5.4 billion and still balance the budget and still increase defense spending. President Kennedy suggested this cut that was implemented by Johnson. The cut was $11.4 billion. It resulted in a $4.4 billion revenue loss. Inflation then was 1.8 percent. 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've 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 for home to stimulate business. That is a major difference. There's plenty of others, but I do want to give the governor a chance to respond. That is indeed a major difference. And 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 than, about $109 billion instead of the $600 million that will be coming up. 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 a 115% increase in that tax since he took office. Now, over the next 10 years, if things aren't changed, it is estimated that the total tax increase in 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, the income tax, administered over a three-year period to a total of 30%, I believe will stimulate the economy, will create jobs, but it will not reduce federal incomes. It will only reduce the increase in taxes because we're 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 that 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 that it is my understanding the Kennedy tax cut implemented by Lyndon 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 a inflation rate of about 30 to 32%. And 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, a 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've got to do that and do it fast. Well George, we've 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, but 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 economies 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 resulted from that scheme. Arthur Laffer, the economist that proposed it, he himself says I don't know whether it would work. I don't believe we can take that kind of risk, Governor. Well, George. And I would not propose it. George, how much more risk is there in just going along with what we've been doing? It's not what I propose. I propose something very different than just going along. Let me just say one other thing. I've 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. And I have to point out that government does not tax to get the money it needs. Government always needs the money it gets. Now 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. But the program I'm putting forward is the time 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're going to end up with a much bigger deficit and that's where you and I differ. Listen, you talked 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. There's one last point I want to make though. There's one last point we haven't touched on. We're 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 they're used out there in society and it has been proven that there is a far greater multiplier effect and creation of prosperity in people spent or money spent by the people and invested by the people than there is when it is spent by government and therefore we've got to recognize that that money isn't going to be buried in a tin can in the backyard it's going to be used to buy things and when we buy things productivity is going to increase people are going to put it in a savings account then we're going to 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 in the market that's why when I try to say supply side tax you're getting close to something stimulate production you're getting close to something you agree on I want to try and keep you from agreeing Governor Reagan does a question that I have to ask you the front-runner 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 that you use in your arguments are wrong you've spoken of the Kennedy 30% tax cut when it was really 18% that was the first year it was a two-year tax cut Howard and it was 27% and I think that's close enough to round out to 30 you have spoken of a government accounting office study showing either 11 billion or 50 billion dollars waste in government and the GAO says it doesn't have such a service no it turned out it was the Justice Department that gave that figure and you said that it cost the government $3 to provide $1 worth of benefits and HEW says it costs 12 cents for a dollar of benefits and I wouldn't believe HEW if they were here in the room saying that there were several other facts like that cited do you dispute those or are you well I'd like to know something just happened tonight the UPI and a pretty good writer Don Lambrough 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 and it seems that one of the networks which shall be nameless went on the air and they'd gone to a fellow in government to ask him and he said why there were only 6,000 added in all these three years under the Carter administration but Mr. Lambrough 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 worked for the department of HEW however HEW is also paying the salaries of 1,000,000 additional workers who labor for HEW and 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 of these workers who collectively add millions to the roles are excluded from the government's employee records how much of their numbers increased over the last three years no one knows because no official count has ever been taken when this is added to the nearly 5,000,000 civilian and military employees on the government's official roles we see that as many as 14,000,000 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 all right sir you've covered that point now about the other points do you think that occasionally you do mention this yet certainly anyone that's standing up without notes and had living answers to questions is going to slip up one on some oil figures comparing Alaska and Saudi Arabia the figures weren't wrong but all the things that I've read and I've studied and researched on that I attributed them to the wrong report and gave U.S. Geological Survey the responsibility for having used those figures so again they checked simply with U.S. Geological Survey who said those figures weren't in our report but I found that that's all I had done in that particular what were some of those others you mentioned there because I've been waiting for an opportunity to do this I have confidence in the facts and figures that I've used I don't want to insist on them you said it cost three dollars to deliver one dollar benefits well I'll tell you 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're receiving and I figured that made three to one overhead in my view what we ought to be doing something about the employee thing you know Jimmy Carter fought the leech 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 there some would not be replaced he fought against that he campaigned on less people employed I drove by the EOB the other day and across from it is a building I am told his staff maybe some on temporary assignment by people really working for the White House White House staff is gone they don't feel any of this recession they don't feel any of these layoffs that the steel workers feel or felt or some of the people around here are beginning to feel and so that's what I do on that one on energy I don't believe frankly that there's enough oil in Alaska within the reasonable future to replace the nine million barrels a day we get from overseas I believe a decline curve is already set in on Alaska oil some companies have already started pulling out of Alaska and so my energy program is not just decontrol and figure we can get it all in Alaska but it's to use all in its sources of energy go with decontrol of course but to use all in its sources of energy as well let me ask you both about something that is just developing now and that is that famous recession we've 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 reduce inflation or try to halt a 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 a part of his fight against inflation unemployment is going to be allowed to go up one to one and a half or two percentage points now this is self-destructive because for every single percentage point that you add to the unemployment rolls you add $25 to $29 billion to the federal deficit both in the loss of revenue from those no longer working and the benefits that go out to them no I would do the things that I have talked about the regard to cutting of government and I can point to some experience in the same situation when I became governor of California it was just like the federal government bankrupt and with a deficit an amounting 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 that we're going to well it's been in effect about 18 months now and 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 in economics a total soft landing I don't believe it it's 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 and 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 would 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 CEDA program that gets some kids 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 but my problem with Jimmy Carter when he came in he addressed himself to one thing stimulation of employment sector and lowering unemployment and he did that to some degree for a while but inflation went right off the charts because of these reckless deficits well but he did other things to create the reckless deficits he said that he was going to streamline government and he streamlined it he created the energy industry that's got 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 as a I laughed when he called Teddy Kennedy the biggest spender in the Senate well he's the biggest spender that's ever been in the White House and 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 save 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've been able to make and 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 and I want to see an increase in productivity too and all I can say is I think the system you're talking about we've been trying for a lot of years really off and on and I think it is time for something new and 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 it's almost philosophical ladies and gentlemen please suppress your enthusiasm until we're finished because people would think someone's taking sides and 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 there's not government absolutely essential and hasn't it many achievements to its credit the most productive industry we have is agriculture and its productivity is due mainly to government productivity and 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 our most spectacular achievement lately the putting a man on the moon was a government project a government plan which popular private enterprise carried out aren't you underrating the effectiveness of government 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 and when you have a wartime economy of course you're gonna have government intervention in certain things stimulation of ship building for example but you tell you what's happening government has moved in on the private sector with so much regulation I build 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 twelve 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 people they provide person they provide for the defense and they can there's certain functions that government has in that are compassionate and I think good and I have a difference with the governor's 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're gonna 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 workforce Mr. Reagan yes Howard I just I bought some figures along here because I thought they might come in handy and here it is if Americans since 1950 now last 30 years had been able to save and invest if our economy had grown only one and a half percent more a year our incomes would be 50 percent higher jobs would be plentiful we'd 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 and 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're in the most dangerous point we've been in that I can recall they have we know about disorder in the streets and 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 you've both stated your viewpoints now I want to move things on to another subject there's supposed to be a third man here tonight congressman John Anderson of Illinois he 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 that you hope to take part in I think Ambassador Bush well I don't really believe after the initial flurry to make that much difference I believe that the more apt to pull from Jimmy Carter because his backing and those shoving him forward and helping him on this are those who I think would would be for Teddy Kennedy if they thought he was going to be in there and have a shot and so I don't view it I don't think it'll be third party I think he'll run as an independent and I think he'll have the same success that others have had that has run as independence 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's willing to support the nominee of the party he made very clear then that he was not prepared so to stay and I think you're 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 of good trips around the country I don't see but he's caught he's caught with because he doesn't have really the true credentials of a Kennedy and yet he seems to want to move away from the credentials that got him elected to the House and that dichotomy that contradiction is going to hurt him some but let him do what he wants I mean that's the way I look at it Governor, Governor you couldn't do what he wants one of the Reagan poll the other day said that 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 into the House of Representatives have a majority wouldn't that be a threat to you? That would be a disaster I think 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 and now he apparently is having some thoughts of using force which I think you've 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 of Persia is there not a danger if that were adopted that the Russians would send minesweepers in to sweep the mines to blockade and we'd have to either shoot or shut up you find that Governor Reagan a danger? Well it's difficult to talk about what is a viable option now as we're 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 get out loud and let the Iranians hear about it my criticism I don't mind criticizing what has been done and 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 the all the 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 hostage is 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've said mining it could include blockade if we mined and I'm sure those would be if we did it those would be the kind of mines that are activated by radio and can be deactivated but we would have to also prevent Russian minesweepers 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 I they they are regressive against an Afghanistan and an African so forth and even though they have a lead on us and virtually everything I don't think that maybe they're prepared at this time to dare the possible well the they don't want the confrontation directly with the United States wouldn't it be a quite a risk to find out whether they're willing or not Ambassador Bush when they are operating just on the other side of the border from their supply depots and we'll be operating 8,000 miles away from ours no it would not be that big a risk in my judgment I've 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 a rock 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 have Islam concerned almost united in their concern about the Soviet Union is over committed in Afghanistan as it is I don't believe your hypothesis correct Mr. Smith I don't believe the Soviets would escalate and 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 seed it the way once you mine no matter how many mines you put in insurance rates skyrocket for certain 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 and that's the president and a handful of his top top people and 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're dealing with outrageous reckless people who have no respect for international law they've already made a hostile act under any interpretation of international law seizing our embassy and so I wouldn't worry about the Soviets in this context for the reasons I've given you what about the option of doing nothing at all clearly the most important fact about Iran today is it's a country that hasn't completed its revolution there are probably more pro-U.S. people in Iran than we realize from watching television and seeing only anti-U.S. militants and if a showdown inside Iran which has probably begun already with the students fighting one another might see our side the side that wants to get along with us win but if we use force we may force Iran into Russian arms and endanger the hostages wouldn't it be worthwhile being patient a while longer since the hostages are apparently physically in good condition I don't think they've seen it as patience I think they've seen it as weakness and they have no respect for us they've humiliated us one of their officials that 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 have the United States had in those first hours had used all the diplomatic things that we've done not that commission from the UN because that isn't even in the UN Charter and I think it was a terrible precedent for us to set that the UN could do such a thing outside the Charter but all the diplomatic efforts we could make peacefully to get them back and then had used one of these and let us say hypothetically one of the harbors in 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 has shrunk down to the place that this is hardly going to 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 do them now look we don't want any trouble with you we'd like to be friends with you we'd like to work with you and we could be helpful to you and you've got a neighbor up north that's 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've gone on month after month letting this humiliation occur how about Afghanistan congressman Sam Stratton of New York went into the Pakistan border with Afghanistan says the Afghan rebels are using ancient weapons rifles of World War I vintage and he feels that we should send them very considerable aid since the Russians are accusing us of it anyhow do you believe we should absolutely and I've said it from the very beginning and look if you have a brutal aggression and you're not willing to help and I think the way to do it was through Pakistan to help what possible hope do countries have that want to be free of this kind of aggression you've got 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 Cubans are in Africa as a stabilizing influence they're going to go in there and use that stabilization to spread hegemony as the Chinese would say and so my view is that they are 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're going to be out supporting us for what we've 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 Middle East just as he did on the enhanced radiation weapon in German it took him three years to find out that the Soviets couldn't be trusted I agree completely that where people want to be free from Soviet or Cuban domination where the proxy troops are used as the Cubans 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 a complete blockade? Well I suggested that as a hypothetical again and it was based on this thing that 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 and 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 that serious consequences would follow now he knew he had no way to back that up there 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're still standing after he made the speech that he wouldn't accept the Soviet brigade in Cuba he accepted it and so my my feeling is that 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 well if they should do this or do that this is what we can do and I propose that there might be pressures we could exert in the Soviet Union where the logistics are not in their backyard and I said let me give one hypothetical idea and I said there may be others and 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'll drop the blockade around Cuba and I think this could be a great question here we have a fundamental difference because it wasn't Cubans that invaded Afghanistan, it was Russians and 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, interdiction of shipping interdiction of aircraft Kennedy didn't use the word blockade he used the word quarantine to quarantine Cuba 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 the hemispheric we got problems with Cuba? 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 Mediterranean or 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 a brigade we know about that holds combat maneuvers there Russia provides I guess about a tank or 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 is virtually a Soviet outpost has an imitator now in the island of Grenada has 500 advisors in Jamaica and some in Guyana and the influence is spreading all the time and what makes it seem ridiculous is it's a basket case of a nation about to collapse if Russia doesn't hold it down when Jimmy Carter came in he gave a great big abrazo, stopped the SR-71 flights and traded Cuba with civility while knocking the hell out of some of our allies in the further part of Latin America and people look at us and they say what's going on there this man is made a conscious decision in my judgment Castro to export the revolution, not support it Communists make this very interesting dialectic distinction between the support of revolution and the export, they've made this decision and yes, Grenada is now having their alliance with Castro, Guyana has been in trouble before, Grenada first Guyana has had their 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 in Central America today where I am absolutely convinced that Castro is not only fomenting but supplying the military equipment to stimulate revolution so what do you do about it you change your naive foreign policy that considers this guy as some kind of person that is really going to live comfortably inside that island and then certainly you adhere to human rights the United States always must adhere to that but Jimmy Carter didn't invent morality in foreign policy and so what I would do is I would keep our strategic interests in mind as I push for equity and change. Well, the next debate I'm going to ask you what you would do about Cuba but now we're going to have some questions from the audience Yes, my name is David Grossberg and I'd like to know do you think the children of illegal aliens should be allowed to attend Texas public schools free or do you think that their parents should pay for their education Who are you addressing that to? I think you're first in this Look and why did you? I'd say he was Look, I'd like to see something done about the illegal 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 they're what the 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'd like to see illegal we're doing two things we're creating a whole society of really honorable, decent family loving people that are in violation of the law and secondly we're 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 a whole if they're living here I don't want to see a whole I think it's six and eight year old kids being made you know one totally uneducated and made to feel that they're living with outside the law let's address ourselves to the fundamentals these are good people, strong people part of my family is a Mexican and 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've ever had and I think but we haven't been sensitive enough to our size and our power they have a problem of 40 to 50% unemployment now this cannot continue without the possibility of rising 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 go on 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 friend a fine relationship and it will solve the problem you mentioned also yes sir I'm Michael Appel and 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 next allocations will not be decreased how do you feel about this practice does that one for me too I'll be glad to respond if you crack at it first today 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 in the allocation system once upon a time the allocation of that product like any other product was made by the marketplace supply and demand today you have a government 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 for example recently while you're talking about too much here down in southern Florida act during the primary there they were running into a shortage because the agency had decided in the winter time people drive less than they do in the summer time and they didn't stop they think that 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 when we lined up at the gas stations they based our allocation on the 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 what I would add is that that example makes a good case against wage and price controls you've given a good example in the energy business energy department saying put the gasoline where the people aren't back when we had a gasoline problem 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 yes ma'am my name is Carla Manley and I'd like to ask with college cost 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 because I don't want to stand here and say we're going to maximize fund that to the fullest when I'm talking cutting back on some kinds of expenditure but I favor tuition tax credits I favor the student loan program I don't favor abuses in the student loan program that permit people with $100,000 income to get families that way to get loans at subsidized rates we're in agreement on that I've supported the idea of tuition tax credits also and the loan program in California we had a state scholarship program that was only $4 million when I became governor it was $43 when I left see I had to wash dishes in the girls dormitory to go to school that was one of the better jobs I've had I agree with that but isn't it basically again aren't we getting back to the first problem that the answer is that again is a casualty of inflation and until we get back down to common sense reasonable prices we're going to have these kind of problems yes ma'am Mr. Bush Mr. Reagan I'm Robina Gore 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 to start I thought I answered the latter one first well ma'am I don't know what the answer is going to be from the other end of the stage but I can tell you this one whether it's fear of jinxing myself or whatever it is I have refused to allow myself to even consider them 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 of delegates for the nomination Mr. Bush even with my new found 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 must be able to take over the minute the president was incapacitated and secondly a certain degree of loyalty to the president's views not ideological 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 agree with him on hardly any issue Vice President Mondale has been a good Vice 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 now you would recommend to the convention you would have to feel would carry out the programs that you had promised the people you were going to implement therefore whoever I picked would have to agree with the with the Kemperoth tax bill Thank you gentlemen now we have about one minute for closing statements that have just come out for a $30 million tax which is too bad three seconds off your closing statement I'm very pleased to be back in Texas I'm looking forward to the campaign in this my home state where I've lived for 30 years I believe that this kind of function and I thank the League of Women Voters is an extraordinarily good thing spell out the differences spell out it spell them out so the voter can best be determined best determined who can beat Jimmy Carter my view is this if we have a sensible economic policy that does not over promise 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 who have 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 we're apologizing for I think that living Americans today Jimmy Carter done more for the dignity of man than any people who've 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 who are going to follow us the same glittering opportunity that has been ours through 200 years of our history it is all here it is all possible to 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 lives controlling their destinies thank you that concludes our forum for tonight I want on behalf of the League of Women Voters to thank Ambassador Bush and Governor Reagan for being with us they 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