(00:00:00) Political leadership like truth seems to come in paradoxical packages. Our honored guest today has been described as a fiscal Hawk and also as a prairie (00:00:12) populist, (00:00:14) he's a genuinely disabled veteran of World War Two yet his Dynamic energy matches the legendary dynamism of Hubert Humphrey. He attended a breakfast in Washington this morning will be in St.Louis this evening and will wind up in Fort Lauderdale tonight. impolitic and political debate. He is a well-deserved reputation as the Grand Master of the Rapier thrust but he's also the sharpest wit in American politics today humor and politics can be a problem as Adlai Stevenson who also had an irrepressible sense of humor learned a generation ago. Some of Bob Dole's comments are already Classics in the literature of American politics in 74 when he was running for re-election in Kansas while President Nixon was trying to deal with the Watergate problem. He was asked whether he wanted Nixon to come into Kansas and said quote I'd settle for a fly over by Air Force One unquote And in 1978 just to make it bipartisan. He found a vivid way to suggest that President Carter was making a lot of mistakes. When the last Pope was elected, he said Carter sent him a telegram that read congratulations. Please give my best to the missus. And I've been looking forward to asking him today whether he really said as reported. Of the Graham Rudman bill that Congress had better hurry up and pass it before people had a chance to read it and find out how bad it is. but the same Bob Dole is a serious political leader a real life giant in the United States Senate where most of his colleagues consider themselves the Giants he manages what Scholars have called the world's greatest deliberative body and it is certainly at times the most deliberate. He's making his reputation now as a master legislator and environment where the payoff comes mostly not from debating skill, but from consultation cajoling and compromise is certainly the strongest Majority Leader. The Senate has had since Lyndon Johnson in the late 50s a quarter of a century ago. He's described by Senator Bill, Bradley of New Jersey. Whom he might find himself running against for president someday as a strong leader fair and knowledgeable who understands compromise and how to deal across the table. He's now been criticized enough both by dogmatic liberals and Doctrine are conservatives that he's emerging as a man of the Republican senator. He has an enviable enviably interesting job always in the middle trying at the same time to serve as the president's Point man on Capitol Hill leader of the Republican caucus in the Senate manager of the Senate's business and trying at the same time to be his own man with his wife in the president's cabinet and his hat in the presidential ring. Ladies and gentlemen, the distinguished Carlson lecturer the senior senator from Kansas and majority leader of the United States Senator, Bob Dole. All right. Thank you very much for that very flattering introduction about certain I deserve it. But I like it. I like to get a copy of it to give it to my wife. She always gets the best introductions and I think she deserves better introductions. Let me indicate first that pleased I am to be here. I'm not going to speak at length. That's the first good news. I have I'd rather respond to questions as I look out. I can't see very well because the lights but as I see it a lot of people out there if I'm a little nervous. It's because being a republican I'm not accustomed to crowds this large, but I'll you know, I'll do the best I can of the circumstances. I meant earlier and a lot of people came to the earlier meeting thinking they read the name Dole and thought it would be the Secretary of Transportation some left other state out of curiosity. But I'm reminded that when the president named are asked Elizabeth nominated to be Secretary of Transportation. It created a lot of excitement. Around our house and there were a lot of pictures taken a lot of stories were written. I was always in the picture but I was never identified. It simply said the man on the left is the husband and my family knew me my creditors new me. I think at that time the bankers new me. We were fighting on over withholding on interest and dividend income. But in any event People magazine took an interest in US primarily Elizabeth and they came to Washington. They followed us around for a couple of days. I think by actual count took about 300 pictures. And they wound up using three and one of the three showed us making the bed. Which later bought a very hot letter from this guy out in California. Whose wife had read the story and he was now helping make the bed. And he said Senator, I don't mind your wife getting the job. She's well-qualified. She'll do outstanding work for the present American people. But he said you've got to stop showing off around acid. You're causing men problems all across this country. And I wrote back and said Buster you don't know the half of it. The only reason she was helping because they were taking pictures so that that that's a true story. I remember about that same time. This would be for the president said he would run again and there was a lot of speculation who would run if he didn't and all that. And one of these colonists called me a political expert ask me a whole line of questions, and he finally got down to the bottom. He said now Senator if Reagan doesn't run for re-election. He said what would you think about a bush Dole ticket? Said what? I haven't thought much about it, but I just don't think I'd have any interest. He said well, it's a good thing. We didn't have you in mind. So again, I understand why sometimes people get me confused when thinking about Secretary of Transportation. We've agreed to share responsibilities in Washington. She's in charge of potholes and I'm in charge the loopholes and I think so far. I'm a little ahead of her. We've hinted and had a lot of fun by saying, you know you why not add old old take an 88 if I can figure out how to be the president. It would save a lot of money to have one. Limo one house one airplane one Secret Service contingent. So if you're looking for a conservative effort in 88 you want to be able to keep that in mind? But what I like to speak about today is where we're headed in 1986. And I think sort of set the stage and I'm certain the students know. The United States Senate is very closely divided. There are 53 Republican Senators 47 Democrats. In 1985 there really 52 Republican Senators for the last half the year because one of our Republican senator Senator East was quite ill and couldn't attend. So it's very closely divided and I make that point because some of my Republican friends from time to time and I assume the Democrat people are not don't follow on databases one of themselves. Why does it take so long in the Senate? Why don't you move more quickly on legislation? And I would only say it probably true in any other case where you have a very close to vision. Where you have outstanding views on each side to put a collage while you know, sometimes it takes a little longer. It doesn't mean that we're not working. It doesn't mean but not concerned with America's problems whether they're on the farm or whether in the school or in the city or wherever they may be. And I think it's appropriate for me to be here. Thanks to the generosity of mr. Carlson and thanks to the Great. Hubert Humphrey was my friend. We served together on the agriculture committee. We were personal friends. And I must say after the 76 election. We lost its easy winning, but I learned is very tough to lose. One of the first people to come to visit me privately with Senator Humphrey who had been through that same experience earlier. And knew that when you lose there's always somebody out there saying well, it's his fault or her fault or their fault. And is a great comfort to me to have a chance to visit with someone else who had lost but he didn't lose but we lost. And had regained his good judgment and become again, very outstanding senators. So I'm very proud to be on this platform. I know the success rate has been less than I like if that's correct. Did anybody ever win who spoke here? If not, I hope you get Bush and camp out here right away. But at least we'll have a shot at it. Carter was here. He lost after he was elected. Yeah, well. But it seems to me that we're looking at. the challenges to Congress in 1986 I think we have to look at the policy agenda. We have to determine which goals which direction we're headed. And I think it's very safe to say we have some very difficult goals. I would say very quickly. We have three major problems to deal with in 1986. We had three major problems to deal with the 1985. Maybe maybe four. It's down to three the first is how do we get a handle on federal spending? How do we address the federal deficit deficit in a responsible sensible way? Which establishes certain priorities? Rather than some across-the-board approach that may or may not have the desired impact. That's item number one. It's complicated some would say by the gramm-rudman-hollings amendment. It may be easier. Some will say because of gramm-rudman-hollings. But my view is if the Congress United States the people you send to Congress Democrats or Republicans, if we are responsive to what I believe is the general view in this country whether you're democrat or republican, the general view is we've got to address in a sensible way. Reduction in federal spending and everything ought to be on the table. Nothing should be exempt. Nothing is sacred. And that's our first responsibility. secondly tax reform I know the president feels that the really hasn't been enough enthusiasm in the country for tax reform. And I think he's probably correct. But having been chairman of the finance committee for four years and having guided three tax bills through the Senate. I never did find much enthusiasm for tax reform and less reform meant taking something away or imposing a tax where they're not been attacks. Now, those people are very enthusiastic those companies those corporations because they don't want to change. I remember 1982. We decided one way to pick up three billion dollars a year. That's not being paid in taxes was to have withholding on interest and dividend income. Because a lot of times people don't report it some think it's unconstitutional to tax it they don't view it as income. And so we did that we passed a bill that passed the Congress signed by the president along with many many other Provisions which including withholding on interest and dividend income. The American bankers and others Savings and Loans and others decided for reasons good to them. That's a bad idea. It would cost him a lot of money to gear up to make the changes and Congress was virtually flooded. With mail postcards by the thousands and thousands and as chairman of the committee I had probably I don't know 500,000 or more and I want to thank many of you sent cards to me for 5 years ago. I learned then that reform meant different things to different people. It seemed to me that if everybody paid taxes on their income taxes across the board would be lower and would have a fair system. And if somebody either by mistake or and Tanner design avoided paying taxes on certain income that made it difficult on the others. But I learned that. Very sensitive. There were a lot of people involved a lot of people who felt strongly about it my banker felt so strongly about as I recall, he came by and picked up the this toaster and set of dishes, but he gave me earlier for a deposit. And I learned very quickly as I said that tax reform means different things to different people and the presence found that out, too. Who can quarrel with lowering the tax rates for individuals or businesses who can quarrel that we ought to eliminate some of the loopholes? Well, those who are going to be eliminated can quarrel and they do and they come to Washington and sometimes they're right. And sometimes by closing up what some would call a loophole we may take away jobs in the private sector. So it's a very very delicate matter. We're dealing with me talk about massive tax reform. In order to raise order to lower taxes for individuals. The president's tax bill corporations have to make up the difference and some say that's fine. We ought to go after corporations, but they're out there creating jobs and creating capital and paying wages. So we have to again be a very delicate question. But tax reform will be an issue. We're going to try to accommodate the president's bipartisan. It over overwhelming support in a democratic House of Representatives. In fact, as you know, it took the House Republicans a little while to get on board. It took a visit by the Republican president because Tip O'Neill was saying I think what justification unless you furnish 50 votes or 70 votes. We're not going to bring up the tax bill. And now it's on our side the republican-dominated Senate and we're going to do the best we can. The third issue is trade. Trade and I've heard all of the comments and the commentaries and read the editorials that well there. The Congress is going to be protectionist. We no longer believe in free trade. And I don't know of any member of Congress a Democrat or Republican liberal or conservatives out there advocating flat-out protectionism. I do believe. That many of us believe on both sides of the aisle that we have to address some of the unfair Trade Practices that are being practiced Upon Us in other countries. I believe in open markets and I believe in Access but I believe there has to be reciprocity. And if our markets are open to the Japanese or the Taiwan, he's of the Koreans who ever it may be. Then if we're competitive and only if we're competitive their Market should be open to us. And as far as I'm concerned, that's not protectionism. That in effect is reciprocity. We're losing many many jobs and basic industries were losing many many jobs on the farm. We're losing many many farms and one of the reasons. Because of the barriers real and artificial being thrown up in the European community and other parts of the world. Another reason we're losing farms and Farmers it because the high dollar and the high interest rates. And again, I think we can address that best by looking at the federal deficit. So we have these major economic issues. I also believe the Senate will take up and pass the balanced budget amendment if there's a failing in the gramm-rudman-hollings amendment, maybe you don't like it at all. But if you like it if you think it's good discipline for the Congress its biggest failing. Is that what we passed by majority vote in the Congress we can postpone we can repeal we can modify. Or whatever. And so many of us believe again on both sides of the aisle that one way to address that is through a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget that Congress cannot change. at will and that will be taken up. I also believe the President should have a line item veto 43 Governors have a line item veto on appropriation bills and all that suggests is that if he gets a bill and if Senator Dole has a provision in there that might benefit Kansas in some way but there really isn't any justification for it. He can strike out that provision without vetoing the entire appropriation bill. That gives a present whether he's a Democrat or Republican. We're talking about permanent legislation. A little more leverage in dealing with the Congress United States. I think it creates a little better balance. So we may take another shot at. Let me just spend a few minutes on gramm-rudman then I'll respond to questions. I did say. Early in the debate on gramm-rudman. I said that's don't read it vote for (00:19:09) it (00:19:11) because I knew precisely what would happen and it took about 30 days later. We ended up voting for it and passing it overwhelmingly, but we had to debate it for 30 days. We do a lot of that in the Congress. And what we were doing by holding up everything else with gramm-rudman were holding up. The farm bill were holding up the Farm Credit bill. We're holding up other measure that would have cut federal spending and I wanted to get on (00:19:35) with it. (00:19:37) But what is gramm-rudman-hollings? Now Hollings complain because sometimes the Press drops out his name. It's hard to have a three-name deal. He may be the lucky one. If people don't like it the luckiest guy in town because they won't know you had anything to do with it. But what it does, it's already been reading about in the paper and you're going to hear about it different programs. We have until March first. In the Congress to come up with some alternative package or the automatic Cuts will take effect that were announced yesterday there in all the morning papers. It's going to affect everything except Social Security. And it's going to be of have a very limited impact not going to affect food stamps and some of the low-income programs and have a very limited effect the first time around on Medicare and programs of that kind. It's an effort to force the Congress to do its job. We don't need the gramm-rudman-hollings amendment if we do our job and if we act responsibly hopefully in a bipartisan way, we won't need the second round of grad Drummond automatic Cuts in September of this year. I think it's a result of almost total frustration by members of Congress. But I would say the thing to watch in the next few months is keep an eye. Do you want to watch play a little game go back and see you voted for gramm-rudman and then see how these same members of Congress in both parties vote on specifics when it comes to cutting spending. I think you'll find many vote for gramm-rudman that gets the message back home. They want to reduce spending then when it comes to specifics. They'll somehow not be able to do that. And I believe that's raises a larger question is being addressed by such prominent citizens of Douglas Dylan a prominent Republican Lloyd Cutler prominent Democrat in the Carter Administration and others around the country addressing the basic problem. Is there the institutional will this Congress have the will not Democrats Republican, but Congress have the will to face up to these very difficult problems. Not just on the spending side, but in other areas, and I would hope that the Congress will address the Dylan Cutler report sometime this year. So I just suggest that that we've got our work cut out for us. I still believe that the spending is the key. I was asking a press conference. Well, maybe I guess the thrust of it was maybe there ought to be a tax increase and that would take care of it and I would just say to this audience particularly the younger members of the audience that if you haven't learned now, you'll learn a little later the whatever a governor hence or present hints to the legislative body that well. I'm ready for a tax increase. It may not be the best strategy. Because you'll find legislators weather in Minnesota, Kansas or Washington DC. Once they have that signal will focus on tax increases and not on reordering priorities and trying to reduce spending. So I believe the president's playing a just about right he's saying no tax increases no tax increases now sooner or later. You may have to come around to a different view but he knows up front that if he the slightest hint that he'll accept a tax increase that we won't get around to doing much on the spending side. Let me give you just one or two examples. Most economists and economists disagree in there may be some in the audience and I think you understand they get they use different projections different assumptions. They have different results. But we're told that if we can eliminate the deficit if we're on that path and we demonstrate early on we can eliminate the deficit by the end of the decade. We could bring interest points rates down from 1 to 3% That's long-term rates and that would be very helpful. A two percent drop in interest rates the monthly payment on a median priced home of $80,000 would go down about a hundred dollars a month. So about the time you're out of school and buying a home if we do what we should do. We can make your life a bit easier. If we don't reduce the rates. And they stay as high as they are now. I think you're going to face a an increase because of inflation and other factors. What does it do for the American Farmer a two percent drop in interest rates would mean an additional $4,000 income for the average wheat farmer with a Thousand Acre operation? Because of lower cost of doing business. We're going to spend over spend about a thousand dollars for every man woman and child in America in 1985. And another figure that boggles. My mind is the interest on the debt. In 1985 interest on the national debt cost taxpayers between a hundred and thirty and a hundred and forty billion dollars. That's almost three times the level of just five years ago. It's about 3.8 percent of the gross national product 13.5 percent of the entire budget just an interest on the debt. And a 14 hundred and fifty percent increase in costs over 1965. Another way to put it a hundred and thirty to forty billion is equal to all the split suspending the sum total of all federal spending from 1789 to 1936. And again, we're told by the experts if we don't put the brake on spending the interest payments are going to be two hundred billion dollars a year by the end of the decade and the deaths. It's not going to be two trillion dollars. It's going to be three trillion dollars. And even if we Implement every letter of the grand Rudman proposal between our 1991 when the deficit supposed to go from 212 million to zero. Because we're going to go down in increments. We're still going to add. A half a trillion dollars to the dead. So I don't want to leave the impression that somehow Grand Rodman's going to wipe out the debt. It's not we continue to add the dead every year. So I just suggest that we have our work cut out for us. I believe we're up to the (00:26:10) challenge (00:26:13) and I would hope that there's some appreciation for the fact that sometimes things don't happen. You can't get the votes. And sometimes the best ideas in the world come to the Congress they come from people in this audience and other audiences but their no votes takes a while to work out the program. I would guess we may have to go back and take another look at agriculture in 1986 particularly in the commercial Banker where they have large Farm loan portfolios. See whether some program we can work out in cooperation with the states to address the farmers concern. But it's I think it's clear that 1986 will be another one of these fiscal restraint years. No new programs looking at Old programs and trying to in a sensible way figure out some way to reduce those programs. I would finally say. That I've been in politics for a while. I know some people have a dim view of politics and politicians and they should have of some politicians. But I have to believe that it's an area. That's very interesting and very exciting. I became involved in politics while I was still a law student ran for the state legislature wasn't certain whether I was Republican or Democrat at the time didn't really have any strong party views. My parents have been Democrats. But I was convinced that I had a better chance to win as a republican. That's how you run for County office and some small counties and I was I was elected and the one thing I've learned over the years is that you have to be very patient, but that politics in addition is not a spectator sport. And I find a lot of people who criticize in fact some of the sharpest critics. I know of in my own state. May not be as active. They write nice letters to the editor. They write very nasty when stew but I have to believe that Anything that you burn Humphrey would have insisted on that's and more people become involved. That was his whole approach involvement get people involved. Let them make a difference democrat or republican conservative liberal independent. Whatever. So we can have a diversity of views. And so I again thank mr. Carlson for permitting me to another and the institute for inviting me to have this opportunity to exchange views with you. Thank you very (00:28:45) much. (00:28:58) Let me repeat the telephone number for getting audio or video tapes of Senator Doles presentation. 7369783. Senator Dole, one of the big special interest groups around here is students and one of them wants to know. You stated that spending cuts in spending control. Nothing is sacred. Does this include Cuts in federal student financial aid as proposed by the Department of Education. And if so, how will students Finance their education in the midst of spiraling costs? Right. Well, let me address that in this fashion. And I guess I think Senator boschwitz nor press conference made a point that it hadn't occurred to me and Senator Bosch, which is here and I thank him for being our ears meet speaking up. He doesn't have to be here. I think we talked about cuts and what we really should be addressing is reduction in the growth of programs. I don't anybody is advocating cuts and basic programs. We have to take a look at the growth. I remember back in nineteen that well last year last. May we were there a lot of negotiating my office about education? The chairman of the committee on our side is Senator Stafford. Who feels very strongly about not reducing anything in that area? I think the final reduction was less than 200 million dollars and we did it in a way that may be affected the interest payments and other charges lenders could make but we didn't reduce the number of Pell Grants and we didn't make it any more difficult for students. That's why indicated earlier that if Congress does its job instead of relying on gramm-rudman and we take a look at priorities as students are going to come out very well. I don't know anybody in either party trying to figure out some way to prevent someone who's a need in need from going to school. (00:30:53) we had a lot of (00:30:56) discussion as I recall setting the lemon was its 8,000 10,000 20,000 how much should be available for student but I would say this as far as I'm concerned, I think this the student programs or are fairly safe unless unless Congress fails to do its job and and administration. There has to be a Cooperative effort. And if we do what we should do between now and the next hit from gramm-rudman, which is September I think will have addressed the budget without doing much in that area. Is the United States return to foreign policy which? Should get some equal time here. Is the United States hopelessly locked into a policy of paralysis when it comes to combating International terrorism, you know the policy of what? Paralysis, he calls it a policy of paralysis. in combating terrorism Well, it's a very difficult question and I don't you know, there aren't any easy answers in one we hear the president with a very strong rhetoric. Some would say it's too strong that we just taught announce the sanctions or whatever going to do and and hold our fire. We see ships moving in the Mediterranean American ship Soviet ships. We witness as we did on the news last night if you watch Qaddafi ranting and raving at a lot of students there about starting more Camp so they can assassinate or terrorize Americans in the United States. We take it seriously. We have a system around the capital may not probably not perfect. But we try to protect people inside the capitol work there and people who visit there. It's a tragedy in a sense. We have to in effect block off the United States capitol in a free country and you've got to go through a screening process and get a visitor's tag and be identified before you can visit the United States house or the senate or whoever may be there. You want to see So, I don't know that's paralysis or not. We can't do it alone. I think we've at least by withdrawing recalling the Americans from Libya and by asking the corporate presence to be removed from Libya. We've at least demonstrated the other countries that we don't want to both ways. And we would like very much if they would follow suit. The undersecretary of state is visiting some of those countries now. I think what's happened though as I view it. And again, I haven't had all the secret briefings. I think our options are becoming very narrow if it happens again. Then I think the presence in somewhat of a box. Because it's been stated publicly that this is the last time in essence and I would only saved to that generally support what the president has done. We want to try to avoid. Getting at the same level as a terrorist. Who when the Qaddafi says it's eroica effort and you killed 11 year old children. I don't think so. And there is the moral High Ground that I think this country has to try to stand on. So I would hope that we have cooperation with our allies economic sanctions first economic efforts, and the other is a last resort. The last 24 hours the Soviet government has come up with a very dramatic proposal to get rid of all. Atomic Arms by the year 2000. Do you want to comment on this newest Soviet point Well, I haven't seen it. But that's not a requirement in the Congress for you comment on things as one of the reasons we're in trouble but I'll just sort of paired what I think very property Administration has said. That it could be a constructive effort. I heard Mister cop off the Soviet Chief negotiator this morning talking about all of his going to do and eliminate nuclear weapons in 15 years. I don't think Buddy who disagrees with that. Hope no one that I know of in the Congress United States, but I think we have to look at it. Very carefully. I think the more important point that I would make is the fact that our two leaders. Mr. Gorbachev, mr. Reagan have had a meeting. They've actually had a opt-in to sit down and not only shake hands but talk to get to know each other look at each other whatever and they're going to do it again. Now, we didn't expect much the first time they met that was good enough for most of us. They had a meeting after all these years they meant Pretty hard to meet before this time because it wasn't anybody there to meet with they were going pretty fast. But Gorbachev is 54. They're going to meet again in June of this year. Hopefully June or September. I guess it hasn't been decided yet. So I'm encouraged and maybe I'm an optimist, but it seems to me that the president has a couple of goals in his second term. One is tax reform. And he's pushing on that right now in the Republican Senate. the other in my view Is a meaningful realistic responsible Arms Control agreement that we can verify? And that the Soviets can verify it's going to be in our interest going to be in their interest. So I think overall and give both leaders of + (00:36:45) so far. (00:36:47) son of a follow-up question here if If the Soviets can come up with this kind of proposal why can't the United States? Well, the president's made a number of proposals the so-called zero option proposal a number of others and we may have made to seek or quietly a secret. It may not be the right word quietly proposals to the Soviets. I think that's the one thing that I have very little about the Soviet proposal. It seemed to me if they're really serious about it. It should be made at the The Arms Control meeting and not made public that maybe that's part of this psychological warfare for who's going to get the best media, but I don't I assume if this constructive proposal you'll see a constructive counter proposal or maybe a modification. So I don't see that as a real problem. Senator you're asked to comment on what is described as Ed mises initiative to eliminate federal guidelines for including minority contractors. My view of the executive order which was formulated in 1964 the old store if it ain't broke don't fix it. I mean and I've said so publicly there may be some changes need to be made in the regulations. I'm not I'm not for mandatory quotas or mandatory anything else when it comes to that area, but I think you can have some voluntary goals in mind. My view is Secretary of Labor can address that through regulations without radical changes in the executive order and I don't know for certain but I understand that compromise or whatever may be in the (00:38:31) works. (00:38:37) Why would you want to be president and which Democrat would you want to run against? I member in the debate with Fritz Mondale somebody I said I'm a friend of Mondale and he ought to be my friend after what I did for him in 76, but I said in the debate said why do you want to be vice president sir? What was indoor work and no heavy lifting well. I think sort of coming from the Heartland. I'm very small town a six or seven thousand Russell, Kansas Crossroads of America. But farming area where a lot of farmers in difficulty. I happen to believe that. Some of them may be ambition. If it's all ambition or pure ambition, I'm not certain that qualifies you for the office, but I also believe that having worked with many problems. I'm an issue-oriented person. Some say maybe two issue-oriented to be president. You ought to be more of a concept person. You don't have a vision for the future. I do have a vision for the future its solvency for America and the people who live here to me that isn't a bad vision. But having had the great experience I've had with helping people who vote for me in my state and my colleagues in the Congress and my experience on a national ticket. I think I have the experience in the dedication and the knowledge to be able (00:40:18) to. You know (00:40:21) do that job and I must say there are a number of others who feel the same way. Everybody if you walk into the Republican cloakroom of the democratic cloakroom in the Senate and these you yell. Mr. President everyone turns around. Except Rudy boschwitz who was not born in this country. And therefore is an eligible right ready? Democrats in 1988, Senator. Kennedy has said he will not run. I hope that doesn't hurt our radio program. We have a program together called face off. Where we insult each other for 55 seconds each morning. For forty thousand dollars a year. I think that's what it pays. He does it for the money. I do it for the exposure everybody. The senator Kennedy out. I would guess that obviously Gary Hart becomes the front-runner. He decided not to run for the Senate as you know. And their number of outstanding Democrats who will seek that office and I may not even know them all but I know some personally Senator Biden Senator Hart, obviously, I'm not the to certain that Senator Kennedy is really out Senator Bradley Governor Cuomo Governor, Rob Governor Babbitt on the Republican side, obviously the vice president starts off for the big lead. And deservedly so he's been a good vice president. He's got a high name identification. And there are others Jack Kemp Congressman Camp one of the authors of supply-side economics and as a strong following with conservatives Senator Baker who was my predecessor. I saw him a couple of weeks ago and he's still working very hard at it Governor Dupont Pat Robertson. I forgot about thinking it makes me think of Jesse Jackson did the two ministers and there are probably others on our side. That's those are the men than women Elizabeth Dole and Jean Kirkpatrick Elizabeth denies any interest, but she tells me to mention her name if anybody ask that question, so Senator Dole, why are you and President Reagan? So adamant about proceeding with the Star Wars anti missile program, which will destroy the am Beach ABM Treaty wreck Arms Control efforts escalate the arms race and increase our enormous budget deficit. This is sort of a non-partisan question. One of the better editorial comments. I've heard about the program but in any event. Again, I think if you go back just last night to the announcement the Gorbachev made the thing he said that could not happen. It would be the SDI to other words. We'd have to scrap that or his proposal if you think about that for a moment and then the word from the White House. This was a constructive approach. I think he must bear in mind that the Prezi knighted states. I think has been a very firm leader. You may not agree with everything he's done, but he's been able to move in the right direction and I believe we're in a stronger position to bargain with the Soviets now because we are in this position of strength. Plus we have the present himself who's a very strong person. He's talking about research not talking about violating the ABM Treaty. He enjoys bipartisan support on the SDI. We're not even certain what the research will develop nobody's as far as I know is talking about deployment that may come and it is a very expensive programs. What's a very appropriate question Arrangement standpoint of spending the standpoint of what we'll do if we actually started deploying the so-called SDI weapons But I've just say this and I know some feel very strongly against spending any more money in that area at all. I think what most of us hope for its bipartisan. This non-partisan is a meaningful agreement. And that agreement is reached. I don't know what will happen where the SDI will end up for Star Wars whatever you may call it, but I would guess for the time being the best as I view at the best place to be is supporting the president that effort. One more question on General policy as a member of both Senate finance and agriculture committees. Do you think Farm problems can be dealt with more and better by state and local governments now Farm problems Farm problems. It's pretty hard to deal with a farm problem of state and local government. Do I do believe that state governments have a responsibility? And I know many Governors and in this state and other states are trying to address the problem through appropriations of State funds for interest by downs and other when it comes to price support programs and deficiency payments and all the other things that help the American Farmer some would say they don't help. I don't see any role for the state government that's got to be a federal program. We have 39 or 40 wheat producing states. You got to have some uniformity with the vast vast program and in my view state and local governments could not be helpful. Obviously, the states are also helping in counseling and some of the other services now made available to Farmers. I would just say this about about the farm bill itself. Because it's important to Minnesota and sporting a many students here regardless, if you're from a farm state or even if you're not from a farm state mean if you eat you ought to worry a little about the farmer little bit each day be concerned about his well-being and he's families but having said that I think we've passed a pretty good Farm Bill. I'm a privilege to serve on the egg committee with Senator boschwitz and let me make one point that escapes a lot of people Farm policy is bipartisan. I was on the egg committee with with Senator Humphrey. I remember once we were debating a dairy Bill and Hubert was always the high support guy and I always felt we ought to not be quite that high. I remember once getting into some big debate and he was really going pretty good. And I hand him a glass of milk. He drank it never missed a word in the dairy debate, but the point is it's bipartisan. Rudy and I were conferees on the farm bill this year that lasted two weeks the well into the night several nights and the encouraging thing was that every single conferee. Democrat and Republican House and Senate conferees and there were 30 some of them voted for the conference report. Now, let's face it. I read the papers and I watch television. I see farmers and farm group saying that's a terrible bill. But keep in mind if you're the viewer or the reader or the listener. The different Farm groups have different Farm politics summer for high support. Some are for flexible supports some are from mandatory programs somewhat a referendum someone a whole herd by out in the dairy area, and I've got to believe that you know, you understand our job is try to get all these together and come up with a pretty good bill. We're going to spend on agriculture to Federal level in the next five years over a hundred and ten billion dollars and that's probably a minimum figure. That's gone up from 76 to 80 when I think some of us be very honest criticized President Carter for spending too much for agriculture. It was five billion dollars a year for price supports now, it's jump to 18 billion dollars a year for price supports. So I the point I would make is state and local to some limited extent, but I think we've got a pretty good farm bill at Auto calm the fears of many. We still do need to dress. I said earlier the some of the Farm Credit areas. Sunder one member of the audience wants to know what you think of Vice President Bush's upcoming appearance on Miami Vice. I understand. They haven't invited him. I read that this morning there was an idea of it press aide and that they say now that far as I know he hadn't been invited so You know if they want invite somebody and he's not available why I'll get somebody else to go or I'll go myself. But I think the point is a Bush was a member of the narcotics efforts there and he's done a good job. But they're having a lot of problems there in the Miami police force. And I know he's going to go or not. I mean, it's one of those big decisions he has to make For a final question Senator, I'll squash together two different questions that have been asked one is do you disagree with any of the policies of the Secretary of Transportation? And the other from a different point of view is what's the secret of your happy marriage with Elizabeth Dole? I've learned how to heat up That Lean Cuisine. That's the secret. Well, we at we have a difference of opinion from time to time. Trying to think of one here. Conrad was going to be up first in the session the Senate the session that she's trying to sell a railroad and she doesn't think I worked on it hard enough last year. So I told her I'd bring it up first which would be next Tuesday, but I don't have any basic disagreements. I think very honestly she does an outstanding job and I know I'm biased but she's very disciplined person. I'm not as disciplined. She she's better prepared. I think maybe that fact you went to Harvard. I want to get him any trouble here, but I didn't go to Harvard. I've been there once since just passing through but she's a very disciplined person and I think that helps very much plus he has a great deal of faith and and likes a very much your job, but I would say that Hopefully we've been able to in the demonstrate to other lot of to Career couples. Most are now. That we can each have our own job and still work it all out one reason we get along. So well is it when I'm not traveling as she is don't have time to discuss a lot of things. I arrived home on Tuesday night. She was headed for New Orleans and and I left this morning and I guess I'll get back on Monday, but I think it just factored. You stay busy and you got your head screwed on right? Everything will work out pretty well.