>> having a little trouble getting the balloons down. one is tustuck and the other is only partially open, we're getting kind of a water fall of balloons. you're watching american history tv. every weekend on c-span3, explore our nation's past. c-span3, created by america's disable television companies as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. in the 1980 election

president jimmy carter and former california governor ronald reagan debated once. the debate took place in cleveland, ohio one week before election day. good evening. i'm ruth hiner fald of the league of women voters education fund. next tuesday is election day. before going to the polls voters want to understand the issues and know the candidates' positions. tonight voters will have an opportunity to see and hear the major party candidates for the presidency, state their views on issues that affect us all. the league of women voters is proud to present this presidential debate. our moderator is howard k. smith. >> thank you, mrs. hiner field. the league of women voters is pleased to welcome to the cleveland, ohio convention

center music hall president jimmy carter, the democrat irparty's candidate for reelection to the presidency and governor ronald reagan of california, the republican party's candidate for the presidency. the candidates will debate questions on domestic, economic, foreign policy and national security issues. the questions are going to be posed by a panel of distinguished journalists who are here with me. they are marvin stone, the editor of u.s. news and world report, harry ellis, national correspondent to the christian science monitor, william hilliard, assistant managing editor of the oregonian, barbara walters, correspondent, abc news. the ground rules as agreed by you gentlemen are these. each panelist down here will ask the question, the same question, to each of the two candidates. after the two candidates have

answered, the panel will ask follow up questions, and then they will have an opportunity each to make a rebuttal. that will constitute the first half of the debate and i will state the rules for the second half later on. some other rules, the candidates are not permitted to bring prepared notes to the podium but are permitted to make notes during the debate. if the candidates exceed the allotted time agreed on i will reluctantly but certainly interrupt. we ask the convention center audience here to abide by one ground rule. please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate. based on a toss of the coin governor reagan will respond to the first question from marvin stone. >> governor, as you're well aware, the question of war and peace has emerged as a central issue in this campaign and the five and take of recent weeks president carter's been criticized for responding late to aggressive soviet impulses for insufficient build-up of our armed forces, and a paralysis in

dealing with afghanistan and iran. you have been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle, military action to deal with foreign crises. specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of american military power? >> i don't know what the differences might be because i don't know what mr. carter's policies are. i do know what he has said about mine. and i'm only here to tell you that i believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed. and then only with regard to our national security. now, i believe also that this meeting this mission, this

responsibility for preserving the peace, which i believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, that we cannot shirk our responsibility as the leader of the free world because we're the only one that can do it. and therefore the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. and to maintain that peace requires strength. america has never gotten an award because we were too strong. we can get into a war by letting events get out of hand as they have the last four years under the policies of president carter until we're faced with a crisis. and good management, in preserving the peace, requires that we control the events and try to intercept before they become a crisis. but i have seen four wars in my lifetime. i'm a father of sons. i have a grandson. i don't ever want to see another generation of young americans

bleed their lives into sandy beachheads in the pacific or rice patties and jungles in the -- in asia or the muddy battlefields of europe. >> mr. stone, do you have a follow up question for the governor? >> yes, governor, we've been hearing that the defense build-up that you would associate yourself with would cost tens of billions more than is now contemplated. assuming the american people are ready to bear this cost they nevertheless keep asking the following question. how do you reconcile huge increases in military outlays with your promise of substantial tax cuts, and of balancing the budget, which in this fiscal year, the one that just ended, ran more than $60 billion in the red. >> mr. stone, i have submitted an economic plan that i worked out in concert with a number of

fine economists in this country, all of whom approve it and believe that over a five-year projection this plan can permit the extra spending for needed refurbishing of our defensive posture. that it can provide for a balanced budget by 1983, if not earlier. and that we can afford, along with the cuts that i have proposed in government spending, we can afford the tax cuts i have proposed. and probably mainly because mr. carter's economic policy has built into the next five years and on beyond that a tax increase that would be taking $86 billion more next year out of the people's pockets than was taken this year. and my tax cut does not come close to eliminating that $86 billion increase. i'm only reducing the amount of the increase. in other words, what i'm talking about is not putting government back to getting less money than the government's been getting but simply cutting the increase

in spending. >> the same question now goes to president carter. president carter, would you like to have the question repeated? >> yes, president carter, the question of war and peace, the central issue in this campaign, you've been criticized for in the give and take for responding late to aggressive soviet impulses, for an insufficient build-up of our armed forces and a paralysis in dealing with afghanistan and iran. governor reagan, on the other hand, has been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle military action to deal with a foreign crises as i've mentioned. specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of american military power? >> mr. stone, i've had to make thousands of decisions since i've been president, serving in the oval office. and with each one of those decisions that affect the future of my country i have learned in the process. i think i'm a much wiser and more experienced man than i was

when i debated four years ago against president ford. i've also learned that there are no simple answers to complicated questions. hl macon said that for every problem there's a simple answer. it would be neat and plausible and wrong. the fact is that this nation, in the eight years before i became president, had its own military strength decrease seven out of eight years the budget commitments for defense went down. 37% in all. since i've been in office we've had a steady, carefully planned, methodical but very effective increase in our commitment for defense. but what we've done is to use that enormous power and prestige and military strength of the united states to preserve the peace. we've not only kept peace for our own country, but we've been able to extend the benefits of peace to others.

in the middle east we've worked for a peace treaty between israel and egypt successfully and have tied ourselves together with israel and egypt in a common defense capability. this is a very good step forward for our nation's security, and we will continue to do as we've done in the past. i might also add that there are decisions that are made in the oval office by every president which are profound in nature, there are always trouble spots in the world and how those troubled areas are addressed by a president alone in that oval office affects our nation directly. the involvement of the united states and also our american interests, that is a basic decision that has to be made so frequently by every president who serves. that's what i've tried to do successfully by keeping our country at peace. >> mr. stone, do you have a follow up? >> yes, i would like to be more specific on the use of military power and let's talk about one area for a moment.

under what circumstances would you use military forces to deal with, for example, a shutoff of persian oil gulf, if that should occur, or to counter a russian expansion beyond afghanistan into either iran or pakistan. i ask this question in view of charges that we are woefully unprepared to project sustained, and i emphasize the word sustained power, in that part of the world. >> mr. stone, many my state of the union address earlier this year, i pointed out that any threat to the stability or security of the persian gulf would be a threat to the security of our own country. in the past we've not had an adequate military presence in that region. now we have two major task forces. we have access to facilities in five different areas of that region. and we've made it clear that working with our allies and others, that we are prepared to address any forseeable eventuality which by commerce

with that crucial area of the world. but in doing this we have made sure that we address this question peacefully. not injecting american military forces in the combat, but letting the strength of our nation be felt in a beneficial way. this, i believe, has assured that our interests will be protected in the persian gulf region as we've done in the middle east and throughout the world. >> governor reagan, you have a minute to comment, or rebut. >> well, yes, i question the figure about the decline in the defense spending under the two previous administrations in the preceding eight years to this administration. i would call your attention that we were in a war that wound down during those eight years, which, of course made a change in military spending because of turning from war to peace. i also would like to point out that republican presidents in those years faced with a democratic majority in both houses of the congress found that their request for defense budgets were very often cut. now, gerald ford left a five-year projected plan for a

military build-up to restore our defenses. and president carter's administration reduced that by 38%. cut 60 ships out of the navy building program that had been proposed. and stopped the b-1, delayed the cruise missile, stopped the production line for the minuteman missile. delayed the submarine. and now is planning a mobile military force that can be delivered to various spots in the world which does make me question his assaults on whether i am the one that's quick to look for use of force. >> president carter, you have the last word on this question. >> well, there are various elements of defense. one is to control nuclear weapons which i hope we'll get to later on. that's the most important single issue in this campaign. another one is how to address troubled areas of the world. i think habitually governor reagan has advocated the injection of military forces into troubled areas. when i and my predecessors, both

democrats and republicans have advocated resolving those troubles and those difficult areas of the world, peacefully, diplomatically and through negotiation. in addition to that, the build-up of military forces is good for our country because we've got to have military strength in order to preserve the peace. but i'll always remember that the best weapons are the ones that are never fired in combat and the best soldier is one who never has to lay his life down on the field of battle. strength is imperative for peace, but the two must go hand in hand. >> thank you, gentlemen. the next question is from harry ellis, to president carter. >> mr. president, when you were elected in 1976, the consumer price index stood at 4.8%. it now stands at more than 12%. perhaps more significantly the nation's broader underlying inflation rate has gone up from 7% to 9%. now, a part of that was due to

external factors beyond u.s. control, notably the more than doubling of oil prices by opec last year. because the united states remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation, in fact, be controlled? if so, what measures would you pursue in a second term? >> again, it's important to put the situation into perspective. in 1974 we had a so-called oil shock. wherein the price of opec oil was raised to an extraordinary degree. we had an even worse oil shock in 1979. in 1974 we had the worst recession, the deepest and most penetrating recession since the second world war. the recession that resulted this time was the briefest we've had since the second world war. in addition we've brought down inflation.

earlier this year, the first quarter. he did have a very severe inflation pressure brought about by the opec price increase. second quarter we dropped it down to about 13%. the most recent figures, the third quarter of this year, the inflation rate is 7%. still too high. but it illustrates very vividly that in addition to providing an enormous number of jobs, 9 million new jobs in the last 3 1/2 years that the inflationary threat is still urgent on us. i noticed governor reagan mentioned the reagan kemp roth proposal which his own running mate, george bush, called it voodoo economics. business week, not a democratic publication, said this reagan kemp roth proposal and i quote them, i think, was completely irresponsible and would result in inflationary pressures which would destroy this nation. so our proposals are very sound

and very carefully considered to stimulate jobs, to improve the industrial complex of this country, to create tools for american workers, and at the same time would be anti-inflation nair in nature. so to add 9 million new jobs, to control inflation and to plan for the future with an energy policy now intact as a foundation is our plan for the years ahead. >> mr. ellis, do you have a follow up question for mr. carter? >> yes, mr. president. you have mentioned the creation of 9 million new jobs. at the same time the unemployment rate still hangs high as does the inflation rate. now, i wonder, can you tell us what additional policies you would pursue in a second administration in order to try to bring down that inflation rate? and would it be an act of leadership to tell the american people they're going to have to sacrifice to adopt a leaner

lifestyle for some time to come? >> yes, we have demanded that the american people sacrifice and they've done very well. as a matter of fact, we are importing today about one-third less oil from overseas than we did just a year ago. we've had a 25% reduction since the first year i was in office. at the same time, as i said earlier, we have added about 9 million net new jobs in that period of time, a record number before achieved. also the new energy policy has been predicated on two factors, one conservation, which requires sacrifice, and the other one increase in production of american energy, which is going along very well. more coal this year than ever before in history, more oil and gas wells drilled this year than ever before in history. the new economic revitalization program that we have in mind which will be implemented next year will result in tax credits which would let business invest in new tools and new factories to create even more new jobs, about a million in the next two

years and we also have planned a youth employment program which would encompass 600,000 jobs for young people. this has already passed the house and now has an excellent prospect to the senate. >> the same question goes to governor reagan. would you like to have the question repeated? >> yes, please. >> governor reagan, during the past four years the consumer price index has risen from 4.8% to currently over 12%. and perhaps more significantly nation's broader underlying rate of inflation has gone up from 7% to 9%. now, a part of that has been due to external factors beyond u.s. control, and notably the more than doubling of opec oil prices last year, which leads me to ask you whether, since the united states remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation, in fact, be controlled? if so, specifically what measures would you pursue? >> mr. ellis, i think this idea

that has been spawned here in our country, that inflation somehow came upon us like a plague, and therefore it's uncontrollable and no one can do anything about it is spirely spurious and it's dangerous to say this to the people. when mr. carter became president inflation was 4.8%. as you said it had been cut in two by president gerald ford. it is now running at 12.7%. president carter also has spoken of the new jobs created. we always, with the normal growth in our country, an increase in population, increased the number of jobs. that can't hide the fact that there are 8 million men and women out of work, and 2 million have lost their jobs in just the last few months. mr. carter also promised he would not use employment -- his 1980 economic message stated we would reduce productivity and gross national product and increase unemployment in order to get a handle on inflation because of in january at the

beginning of the year it was more than 18%. since then he has blamed to the people for inflation opec, he's blamed the federal reserve system. he has blamed the lack of productivity of the american people. he has then accused the people of living too well. and that we must share in scarcity. we must sacrifice and get used to doing with less. we don't have inflation because the people are living too well. we have inflation because the government is living too well. and the last statement, just a few days ago, was a speech to the effect that we have inflation because government revenues have not kept pace with government spending. i see my time is running out here. i'll have to get this down very fast. yes, you can lick inflation by increasing productivity, and by decreasing the cost of government to the place that we have balanced budgets and are no longer grinding out printing press money, flooding the market with it, because the government is spending more than it takes in. and my economic plan calls for that. the president's economic plan

calls for increasing the taxes to the point that we finally take so much money away from the people that we can balance the budget in that way. but we'll have a very poor nation, and a very unsound economy if we follow that path. >> a follow up, mr. ellis? >> yes, you have centered on cutting government spending in what you have just said about your own policies. you have also said that you would increase defense spending. specifically where would you cut government spending if you were to increase defense spending and also cut taxes so that presumably federal revenues would shrink? >> well, most people, when they think about cutting government spending they think in terms of eliminating necessary programs or wiping out something, some service the government is supposed to perform. i believe there is enough extravagance, in fact, in government, as a matter of fact one of the secretaries of hew under mr. carter testified that

he thought there was $7 billion worth of fraud and waste in welfare. and in the medical programs associated with it. we've had the general accounting office estimate that there is probably tens of billions of dollars that is lost in fraud alone and they have added that waste adds even more to that. we have a program for a gradual reduction of government spending based on these theories. and i have a task force now that's been working on where those cuts could be made. i'm confident that it can be done, and that it will reduce inflation because i did it in california. and inflation went down below the national average in california when we returned money to the people and reduced government spending. >> president carter. >> governor reagan's proposal in the reagan kemp roth proposal is one of the most highly inflationary ideas that ever has been presented to the american public. he would actually have to cut

government spending by at least $130 billion in order to balance the budget under this ridiculous proposal. i notice that his task force, that's working for his future plans, had some of their ideas revealed in the "wall street journal" this some ideas this w. one of the ideas was to repeal the minimum wage. several times this year they have said the major government is government aide. this is a heartless approach which is typical of many republican leaders in the past, and i i think it has been accentuated. in california, i'm surprised that governor reagan brought this up. he had the three largest tax increases in the history of that state under his administration. he had a $122% increase. >> sorry to disrupt.

governor reagan has the last word on this question. >> yes, the figures that the president has just juiced about california is a distortion of the situation there. while i was governor of california our spending increased less per capita than the spending in jageorgia. the size of government increased only one sixth. and the idea that my tax cut proposal is inflationary, i would like to ask the president why is it okay to keep people keep the money and spend the way like -- >> i wish that was not restore kal, but it is because we have run out of time. the third question from william

hilliard. >> the decline of the city has been hastened by the continue rise in crime. the presis tense of poverty in a rich nation and a decline in the services to the public. the signs seem to point toward a deterioration that could lead to an under class in the facilities. what would you do in the next four years to reverse this trend? >> i have been talking to a number of congressmen that have the same idea that i have. that is that in the inner if i areas that in cooperation with local government and with national government and using tax incentives and in cooperation with the private sector that we have development zones with the local entity declaring this area based on the standards of the percentage of

people and inducing the creation of jobs in those areas. the elements of government through these tax incentives, those that would have an increase in the property tax, reflecting the unused property it was making there. the city is not getting any tax from that now and there would be a delay and many of the other people given jobs are not hurting to give them a tax incentive. that would not be costing government anything either. i think there are things to do in this regard. i today in the ooday in the sou

bronx. painted on one of them unkept promises, on the other, despair. and this is the pot at which president carter promised to bring in a vast program to rebuild this department. there is -- this area, there are who blocks of land that are left bare just bull dosed down flat. and nothing has been done, and they are now charging to take tourist through there to see the terrible desolation. i suppose to a man briefly there. do i have reason to hope that i can some day take care of my family again. nothing has been done. >> follow up, mr. hilliard? >> yes, blacks and other nonwhites are increasing in numbers in our cities. many of them feel they're facing hostility from whites that keeps them from joining the economic mainstream. there is racial confrontation as nonwhites seek to reap the

benefits of a free society. what do you think is the nation's future as a multiracial society. >> i believe in it. i am eternally optimistic. and i happen to believe we made great progress from the days when i was young and when the country didn't know it had a racial problem. i know those things can grow out of despair and out of a inner city when there is hopelessness at home. lack of work and so forth, but i believe that all of us together and i believe that the presidency is a believe pulpit. i think that something can be done from there. the goal for all of us is that despite of any differences between us. whatever they may be, and i will

do everything in my power to bring that about. >> mr. hilliard, will you repeat your question for president carter? >> president carter, the decline of our cities has been hastened by crime, strained race relations, the fall in the quality of public education. the persistent of assistance. the signs are pointing to a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent under class in the cities. what would you do in the next four years to reverse this trend? >> when i was campaigning in 1976 everywhere that i went the mayors antelo quay officials were in despair about the deteriorating central cities. we had an urban renewal program. this has been a very successful effort.

that is one of the reasons we have had to many people employed. of the nine million, 1.3 million has been among black americans and and another million among those who speak spanish. we're planning to continue the revitalization program with increased commitments of rapped transit. we expect to spend about $43 billion in the next ten years to rebuild our programs. we had a 73% increase in the allotment of our federal funds for education. this is the kinds of efforts worked on a joint basis in the areas of central cities that have been deteriorating in the past. it is very important that this be done with the citizens and

into the judicial system. highly qualified black and spanish citizens and women who in the past had been excluded. i notice that governor reagan said when he was a young ere younger man that there was no knowledge of a racial problem in the country. those that suffered because of discrimination for race or sex knew that we had a racial problem. we have gone a long way to correct them but we still have a long way to go. >> follow up question? >> yes, i would like to repeat the same follow up to you. blacks and other nonwhites are increasing in numbers in our city. many feel they're facing a society that is not fair, what

is your assessment of the future of a multiracial society? >> a nation for ref gees, a nation of immigrants, almost all of our citizens came from other lands, and they're preserving their ethnic commitments, preserving their relationships with their relatives in foreign countries and still forming together in a copermanent society. in the past those minority groups have been exclouded from participation in the affairs of government. more than twice as many black federal judges as all previous presidents have done the same thing in the dth of women and also spanish speaking americans.

to make sure they feel like they belong, in the judiciary and the executive branch is a very important commitment that i'm trying to relz and will continue to do so in the future. >> the president talks of government programs, and they have their place, but when i was governor, at that end of the line, i saw so many were dead end public employment for people that want to get into the private job market where there are jobs with a future. the president said i was against the minimum wage. i wish he could have been with me when i sad with a group of teenagers who were black and telling me about their unemployment problems, and this it was the minimum wage that had done away with the jobs they once could go get. every time it has increased you

will find there is a decrease in unemployment among young people. so i have been in favor of a separate minimum for them. the rate of unemployment is 56%. >> it is obviously that we still have a long way to go. we have made good progress, and there is no doubt in my mind that the commitment to unemployment compensation, national insurance, those kinds of commitments that have created ancient history are important for the future. in all of those elements he has spoken out against them that shows a great insensitivity to giving deprived families a better chance at life.

this to me is a very important difference between him and me and i believe the american people will judge accordingly. in the downtown central gis with a new commitment on energy policy, a chance to revitalize homes and make them more fuel efficient, a chance for a synthetic program, this will give us an additional opportunity for jobs that will pay dividends. >> the final question is from barbara walters. >> theys of the country tonight are on the os substantials in iran. i realize this is a sensitive area, but the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism goes beyond this. israel considers hostages like soldiers and think will not

negotiate with terrorists. what did we learn from this experience in ran that might cause us to do something familiar if manage like this happens again. >> one of the plights on this world is a threat and the activities of terrorists. at one of the recent economic smumt conferences between myself and the other leaders we committed ours to take strong action against terrorism. there is no doubt that we have seen in recent years, in recent months, additional acts of violence against jus, france, and of course against those that live in israel by the plo other other organizations. lultly tultimately the most

serious threat is if a terrorist should have atomic weapons. i and all of my predecessor vs. had a great effort to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. we have saids our closer trade partners. when the governor has been asked about that, he says nonproliferation, or the troll of the spread of nuclear weapons is none of our business. when he was asked specifically recently about iron, he said there was nothing we could do about it. this ultimate terrorist threat is the most fearsome of all and it is part of a pattern where our country must stand firm to control transform of all kinds. >> mrs. walters, a follow up? >> yes, while we are kwusing

policy, had iran not taken american hostages we would have spotted the flow of spare parts going to iron and iran. doesn't this reward terrorism, compromise our neutrality and possibly antagonize companies that ally with us in the middle east? >> we have no plans to sell additional material or goods to iron. when i made my decision to stop all trade with iran as a russian of a taking of our os damages. i announced then and have maintained that if they are

delivered safe hi, also that the frozeen assets would be released. that has been a consistent plan that i plan to carry out. >> governor the eyes in country remains on our. israel, for example, considers hostages like soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists. for the future the country has the right to know do you have a policy for dealing with transforms and what have we learn from from this experience that might cause us to do something differently if this or something else like this happens again. >> you asked twice, and i think you should get at least one

answer. i have been accused of having a secret plan. the question would be have you any ideas of what you would do if you're there. i said yes, i think anyone seeking this position, as well as other people probably, thought to themselves what about this, what about that. these are just ideas of what i would think of if i informs that position and have access to the information. i would not answer the question, second, the one that tells me what are some of those ideas. i would be fare tofl say something that was presently under way or in negotiations and expose it and endanger the hostages. sometimes my ideas might involve quite deplom si where you don't say in advance what it is you're thinking of doing. your question is difficult to answer because in the situation

right now no one wants to say anything that would inadvertently delay the return of the hostages or that might cause them har much. what i do think should be done once they're safely here with their families and that tragedy is over, and we have endured this humiliation for just short of one week of a year here. i think it is time to have a complete investigation. why they have been here so long, and when they come home, what did we have to do nord to bring that about. i thought congress should hold such an investigation. ly continue to pray that they come home. >> neither candidate answered specifically the question of a policy for dealing with

terrorism, but i will ask a different follow up question. you suggested there would be no iranian crisis if you had been premise. but iran is a country of 37 million people. my question is not whether or not ret shegime was preferable, will they form any country they have and do we pop unpopular regimes who say they're friendly to the united states? >> the degree of unpopularity of a regime, when the choice is authoritarianism, totalitarianism makes one wonder if you're being helpful to the people. we have been guiltiy of that because someone didn't meet our exact lines of human rights.

we have fwhb a number of instances, aided a revolutionary overthrow which results in compete totalitarianism for those people. i think this is a hypocritical policy. we're maintaining a fight with the soviet union. there was a second faze in the affair, and that was that we had add quantity warning that there was a threat to our embassy. before the kidnap and the take you're took place. >> i must interrupt, president carter you have a minute for rebuttal. >> i didn't hear any comment from governor reagan about what he would do in the future. they would stop all commercial

a airflights to any nation involved or the harboring of hijackers. secondly we committed ourselves not to permit the spread of nuclear weapons to a terrorist nation or any other nation that does not have the capabilities for explosives. third not to make any tale of weapons to a nation travelled in terrorist activities. and not to deal with the plo until nay recognize the right to exist and the middle east peace. these a few things to which our nation is committed and we will continue with these commitments. >> you have the last word on that question. i have no quarrel with the things that are done. i think it is high time that there is no room worldwide for

terrorism. there is no negotiations with terrorists of any kind and i would like to create a misdaytime of fact. a foreign policy on offer. >> thank you, that is the first half of the debate. the rules are quite simple. and i will explain they are quite simple. in the second half the panel is with me and we'll have no follow up questions. instead after the panelists have asked a question the candidates have answered. each candidate will have two opportunities to follow up. govern reg listen respond to the first question for morgan stone. >> the president said it was the

single most important question. both of you will have the desired and nuclear arms race with russia by by numbers that are fastly different. you suggest that we scrap the treaty already negotiates and the old up of american power to endeuce the soviets to sign a new treaty. one more favorable to us. president carter on the other hand will again try to convince a reluctant congress to ratify it it is the best that we can hope to can you tell yus you think you are? >> i believe that we must have a consistent foreign policy. a strong america and a strong economy. and as we build up our national security to restore our margin of safety, we have to restrain the soviet build up that is

going forward at a rapid pace, and for quite some time. the salt two treaty was the result of negotiations that president carter entered into after he asked the soviet union for a discussion of reduction of nuclear strategic weapons. his emissary came home in 12 hours with hearing a very different no. but taking that one no from the soviet union we went back into the negotiations on their terms because mr. carter canceled the b 1 bomber, delayed the cruise missile, the three minute men miss patrile production line an other things that have been done. the soviet union sat at the table knowing we had concessions

without any reciprocation from them whatsoever. now i have not blocked the treaty as mr. carter suggests that i have. it it has been blocked by a senate in which there is a democratic majority. indeed the senate armed services committee voted 10-0 with seven abstentions against the treaty and declared it was not in the national security interests of the united states. besides which it is illegal. the law of the land passed by congress says we cannot accept a treaty in which we are not equal. and we're not equal in this treaty for one reason alone. our b 52 bombers are strategic weapons and their backfire bombers are not. >> the time is up for that, but the same question now to president carter. >> yes, both of you expressed the desire to end the nuclear arms race with russia, but

through vastly different mends. the government suggested we scrap the treaty that you negotiated in vienna, intensify the build up, a treaty more favorable to us. you say you will try to convince congress to ratify the present trety on the grounds. it's the best that we can hope to get from the russians. you cannot both be right, will you tell yus you think you are? >> yes, i would will glad to. inflation, unemployment, the cities, all important issues, but they pale in significant kansas when compared to nuclear weapons. every president that has served since harry true man has been dedicated to nuclear weapons.

to negotiate with the soviet union. balanced, controlled, observab e observable, and reducing levels of atomic weaponry. there is a disturbing pattern in the attitude of govern rea gove. he has never supported those agreements. the test pan, nor the antiballistic missile treat, nor the treaty negotiated with the soviet union, and now he wants to throw into the waste basket a treaty to control nuclear weapons between the soviet union and over a seven year period by myself and two republican prez s spread s predecessors. there will be problems in the treaty of the senate, but they

have not come to the floor for a debate or a vote if is understand tha understandable that a senator can make an irresponsible statement or ill advised statement. you have 99 other senators to correct that mistake if there is a mistake. but when a man who hopes to be president says take this creat , discard it, do not vote, do not debate, do not explore the issues. do not finally capitalize on the long negotiation, that is a very dangerous and disturbing thing. >> governor reagan, you have an opportunity to rebut that. >> the soviet union, if i have been critical of some of the previous agreements it's because we have been out-negotiated for a long time. they have managed in spite of all of our attempts at arms

limitation to go forward with the biggest military build up in the history of man. to suggest that two military presidents tried to pass the treaty that puts them on their side, i would like to say that president ford who is within 90% of a treaty that we could be in agreement with when he left office, is emphatically against this treaty. i would like to point out also point out that they are taking the lead in the fight against this particular creat treaty. i'm not talking of scrapping. i'm talking of taking the treaty back and going back into negotiations. i would say to the soviet union that we will negotiate with you as long as it takes to have a reduction of these nuclear weapons to the point that neither one of us represents a threat to the other n.

that is hardly throwing away a treaty. >> president carter? >> governor reagan is making misleading and disturbing statements. he not only wants to scrap a treaty, but he advocates a possibility -- he say it's has been a missing element of playing a trump card against a soviet union of a nuclear arms race and insisting on nuclear superiority by our own nation as a predication for negotiation in the future. if we were told that they would scrap the treaty, we insist on nuclear superiority as a basis for future negotiations and we believe that the launching of a nuclear arms race is a good basis for future negotiations

it's obviously that i as president and all americans would reject this. it would mean the resumption of a very dangerous nuclear arms race. it would be disturbing. it would change the tone and the commitment ever since the second world war with all presidents. and it would be very disturbing to our allies. all of whom support this nuclear arms treaty. in addition to that the adversarial relationship between ourselves and the soviet union would deteriorate very rapidly. this attitude is extremely dangerous and belligerent in it's tone even though it is said with a quiet voice. >> i know the president is supposed to be replying to me but sometimes i have a hard time connecting with what he is saying with what i have said or what my positions on. sometimes i think he is like the witch doctor that gets mad when a good doctor comes along with a cure that will work. the -- my point that i have made

already, mr. president, with regard to negotiating is it does not call for nuclear superiority on the part of the united states. it is cause for a mutual reduction of the weapons so that neither of us can be a threat to the other. the treaty that you're negotiating was just a continuation and based on all of the proceeding efforts by two previous presidents is just not true. it was a new negotiation because as i say president ford was within about 10% of a solution that was acceptable. i think our allies will be very happy to go along with a fair and verifiable s.a.l.t. agreement. >> i think to close out this discussion it would be better to put into perspective what we're talking about. i had a discussion with my daughter amy the other day before i came here and i asked

her what the most important issue was. she said she thought it was nuclear weaponry. the control of nuclear arms, this is a formidable force. some of these weapons have ten megatons of explosion. if you put 50 tons of tnt in a railroad cars, you would have a train load stretching across the country, that is one major explosion in a warhead. we have thousands. the equivalent of a mega ton, or a million tons of tnt warheads. the control of the weapons is the single major responsibility of a president. and so cast down this commitment of all presidents because of some slight technicalities that can be corrected is a very dangerous approach.

>> mr. president, as you said americans through conservation are importing less oil today than we were even a year ago. yet u.s. dependence on oil as a percentage of total imports is today higher than it was at the time of the 1973 arab oil imbar imbargo. and it could plunge the u.s. into depression. this mean that's a bridge must be built out of this dependence. can the united states develop synthetic fuels and other alternative energy sources without damage to the environment and will this process mean steadily higher fuel bills for american families? >> i don't think there is any doubt that in the future the cost of oil is going to go up. what i have had as a basic commitment since i have been

president is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. it can only be done in two ways. one to conserve energy, top the waste of energy, and secondly to produce more american energy. we have been successful in both cases. we have now reduced the importing of foreign oil in the last year alone by one-third. we imported today two million barrels less than this time two years ago. this commitment is opening up a very bright vista if our future. with the windfall profits tax as a base we can use american technology and ability. to expand rapidly the production of solar energy, yes. and to produce a conventional kind of american energy. we will drill more oil and gas

wells this year than any other in history. we'll produce more coal this year than any year in history. we're exporting more coal this year than any in history. and we have an opportunity now with improved transportation systems, improved loading facilities, to see a very good opportunity on a world international market. with american coal as a basic energy source. this exciting future will not only give us more energy security, but it will also open up our fast opportunities for americans to live a better life teen have milli and to have jobs with this new and dynamic industry. because of a new energy policy that we put into effect. >> would you repeat the question now from governor reagan. >> americans through conservation are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. and yet u.s. reliance on arab oil as a percentage of total

imports is higher today than it was in the 1973 arab oil embargo. the substantial loss of arab oil could plunge the united states into depression. the yes is whether or not the development of alternative energy sources, in order to reduce this dependence, can be done without damaging the environment and will it mean for american families steadily higher fuel bills? >> i'm not so sure that it means steadily higher fuel costs, but i do believe that this nation has been portrayed for too long of a time to the people as being energy poor when it is energy rich. the coal that the president mentioned, yes, we have it. one eighth of our total coal resources is not being used right now. there is 22,000 miners out of work. many of this is due to regulations that interfere with

the mining of it. with our modern technology we can burn our coal within the limits of the clean air act. i think as technology improves we will be able to do more with that. the other thing is that we have only leased out, and started to explore, 2% of our outer continental shelf for oil. where it is believed by everyone familiar with that fuel and that source of energy that there are vast sources of energy. the government has taken out millions of acres of public land that was subject to multiple use exploration. if is believed that the oil is hid nn those lands and no one is even allowed to go in and find out if it is there, they could

take more and it costs more to build in japan than in western europe. we have the resources here, we're energy rich, and coal is a great potential that we have. >> president carter, your comment? >> yes, sir. to repeat myself we have, this year, the opportunity that we will real to produce 800 million

tons of coal. he blames restraints on regulations. regulations that affect the life and the health and safety of miners. and also regulations to protect the purity of our air and the quality of our warter and our land. we cannot cast aside those regulations. we have a chance, insisting on the health and safety of workers in the mines, and also preserving the same high air and water pollution standards to triple the amount of coal that we produce. governor reagan's approach to our energy policy is to repeal or exchange the windfalls profits tax. to return a major portion of $227 billion back to the oil countries. to put a mill man emphasis on solar power to emphasize plants

a source in the future. he wants to give that basket to the major oil companies. >> governor reagan? >> that is a misstatement of my position. i believe that free enterprise can do a better job of producing the things that people need than government can. the department of energy has a multibillion dollar budget in excess of $10 billion. and for mr. carter to suggest that i want to do away with the safety laws and the laws that pertain to clean water and clean air seen forth, as governor of california, i took charge of passing the strictest air pollution laws in the unite. the strictest air quality law that has ever been adopted in the united states, and we created an osha, an occupational

safety and health association for employees, and to this day not a single ruling has been challenged. i'm suggesting that there are literally thousands of unnecessary regulations that invade every facet of business and indeed, very much of our personal live that's are unnecessary. that government can do without that added $130 billion to the cost of production in this country, and that are contributing their part to inflation. and i would like to see us a little more free as we once were. >> president carter, another crack at that? >> the air pollution standard laws that were passed in california were passed over the objections of governor reagan. and this is a very well known fact also recently when someone suggested that the okay national

safety and health act should be aboli abolished, governor reagan responded "amen." the off-shore grillidrilling ri social security something proposed often. 100% of the lands would be open for exploration. and 95% where it is suspected or believed that minerals might exist. we have with our five-year plan for the leasing of off-shore lands proposed more land to be drilled than has been opened up for drilling since this program first started in 1954. we're not putting restraints on american exploration, we're encouraging it in every way that we can. >> governor reagan, you have the last word on this question. >> if it is a well-known fact that i opposed air pollution laws in california the only thing that i can think of is

that the president must be suggesting is the law that the federal government tried to impose that would have made it imresponsible to drive an automobile within the city limits of any california city or have a place to put it if you did drive it against their regulations. it would have destroyed the economy of california, and we had the support of congress when we pointed out how ridiculous this attempt was. we still have the strictest air pollution laws. 2% now is producing oil. and the rest for whether or not they will be open to the next five years or so, we're five years behind in what we should be doing. there is more oil now in the wells that have been drilled than has been taken out in the

121 years they have been drilled. >> the next question goes to governor reagan from william hilliard. >> wage earnings in this country, especially the young, are supporting a social security that affects their income drastically. it is drifting the country toward a polarization of these groups. >> the social security system was based on a false premise about how fast the employees would increase. it is out of balance and this first became evident about 16 years ago. some of us were voicing warnings then. now it is trillions of dollars out of balance. and the only answer that is

coming so far is the payroll tax that will only put a bandaid on this and postpone the day of reckoning by a few years at most. what is needed is a study of experts to look into this entire problem of how it can be made actua actua actuaryly sound. but with the premise that no one will have the rug pulled out from under them and not get their check. we cannot frighten as we have with the threats and the campaign rhetoric our senior citizens and leave them thinking that they're endangered and they have no place to turn. they must continue to get the checks and i believe the system can be put on a sound bay suggestion. but it will take study and work and not just passing atax increase to let the roof fall in on the next administration.

>> would you repeat that question for president carter? >> yes, president carter, wage earners in this country are supporting a security system that continues to affect their income drastically. it is fostering a struggle between young and old and drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. how much longer can the young wage earner expect to support the social security system? >> as long as i'm president we'll have a free and viable social security free of the threat of bankruptcy. governor reagan changed his position lately, but he has advocated for making it a voluntary system which would bankrupt it. i noticed in the "wall street journal" this week, they add vote case for making it more sound by reducing the

adjustments of contributions for the retired people to compensate for the impact of inflation. these kinds of approaches are dangerous for the security and the well-being and the peace of mind of the retired people of this country and those approaching retirement age. no matter what it takes in the future to keep social security sound, it must be kept that way. although it was a serious threat, during the 1976 campaign, the action of a democratic congress working with me has been to put social security back on a sound financial footing. that's the way it will stay. >> that just isn't true. it is, as i said, delayed the actuarial imbalance from falling on us in just a few years. i don't believe we can go on increasing the tax because the problem for the young people today is they're paying in far

more than they can expect to get out. the idea that i wanted to destroy it and i have just changed my tune, that i was for voluntary security, the voluntary thing that i urgent issed many years ago is that a young man, or fanned and raised by an aunt, she was ineligible, i suggest that if this is a insurance program, they won't be able to maintain beneficiaries. i, too, have pledged to a security program that will reassure these senior citizens of ours. there are chances that i would like to make. i would like to change the

discriminations against a wife who works and finds that she faced with a choice between her husband's benefits or what she has paid in, but it does not recognize that she has been paying in herself and she is entitled to more than she can presently get. i would like to change that. >> the suggestion that these should be changed causes concern about the aged of our country. it is obviously that we should have a commitment to them. that social security benefits should not be taxed and there would be no change by which social security payments are made to the american people. we need to continue to index the social security payments so that if inflation rises they would rise a commensurate degree.

in the past the relationship between social security and medicare has been important providing a modicum of income for senior citizens with health benefits. governor reagan started his career campaigning against medicare. now we can move toward national health insurance with an emphasis on the prevention of disease. an emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of hospital care for those who are ill. an emphasis on catastrophic health insurance so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically then the insurance would help pay for it. these are the kind of elements of a national insurance. governor reagan is typically

against such a government. >> there you go again. there was another piece of legislation meeting with the same problem before the congress. i happen to favor the other piece of legislation and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. i was not opposing the principal of providing care for them. i was opposing one piece of legislation as versus another. there is something else about security that doesn't come out of the payroll tax, it comes out of the general fund that something should be done about. i think it is disgraceful that the disability insurance fund finds checks going every month to tens of thousands of people that are locked up for crime or mental illness and they're receiving disability checks every month while a state

institution provides for their needs and their care. >> president carter, you have the last word on this question. >> i think this debate on security, medicare, national insurance typifies the differences between the democratic party and the republican party. the change and the comments that government-run reagan made about compensation. these commitments that have been historically made to the working families of this association have been extremely important to the growth in their stature and in a better quality of life for them. i noticed recently that he quotes democratic presidents. i have never heard a candidate for president who is a republican quote a republican president, but when they get in

office they try to governor like republic govern like republicans. there is a sharp basic historical difference between governor reagan and me on these issues. >> thank you, mr. president, we now go to another question, a question to president carter by barbara walters. >> you have addressed some of the major issues tonight, but the biggest issue in the mind of american voters is yourselves. your ability to lead this country. when many voters go into that booth a week from today they will be voting their gut instinct. you have given us your reasons why people should vote for you, now would you please tell us why for your final question they should not vote for your opponent. why his presidency could be harmful to the nation, and having examined your opponents record and the man himself tell him the greatest weakness.

>> as reluctant as i am to say anything anything testify about govern negative about governor reagan, i will try. this is a contest between a democrat in my party as contrasted with governor reagan who does typify his party, but in some case there's is a radical departure by him from the heritage offize ize eisenho others. the most crucial difference in my judgment is the approach to the control of nuclear weaponry and the incarnation to control or not control the spread of atomic weapons to other nations that don't presently have it. presently the nations.

he wants to inject military forces in places like north korea, put a blockade around cuba, or to inject american forces in a fishing dispute with the small nation of ecuador. this is typical of his long standing incarnation on the use of american power, not to resolve disputes dip mlomatical and peacefully, but to show that the exercise of military power is best proven by the use of it. obviously no president wants war. and i certainly do not believe that he would want war, but the

president in the oval office has to make jufrt about how he wants to exercise the freedom of our nation. in a attitude that has exemplified his attitudes in the past. >> barbara, would you repeat the question for governor reagan. >> yes, realizing that you may be equally reluctant to speak ill of your opponent, why could your opponent's patrick swayze si presidency be harmful to the nation. >> barbara, i believe there is a fundamental difference. i think it has been been in most of the answers he has given tonight. that he seeks a lugs fsolution everything to be another government power. it belongs at the state and

local level. it is imposed on the individual freedoms of the people, and there are more things that could be solved by the people themselves if they were given a chance or by the levels of government that were closer to them. now as to why i should be and he should not be, when he was a candidate in 1976, president carter invented something called the misery index. he added the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflati inflation. at that time it came to 12.5. he said that no man with that size misery index had a right to seek reelection to the presidency. today by his own decision, the misery index is in excess of 20%. i think this must suggest something. but when i quoted a democratic president, i was a democrat. i said many foolish things back in those days, but the president

that i quoted made a promise, a democratic promise, and i quoted him because it was never kept. and today you would find that that promise is at the heart of what republicanism is at the heart of this country today. they, too, want that approximate ke promise kept. it was a promise of less taxes and more freedom for the american people. >> president carter, i mentioned the radical departure of governor reagan from the principals or ideals for the historical perspective of his own party. i think this is best shown with guaranteeing women equal rights under the constitution of our nation. for 40 years we called for guaranteeing women equal rights

with a constitutional amendment. six prez ses tdecessors of mine for this guarantee of rights. governor very severe blow for t opportunity of women to finally correct discrimination under which they have suffered. when a man and a woman do the same amount of work, a man gets paid a dollar, a woman only gets paid 59 cents. and the equal rights amendment always says that equality of rights shall not be abridged for women by the federal government or by the state government. that's all it says. a simple guarantee of equality of opportunity which typifies the democratic party and which is a very important commitment of mine as contrasted with governor reagan's radical departure from the longstanding policy of his own party. >> governor reagan. >> yes. mr. president, once again, i

happen to be against the amendment because i think the amendment will take this problem out of the hands of elected legislators and put it in the hands of unelected judges. i am for equal rights, and while you have been in office for four years and not one single state, and most of them have a majority of democratic legislators, has added to the ratification or voted to ratify the equal rights amendment. when i was governor more than eight years ago, i found 14 separate instances where women were discriminated against in the body of california law, and i had passed and signed into law 14 statutes that eliminated those discriminations, including the economic ones that you have just mentioned, equal pay and so forth. i believe that if in all these years that we've spent trying to get the amendment that we spend as much time correcting these laws as we did in california and we were the first to do it. if i were president, i would also now take a look at the hundreds of federal regulations

which discriminate against women and which go right on while everyone is looking for an amendment. i would have someone ride herd in those regulations and we would start eliminating those discriminations in the federal government against women. >> president carter? >> i'm a southerner, and i share the basic beliefs of my region about an excessive government intrusion into the private affairs of american citizens and also into the private affairs of the free enterprise system. one of the commitments that i made was to deregulate the major industries of this country. we've been remarkably successful with the help of a democratic congress. we've deregulated the air industry, the rail industry, the trucking industry, financial institutions. in addition to that, i believe this element of discrimination is something that the south has seen so vividly as a blight on our region of the country which has now been corrected. not only racial discrimination,

but discrimination against people that have to work for a living. because we have been trying to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps since the long depression years and lead a full and useful life in the affairs of this country. we've made remarkable success. it's part of my consciousness and my commitment to continue this progress. so my heritage as a southerner, my experience in the oval office convinces me that what i just described is a proper course for the future. >> governor reagan, yours is the last word. >> well, my last word is again to say that we were talking about this very simple amendment in women's rights. and i say again, i am for women's rights. but i would like to call to attention the fact that a so-called simple amendment could be used by mischievous men to destroy discriminations that properly belong by law to women, respecting the physical differences between the two sexes, labor laws that protect them against doing things that would be physically harmful to

them. those would all, could all be challenged by men, and the same would be true with regard to combat service in the military and so forth. i thought that was a subject we were supposed to be on, but if we're talking about how much we think about the working people and so forth, i'm the only fellow that ever ran for this job that is six-time president of his own union and still has a lifetime membership in that union. >> gentlemen, each of you now have three minutes for a closing statement. president carter, you're first. >> first of all, i'd like to thank the league of women voters for making this debate possible. i think it's been a very constructive debate, and i hope it's helped to acquaint the american people with the sharp differences between myself and governor reagan. also i want to thank the people of cleveland and ohio for being such an hospitable host during these last few hours of my life. i've been president now for almost four years.

i've had to make thousands of decisions, and each one of those decisions has been a learning process. i've seen the strength of my nation, and i've seen the crises that it approached in a tentative way, and i've had to deal with those crises as best i could. as i've studied the record between myself and governor reagan, i've been impressed with the stark differences that exist between us. i think the result of this debate indicate that that fact is true. i consider myself in the mainstream of my party, i consider myself in the mainstream even of the bipartisan list of presidents who served before me. the united states must be a nation strong. the united states must be a nation secure. we must have a society that's just and fair. and we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace to create a peaceful world.

i believe that since i've been in office, there have been six or eight areas of combat evolve in other parts of the world. in each case, i alone have had to determine the interest of my country and the degree of involvement of my country. i've done that with moderation, with care, with thoughtfulness. sometimes consulting experts, but i've learned in this last three and a half years that when an issue is extremely difficult, when the call is very close, the chances are the experts will be divided almost 50-50. and the final judgment about the future of a nation, war, peace, involvement, reticence, thoughtfulness, care, consideration, concern has to be made by the man in the oval office. it's a lonely job, but with the vo involvement of the american people and a process of the american government, the job is a very gratifying one.

the american people are now facing next tuesday a lonely decision. those listening to my voice will have to make a judgment about the future of this country. and i think they ought to remember that one vote can make a lot of difference. if one vote per precinct had changed in 1960, john kennedy never would have been president of this nation. and if a few more people had gone to the polls and voted in 1968, hubert humphrey would have been president, nixon would not. there is a partnership involved, and our nation to stay strong, stay at peace, to raise the banner of human rights, to set an example for the rest of the world, to let our deep beliefs and commitments be filled by others and other nations, that is my plan for the future. i ask the american people to join me in this partnership. >> governor reagan? >> i would like to add my word of thanks, too, to the ladies of the league of women voters to make these debates possible. i'm sorry we couldn't persuade

the ringing in of the third candidate so that he could have been seen also in these debates, but still, it's good that at least once all three of us were heard by the people of this country. next tuesday is election day. next tuesday all of you will go to the polls, you'll stand there in the polling place and make a decision. i think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? is america as respected throughout the world as it was? do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? and if you answer all of those questions yes, why, then, i think your choice is very obvious as to who you will vote

for. if you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then i could suggest another choice that you have. this country doesn't have to be in the shape that it is in. we do not have to go on sharing in scarcity with the country getting worse off, with unemployment growing. we talk about the unemployment lines. if all of the unemployed today were in a single line allowing two feet for each one of them, that line would reach from new york city to los angeles, california. all of this can be cured, and all of it can be solved. i have not had the experience that the president has had in holding that office, but i think in being governor of california, the most populist state in the union, if it were a nation, it would be the seventh ranking economic power in the world, i,

too, had some lonely moments and decisions to make. i know that the economic program that i have proposed for this nation in the next few years can resolve many of the problems that trouble us today. i know because we did it there. we cut the cost, the increased cost of government, the increase in half over the eight years. we returned $5.7 billion in tax rebates, credits and cuts to our people. we, as i've said earlier, fell below the national average in inflation when we did that. and i know that we did give back authority and autonomy to the people. i would like to have a crusade today, and i would like to lead that crusade with your help. and it would be one to take government off the backs of the great people of this country and turn you loose again to do those things that i know you can do so well because you did them and made this country great.

thank you. >> gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, for 60 years the league of women voters has been committed to citizen education and effective participation of americans and governmental and political affairs. the most critical element of all in that process is an informed citizen who goes to the polls and who votes. on behalf of the women league of voters now, i would like to thank president carter and governor reagan for being with us in cleveland tonight, and ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good night. [ applause ]

weeknights this month on american history tv we're looking at past presidential debates. tonight we look at the presidential debates of 1988 and 1996. first a debate from the 1988 campaign between incumbent vice president george h.w. bush and massachusetts governor michael

dukakis. there are questions on the budget, nuclear stockpiles and the running mates. senator bob dolly from the 1996 presidential campaign. watch tonight and enjoy american history tv this week and every weekend on c-span3. "the presidents" available in paperback, hardcover and e-book from public affairs. it presents autobiographies on each president, noted historians about the leadership skills that make for a successful presidency. as americans go to the polls next month to decide who should lead our country, this collection offers perspectives into the lives and events that forged each president's leadership style. to learn more about all our presidents and the book's featured hiss tofr yans, go to

c-span.org/thepresidents and order today wherever books are sold. in 1984, president reagan debated his democratic challenger, former vice president walter mondale twice. up next, here on american history tv, their second debate which focused on foreign policy. [ applause ] good evening. good evening from the municipal auditorium in kansas city. i'm dorothy rattings, the president of the league of women voters, the sponsor of this final presidential debate of the 1984 campaign between republican ronald reagan and democrat