Illustrated Daily Library Footage; 114; Judith Pratt and Pete Domenici Speak

He was silent during the drafting of that platform, but after it was adopted, he did say that he didn't necessarily agree with all of it. Does he agree with the right-wing planks on social issues? Does he agree that the Jerry Falwells of the world should be determining our national political policy? Does he agree with a return to the gold standard? Does he agree with the elimination of the progressive income tax? Does he agree with tax provisions that could produce a $400 billion annual deficit by 1989? Does he agree that the minimum wage is an economic albatross? Does he agree with a platform that offers no policies to bring stability and peace in the Middle East? I would like to know where his agreements and where his disagreements are and I think it's something that ought to come out of the process of this campaign. As far as the campaign goes, George Orwell painted a pretty bleak picture of 1984. I have an opposite view.

I think 1984 is emerging as a positive human year. I think we're going to see one of the most exciting elections ever. More people are enfranchised, more people are voting. It's an election year filled with new and exciting developments. Average people are flexing their political muscle. The disenfranchised are being involved. Women in minorities are playing substantive roles. 1984 is an election year where issues of the future are impacting upon the entire spectrum of Americana. The young, the physically impaired, the immigrant, the newly franchised, the small business people, the yuppies, the seniors. 1984 is a watershed year for us, for it leads us to the turn of a century, which can promise a nuclear-free future, a clean and healthy environment, a vast array of meaningful jobs. I'm proud to be at the forefront of a new generation of politically active people eager to take on and shape the future, grateful to come from a state at the cutting edge of change and certain that the future includes Judy Pratt.

Now before I leave though, I want to ask Senator Domenici if he will agree to having some fully televised debates in the coming weeks. I think we ought to quit playing games, and we do have some time here today that presses here, and I think we ought to just have a little confab afterwards and set up a date, a couple of dates. How about four dates? I think we ought to have at least four debates. Not as though we had the right to make that decision ourselves. I think it's the people's right in the state of New Mexico to see the issues debated even further, and in more depth, and the contrast clarified, and the misinformation cleared up, and that we ought to set those dates today, so I'm looking forward to doing that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Well, first let me tell you, Will, we're not going to work those dates.

Once out here today, I can assure you, but we'll have a debate in one of these days, and everybody will get to watch it. Everybody will get to watch it, and I can assure you of that. You've heard us today of many facts and figures that have been used, but let's not lose side of the real issue in this election. What's at stake, as I see it, and I've thought very carefully from what I can find out about what my opponent stands for, what this election is all about. In my opinion, there's nothing less than what kind of voice and view will represent our state in the United States Senate. No clear choice between candidates for the United States Senate has been before New Mexicans in our history. No more fundamental divergence of philosophies has ever existed in my opinion between major

candidates for statewide office here. Let me compare in specific cases our dramatic differences, that the differences between represented Pratt and myself. First, on jobs, I believe in a free people working through the free enterprise system. From everything I can tell, she believes in government programs and government planning. On tax policy, I believe in lower taxes and fairer taxes to spur growth and savings and productivity. She would increase taxes by taking us back to the 81 oppressive tax code, increasing taxes on everyone, including all businesses. She claims in particular those large, but I think she means them all. On budget policy, I believe in continuing to slow federal spending, closing our deficit

gap. She would spend billions more on new social programs, either by increasing our deficits, or by dramatically crippling our defense. As a matter of fact, she has used the word, it is time to demilitarize America. On military policy, I believe that we should continue to improve our military strength. At a slower rate than the President has requested, and I've already told you about that. From what I can tell, she would virtually disarm America. One of her proposals would cut it 40% from the present level, for she has said we should take it back to 1981. That would leave us with no ability to defend Europe, the Middle East, allies in Korea, no money for any new weapon systems, no money to modernize the American military man and women's equipment.

Finally, my vision is based upon the perception that America is a great and good nation, tasked by the best economic system in history, and the most generous and free land in the history of the world. Her vision, as I view it from what I hear of her, is based upon a perception that America is flawed, insensitive, greedy, and militaristic in nature. In fact, we are the cause of problems in Central America, not others. You know, we've turned the corner, finally, on several national security issues that have caused the Congress real turmoil in the past 10 years. We've reached a bipartisan understanding about the need to defend our friends in the Middle East. We've reached a bipartisan accord in concept and in concert with the Europeans on how to defend Europe. We've reached, after so long, so long, a bipartisan agreement on Central American aid. I just asked my neighbors this, if my opponent were elected, if she were elected, opposing

as she does, the Democratic platform on Central America, on national defense issues, and of late she is even worried whether President Mondale is moving too far to the right. Is there any likelihood that she would become part of the great bipartisan mainstream group that has given us this nation its power for peace in the past 40 years? And in economic matters, where she opposes new policies that pass by huge margins in Congress, which she not also beyond the fringe in the Senate, unheeded, I believe so. In short, this campaign is generally between two competing visions, mine, that finds the

truth somewhere near the middle of the heated public debate, and her vision, her vision that finds the truth at the very fringe of the debate. The simple question is this, what kind of vision do New Mexicans want in their United States Senator? I have no doubt. Thank you very much. Thank you, Representative. I would remind you, our next face-off luncheon will be September 15th, a Saturday, noon at the Sheraton Old Town. Participants will be Representative Manuel Lujan and his challenger, State Representative Ted Asbury. Thank you all very much for coming.