Illustrated Daily; 5009; Congressional Candidate Debate: U.S. Senate

Promotional assistance on supporting material for tonight's debate has been made possible in part by a grant to the League of Women Voters Education Fund from the W. Alden Jones Foundation Charlottesville, Virginia. Their only schedule joint television appearance is election year, Republican United States Senator Pete Domenici, Democratic State Representative Judith Pratt, a forum on the issues and the race for the United States Senate next on the Illustrated Daily. The Illustrated Daily, managing editor Hal Rhodes. Good evening. For the next hour in what promises to be their only joint television forum this campaign season, the major party candidates for one of New Mexico's two seats in the United

States Senate face off on the major issues in the approaching November 6 General Election. If you are marking your calendar, only 22 days remain before New Mexico voters enter their polling places and register their choices in this 1984 election year. Clearly, the campaign season is coming to life both nationally and right here in New Mexico. And it is appropriate at this point in the campaign that the state's major Senate candidates should participate this evening in an exchange of views. Republican nominee incumbent United States Senator Pete Domenici seeking his third term in the nation's upper house. The Democratic nominee, three term New Mexico State Representative Judith Pratt seeking to end her opponents tenure on Capitol Hill and Representative Pratt and Senator Domenici Good evening to you. Good evening, Hal. Canada's I propose not only that we be informed this evening, but if possible that we enjoy

ourselves as well and to that end we have assembled a panel of distinguished New Mexico journalists who have devised a number of questions I am sure you will enjoy answering. William Tanner editor of the Albuquerque Tribune. This is a much again, a long time political correspondent at K-O-B-T-V News. And Barry Casebold, city editor at the Santa Fe, New Mexico journalist, welcome and it's nice to have you with this this evening as well. Preliminary to our forum this evening perhaps I should explain the ground rules. Each reporter in each round is entitled to one question, one follow-up. That's in turn will be allotted equal time for all questions posed of them. One minute for primary questions, 45 seconds for follow-up. During the first half of the forum the focus will be upon domestic issues. Thereafter the attention turns to matters of defense and foreign policy.

At the conclusion of the program each candidate has been allotted time for a brief closing statement. And so let us begin commencing with William Tanner editor of the Albuquerque Tribune who will direct his question to Senator Domenici by the draw of the straws. Bill? Okay. Senator, I'm sorry you brought that wet Washington weather to Mexico with you but we're glad you're here. I feel that a session of this sort should start with a question that has been asked broadly across the country the last couple of weeks and one in which you are deeply involved as Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. So I thought I'd like to ask you about Mr. Mondale's suggestion that President Reagan has a secret plan to raise taxes. And we all know that you and your tenure as Chairman of the Budget Committee have wrestled with taxes and budgets and so forth. And from time to time you've innovated that tax increases are necessary to bring down the huge deficit.

And my question to you then is do you have a secret plan to raise taxes? No, I don't bill and I don't know whether the President has a secret plan or not but nobody has fought harder than this senator to try to reduce deficits. As a matter of fact from time to time I'm almost in obsession to the senators there. I've participated in four budgets which have been adopted by both houses. In those four budgets we've reduced the deficits from what they would be by $550 billion. In the meantime there's no question we had a rather serious recession brought about by policies of the past. That recession accounts for about 70% of this deficit. From what I can tell we now have a budget of about $900 billion. I don't think we ought to panic. The economy is humming. Recovery is better than anybody expected. I think what we have to do is come up with a five year plan to reduce those deficits about $50 billion a year.

That ought to be done by slowing the growth and tax reform. I'm sorry I had a great time inside. Rather than let you finish that senator I'd rather go to another secret plan that Mondale says Reagan has and that is to raise the cost of Medicare or to reduce Medicare services. And I wanted to ask you if you would do if you have a plan to raise the cost of Medicare or reduce Medicare services before I ask you that though I want to point out that a number of people say a responsible Congress would do that because Medicare costs are running away and many people do not need them are getting the free costs. Well let me say this to you Bill. Medicare has gone up dramatically. There are many people running around saying that it's been cut. It hasn't been cut at all. As a matter of fact in four years it has doubled. Not 20 or 30% it's gone up double. We have saved considerable money 85% of those savings are the result of cost containment. That is we have forced those who provide services to reduce the cost of services.

We even have a freeze this year on the doctor's fees. The Medicare program is solvent now until year 1996. When we started this it was due for bankruptcy next year. I think we have time to think it through but obviously I have no secret plan. It will be difficult but I don't want those people who are in need to hurt. Thank you Senator. Okay representative Pratt you heard what the senator said about taxes and the deficit he thinks it's going to outgrow itself. Vice President Mondale has offered a plan to raise taxes and says he will raise taxes if he's elected president. I'm wondering if you think the economy will outgrow its deficit or if you think there has to be a tax increase and if so what kind? Well many economists now are saying that the deficit is like a cancer. It's not going to go away without treatment.

It does have to have some treatment. And my proposal is too bold. One is that we need to reinstate taxes where the taxes belong. Relive the burden off of the middle class. None of us want to pay taxes and the middle class shouldn't be carrying the burden. 128 corporations, profitable corporations were reported on Monday as having paid absolutely no taxes in 1983. Now that's not fair. The people in our state want fairness. The top 20 percent of income receivers have received a tremendous tax break since 1981. Those at the bottom 20 percent have paid more and the 60 percent in the middle are doing just about the same or slightly worse. That's not fair. In order to reduce the deficit we've got to have fair taxes. We also have to cut waste in the military budget. There's no doubt about it. An article today said that there was $30 billion that could be saved just by trimming the wasted cost overruns in contracts. Now Senator Domenici has supported every expenditure of the military budget. Senator Pratt, if you were in the Senate and it was put to you to reduce Medicare benefits

or to raise Medicare costs because of runaway healthcare costs. And you could see that a responsible congress should do that because people who do not need the care are getting it. Would you be willing to cut Medicare costs? I'm unwilling to deny healthcare to anyone. I care about people and I care about their health. I would not want to see any cut in the quality of healthcare or people's access to healthcare. Now the Senator will say that there have been no cuts in Medicare and that in fact expenditures have gone up enormously. That's because costs have gone up enormously and hospitals are overcharging people and we do need to seek cost containment measures. That's where we need to start without any reduction in services, without any increase in premiums and without any cut in the quality of care that people get. Susan? Okay, let's get off that subject. Just a minute. Let's go to immigration. Representative Pratt Immigration Reform legislation died last week, yet the problems that surround US immigration policy do persist.

So what is your outline for immigration reform? When you have 50 percent or more unemployment in Mexico and you have massive starvation in Central America and when you have political and economic refugees rushing into our country to seek some kind of refuge because America has always been seen as a country that provides refuge for people. You've got a terrible problem and we need to get at the source of it. Certainly we need a different kind of relationship with Mexico. We need a different kind of relationship with Central America so that in fact people aren't driven across our borders to seek jobs. And while here we have to be very careful, not to institute policies that will discriminate against people of Hispanic origin, I think that that employer sanctions provides a specter of people having to prove their citizenship before they can get a job and I'm not in favor of that. I believe that the Simpson-Mazoli bill is full of too many holes and is too big of a disaster for us to deal with so I have opposed it and have sought instead to first seek solutions for the economies in Central America and second to impose our guarantee that labor law is

respected in this state, in this country. Representative Pratt, if you would elaborate on these different relationships you would have with Mexico with Central America. Well, right now we have a tremendous amount of money and resources spent on military involvement in that region and it's costing our taxpayers a tremendous amount of money. If instead we sought the kind of aid which would cost us less that would help their economies get off their feet, then we would have a better opportunity to develop people in that region who are able to consume goods, we have more even trading partners and we have the potential for a relationship that stimulates jobs in this country and stimulates a better relationship with those countries. Okay, Senator Domenici, we're with the Congress that table-killed immigration reform, the Simpson-Mazoli, what are your plans for the reform it is needed? Well, first I never supported it many months ago, I voted against it and if you will permit

me, I want to make two points, my good friend Mr. Tanner, I didn't say we'd grow out of the deficit, I said we had to restrain it and we had abtax reform with reference to represent a Pratt statement about taxing corporations, I've been part of two tax bills which had caused corporate taxes to go up two and a half times what they would have been without it, I supported a minimum corporate tax on the floor of the Senate. Now with reference to immigration, I voted against the bill for three simple reasons. First and less the Republic of Mexico is willing to cooperate, it won't work. They seem to be unwilling, therefore it won't work. Secondly, I'm not going to be part of any American law that places the entire burden of policing immigration laws on the backs of businessmen, large and small and farmers and ranchers. That's what this law would do, it was heralded as reform, while as a matter of fact the only way to enforce it was for them to enforce it, that invites discrimination and shifts the

burden from government to people. Excuse me, follow up, let's continue a bit if what we had didn't work, what will work. Well I don't know, it is one of the most difficult problems the United States has. I would start though, taking the laws that we now have on the books and enforce them. I would provide substantially more money and more modern equipment to the U.S. immigration service. Do you know that this country does not even know where the tourists at our country are? We don't even know where the students that enter this country are. There may be millions of those. Seems to me at the bare minimum, the time has now come when we can't afford that luxury. If people come in here legally, we ought to be able to find them and send them home, but it won't be easy. It's going to be very difficult. Hi, I'm Barry Caseblow, would you like to pick up a senator to manage this? After productivity in the American marketplace, productivity, the last time I looked it was down.

It may have been beginning to rise in most recent times. What can or what should the government do to help spur productivity in the marketplace in this country? Well Barry, you looked at America's productivity a few years ago. Four years ago, the United States was at the bottom of the rung. We had the very distinct privilege of being lower than Great Britain in terms of productivity. But my, how things have changed. In four short years, we are now back at the top of the rung. I think that's because we changed tax laws to provide incentives. We cut individual taxes so that they are saving more. We provided more capital for business so they're innovating and modernizing. We are now high in productivity as a nation, high in productivity as individuals. That's part of the new future. That new tax policy and new incentives have brought to this country.

We're competing again. The world knows we're alive and kicking. Okay. Thank you. This is a question that may fall, that perhaps could fall in either the domestic or the foreign affairs areas, but let's assume it falls into our domestic side. And let me ask you about our trade deficit. Yes. That's the question. Why? Do we have such a large trade deficit for such a rich country? Yeah. We have a large trade deficit for a number of reasons, but the principle one is that the American dollar is strong. Even though we have low inflation, our interest rates are too high. We have to get that down. That causes the American dollar to have a very high value. That puts a penalty on our goods immediately. Our goods in terms of export cost too much because of the high value of our dollar. Likewise, there are a number of countries who are pouring goods into our markets through

unfair competition. I have coppers, a pretty good example. We're getting 26 more percent copper from Chile now than we did before the recession because they're producing copper at a loss and shipping it into our country, and we can't sell our own and our people are out of work. Thank you. That's why I try to stop that. I would like you, Representative Pratt, to perhaps address the high interest rates that we have now. They are not as high as they were in 1981. They've come down substantially, 20 percent to 13 percent or somewhere in that area. In a way, in a response to the senator's discussion, if we bring interest rates down, then our trade deficit will improve. Do you believe that, and if so, what are some of the steps necessary to bring our interest rate down in this country? The first step that we have to take is to reduce that deficit that was created by Senator

Domenici's Budget Committee. That deficit has choked off the production of goods in this country, has given small business little hope of fostering and developing jobs. When you talk about productivity, you've got to talk about having people employed. We want people employed. I know in 1981, when Reagan took office and Senator Domenici became the chairman of the Budget Committee, 7.5 percent unemployment was considered intolerable by them. It's still at 7.5, and it means more people are unemployed. The recovery is like an Indian summer. There's no real recovery. There's a recovery that means that within a few months, according to most economists, we're going to see its sharp decline. That's because interest rates are not being brought under control. That's because the deficit is not being brought under control. As long as that doesn't happen, we can't expect a big resurgence in this economy. Let me ask you whether or not, pardon me, you believe that the export by this country of high tech items may not, you know, either now or in the future, help improve this trade

deficit. We are still, as far as I can determine, probably the most fluid technological country in the world with an abundance of talent. I wonder whether or not you believe that the constraints on the export of high tech abroad may be hindrance to this whole program of deficits. And if so, what needs to be done? Two-thirds of our research and development monies go into the military budget. Now, you look at Japan and West Germany, it's about 5%. Those countries are putting most of their technological research and development activity into the domestic side of their economies. That's why they're able to develop technologically way ahead of us. Here we are with, as you say, the best possible technological resources in the world. And yet we throw it all down into the black hole of the Pentagon.

We use it all for Star Wars weapons and outer space weapons, and we use it for military instead of in the productive areas of our economy. All right, Beltana, we're back with you as the questioner. Okay. Representative Pratt, one of the growing issues of the 80s is what some people call the feminization of poverty, referring to the fact that women are paid less than men and many jobs, have fewer job opportunities, and are often the victims of social situations such as single parenthood and so forth. Senator Domenici, for right there wrongly, has a reputation of being, so we say, lukewarm to women's issues. Last week, he voted against a civil rights proposal that would have restored funds, would have denied funds to institutions that discriminate against women. I'm warning, if you have any proposal that you think would alleviate some of this feminization of poverty, any way of dealing with the problem, any way of eliminating it. Well I think the Senator and I definitely have a big gender gap here, wouldn't you say

so, Senator? You say so. We certainly do. And in this case, I've spent my whole political career defending the rights of women. For the last 12 years, the Senator has done nothing to help guarantee that the Equal Rights Amendment passes. Now the Equal Rights Amendment is fundamental. He has voted against the extension of the ERA, he has voted for the rights of states to rescind the ERA. There's been no commitment there to guarantee the equality of women in the workplace. For him to vote against, even the study of a pay equity package, shows where he really stands. He wants to keep women as second-class citizens. My position has always been that we need to fight very hard for pay equity. We need to fight for programs that help people who have a situation of domestic violence. We've got to support daycare, none of which has a Senator been supportive of. I was Senator Pratt along that same line. Many people, whether they are, whether for moral, religious or whatever reasons, oppose the right of women to have abortions of their own choice.

I'm wondering what your position is on that. Many people, even though they oppose it permanently, personally, they still believe women should have the choice. What is your position on that? Well, no one supports abortion. No one really supports abortion. Now my position has always been that I've opposed, personally, opposed abortion. But my record in the legislature shows that I have been for the right of women to choose. Okay. Senator, let me just direct the same questions. As I say, rightly or wrongly, you have a reputation for being somewhat lukewarm on women's issues. And as I pointed out, you voted against that civil right bill the other day in Congress. Do you feel that feminization of poverty is a social issue? And if so, do you feel that something can be done about it to relieve those that are victims of it and to eliminate it? Indeed I do. And I don't agree at all that I have a lukewarm record on women. First of all, I have six daughters.

I think I understand. The biggest issue is equal pay for equal work. We're a long way from it, but we're moving in that direction. My record's pretty clear. I am not only voted, but I co-sponsored the Retirement Equity Act. I think your wife, in one of her columns, calls that a giant step forward, child support, a bill of mind past giving a military spouses a proprietary right in their husbands' pensions. As far as that Grove City vote, let me tell you about it. That equal rights vote for women was put on there by Bob Packwood, one of my good friends. It was put on an appropriation bill. I had the option of closing down government or joining Bob Packwood, who himself tabled it. I can tell you this bill. When I'm a majority leader next year, that bill will be called to the floor as one of the first bills to be debated on in a proper forum, not on an appropriation bill. I think we just got a new scoop.

The senator is going to be the majority leader next year. Well, I'm running for it. Okay. That's right. The follow-up question, senator, is the same one that I've posed to Representative Pratt, and that is, for whatever reasons, you may personally oppose abortion. Would you be willing to support the choice of a woman, a woman to have free choice and whether or not she has an abortion? Well, I have voted regularly against using federal money for abortions. That's based upon my moral conviction that abortion is wrong. We now look at the last ten years, and we see 15 million abortions in the United States. That's because we've adopted a policy of abortion on demand, and partially because the federal government paid the bills. I'm not going to be part of using the federal government's money to help anyone get an abortion. That doesn't mean that they can't get an abortion. They can.

That's their choice. It's just that I'm not going to use federal dollars to pursue that. When I seriously believe it's not the right thing to do for our country. All right, Susan, would you like to pick up here? Yes, thank you, Hal. Let's continue on a vein of last week's, the last week of Congress. So several water bills, Senator Domenici, that were of great importance to New Mexico. Had been tacked on to that federal appropriations bill, and they were killed in conference committee last week. You objected to their being tacked on. Were they not more important to the folks back home than your procedural objections? Well, I tell you, Susan, the only big one on it is the anonymous Laplata project up in Colorado and New Mexico. We've been waiting 15 years for that. It's number third on the list, and rather than risk of veto, close down government, not be able to pay our employees, close down all the good programs of government.

We took all water projects out. Our game plan is since we took out all of ours and all of the presidents that it won't be a matter of three or four months, and we'll get a water bill through. An anonymous Laplata will be in that, and we'll get it done. You know, when you're in the Senate and you're in the majority side, from time to time, you just have to do what's right to keep this government going. You have to be pragmatic. We'll get our share of water projects as we always have, and we'll get that one. Why the Brinkmanship, Senator Domenici, why do we always have this problem or go right to the brink of keeping government going? Well, actually, I mentioned a little while ago to Mr. Tanner that I'm seeking a new role in the Senate. In my pledge to my fellow senators, as I told him, I'd like to have that job, I pledge to them that we're not going to do that anymore, that we're going to establish an orderly process for the Committees of Art Senate to do their work on time.

If they do, they've got a pledge that their bills will be called up on time. If they're called up on time, nobody's going to hold them up unless they want a legitimately filibuster them. The processes of the Senate are grand. They're generous, they're liberal. They're probably the most liberal of anybody in the world. But where to a point now, where the Committees need to get their work done earlier, and we need to provide as leadership in the Senate, we need to provide an early opportunity to dispose of them. Thank you, Senator. Is there something for Judy? Okay. Refuse it slightly, Representative Pat. The past week we saw budget process, federal spending, a last week of, as what we called, taking bills to the brink, bringing it back, as a member of the Senate. How would you work for a more orderly process, a process that might get worked on more quickly? Well, we're hopeful that in 1984, the Democrats will retake the Senate and

certainly they will retake the Senate in 1986, there will be many more Republicans running for re-election than Democrats. And then Senator Domenici, if he were re-elected, would be, if he would be nowhere. His power rests on shifting sands anyway. Now, I've been the chair of the Democratic Caucus in the State House of Representatives. I was elected there by my colleagues. And I found that with good leadership, you can, in fact, streamline the process. And I believe that in the last two years in the House of Representatives, we've been very efficient. We've gotten our work done. We know how to work through the process, and we know how to accomplish what we need to do. And I would continue that kind of activity in the Senate, and that's what I intend to do. How would it be accomplished with the Republican President? With the Republican President, it would be more difficult, no doubt about it. But we will, in fact, I think, control the Senate, and we will make the Senate work on behalf of the people for a change. Okay, Mary.

Your turn. You'll pick up with Representative Pratt, please. I'd like to, if I may, give Representative Pratt a minute and 45 seconds, and do the same thing with the Senator, and it puts, all right, and ask each of them the same question. And that is the same dual question. What are the three most critical problems facing this country, and facing this state, in your opinion? I think the budget cutbacks and the question of fairness are probably, is number one. I just picked up an article from the Washington Post that was in the paper today. It's an article that's describing how George Bush, in his debate with Geraldine Ferraro, asked, remember, he asked the experts to go to the books to check to see if his assertions were correct. And they have done that, and he had said that human resource spending is way, way up. He said that aid for dependent children is up. Bush had said that immunization programs were up. And that spending for food stamps is way, way up under the Reagan administration.

Now, the Washington Post said that they asked the experts, and they told us that Mr. Bush is wrong on every count, perhaps that because he didn't take account of the fact that the poor, like everyone else, are paying higher prices than four years ago. And that thanks, in part, to administration policies, there are more poor people now. That is the most serious question facing us, is the fact that we all know it. I don't care who plays with numbers. We all know that there are more poor people, more unemployed people, and more people in need and with a lower level of income than there were when Reagan and Domenici took over. I certainly think that our commitment toward peace has got to be in the forefront. One of the most serious questions facing us, and I'm certain we'll discuss that further under our section on foreign policy. I believe that the whole issue of fairness in two minorities and two women is absolutely critical.

That we have to guarantee that people have equal access, equal access, that we support comparable worth, that we support all of those things that Senator Domenici has been against in order to guarantee equality. Thank you, Representative. Would you direct your—that same question I gather is directed now to Senator Domenici. Yeah, right. Senator Beaded? Yeah. The question is, Senator, in your mind, what are the—if you had to boil it down and categorize it, what would you describe as the three most critical problems facing the country at large and the three most critical problems facing New Mexico as a state? Well, from the standpoint of the United States, the most critical problem is to begin to reduce the deficit in an orderly manner, not in any panic kind of way, but to reduce it on a five-year plan so that we can keep this very robust recovery going. I heard my opponent a while ago say that she wanted the economy to grow more. I tell you, most people have looked at the American economy, say, if it grows any faster than it's grown in the last 24 months, it'll be like nothing we've experienced in the

whole history of the post-second World War. It can't grow any faster, but keeping it growing is the most important thing. Secondly, to make sure that we do whatever is necessary to keep that growth going from New Mexico standpoint, there are many, but the single most important problem for New Mexico is that it's share in America's prosperity, that the jobs that are growing in the United States, at the rate of five or six million a year, that we get our share. Now equally as important as getting our share is that those jobs be spread out among the communities of this state. Santa Fe is booming, Los Cruces is booming, Albuquerque is getting more than it's share doing well. We must, collectively as leaders in this state, transplant that American growth, those jobs that are coming onto the American scene into New Mexico and find ways to get those

jobs into the rural and smaller communities of this state. Thank you, Senator. We are at that midpoint in this evening's discussion, where we turn to foreign and defense policy issues and questions and Bill Tanner, the honor of yours. Commander Rhodes says I have to ask foreign policy questions. I have one that's sort of a bridge, Senator, between foreign policy and domestic. I'd like to talk about protectionism a little bit. I think this is one area where both you and Representative Pratt may be on the same side. I'm not sure. Senator Reagan is against quotas on automobiles and copper and steel and all those things. And you have become, you've vigorously spoken out in favor of quotas and copper imports. Representative Pratt is in favor of domestic content laws and in the importation of automobiles. I have read that the restriction on import of cars has cost American consumers $2 billion a year.

And prices could be lower if more foreign goods could come into this country. Yet we all know that foreign goods cost us jobs. So it becomes one of these matters of weighing jobs versus lower cost to consumers. What can we do about this dilemma? What do you say? Well, let me be specific first with reference to foreign cars. I think the voluntary imposition of a number of cars to come into the country was good. Let me tell you why. I don't favor quotas and I don't favor tariffs. And it seems to me that our heavy industry is going through a major transition. We went from a time that we had the marketplace locked to this day when it's very difficult. So I think that worked to give our workers jobs and our businesses a chance to make the transition. With reference to copper, my opponent and I disagree. I believe copper is about to disappear as an industry in the United States. And I think that's because foreign countries are receiving enormous subsidies from the World Bank, from the International Monetary Fund, and they're overproducing at prices that are going to break the American copper industry.

I think we ought to sit down with them, reduce those levels and put our men back to work and give them a chance to make a living. As a follow-up to the question of jobs, as you know, the mining and extractive industries in New Mexico are not having their best times. What can you as a U.S. Senator do to either help them or to replace them as job creating functions? Well, obviously, I spoke a moment ago about diversification and that collective leadership has to bring different kinds of jobs to different parts of this state. But basically, when it comes to the extractive industry, let me just take a couple off. Uranium industry is gone. I don't think we can get it back so long as there are policies in this country that are against nuclear energy. I'm for it. My opponent's against it. I think we'll rue the day when we get the greenhouse effect and other things that we stopped using nuclear power. With reference to copper, I think if we could get our government to sit down at the table and just lower the production in these countries, they would make just as much money and we'd have a chance of our workers making a living.

I don't think more unemployment and public service jobs, which are dead-end, in my opinion, are the solution to that kind of problem. Thank you, Senator. Representative Pratt, I'd like to pose the same question to you and I hope I wasn't mistating your position under domestic content bill. That is essentially the question. You and the center each have taken a protective position at least in two industries. He and copper and you and automobiles and how do you feel we can reconcile this loss of jobs versus the consumer paying more by not being permitted to get all the imported goods that could come into this country? Well, I have two or three proposals. One of them is that we have got to do what we can to revive our copper industry. There's one proposal in Congress that I think has tremendous possibilities. It would tie the preferred nation trading status to the recognition of human rights and labor rights in the countries that we're trading with. Now, if that were enforced on Chile, where there are no human rights and where labor rights certainly aren't recognized and where labor is cheap, we would in fact not be importing copper from Chile.

We are now, our tax dollars are being used to subsidize an industry in a country that is ruled by a vicious dictatorship. I would support that. I would also like to look at a difference in priorities and our public spending. It is not dead end to invest in public transportation. It is not dead end to rebuild our bridges. It is not dead end to put our money where jobs are where they will stimulate our basic industries and create markets for copper and molybdenum and steel and coal. Let me ask you to follow up on some of the things the Senator commented on that is the industries that are fading from New Mexico, particularly the Iranian Ministry. What do you see to replace these as job creating functions and your position on the nuclear industry? Certainly, Senator Domenici's standing in the way of the use of super fun for cleaning up the tailings piles has lost us numerous jobs. Hundreds of jobs could be had in the area of reclamation. Reclamation is a growing field. We need to reclaim the areas where there is uranium tailings piles. I agree that the uranium industry doesn't look too promising in the coming years. I believe that in some time in the future we will have the technology we need to use nuclear

power. At this time, no utility company is going to build a nuclear power plant because of cost or prohibit. So we need to be imaginative. We've got to use everything we've got at our hand to create jobs, to clean up our environment, to protect the people of our state. All right, Susan, would you like to pick up with Representative Pratt now? It's your turn to question. OK, let's pick up with foreign and defense matters, get our feet wet, so to speak. Two days ago, Representative Pratt, the Soviet Union Defense Ministry announced it's arming its submarines and strategic bombers with long-range cruise missiles, and this is supposed to guard against a so-called growing threat from the United States. So the arms race is not slowing down what we have done in the past does not seem to work, or has not to this point, so what do we do now? What does the U.S. do now to initiate arms control? Well, certainly, Senator Domenici has never seen a weapon system he didn't like, and I have seen plenty of weapons systems that I didn't like.

I think we're going to have to find ways to bring the Soviet Union back to the bargaining table. Back in the early 60s, President Kennedy took the initiative. This is what we need, initiative, leadership. He took the initiative to institute the test band treaty. No longer do we have nuclear weapons tested in the atmosphere. It's because he took a step. He took the risk. He took leadership for peace, instead of backing off of 14 potential arms control agreements that we had in place, almost ready to go, when Reagan took office. Richard Nixon negotiated nine arms control agreements. We have got to look for arms control, otherwise we will see the Soviets responding to our placement of crews and pushing missiles in Europe, and accelerate the arms race. The Soviets haven't, what type of new peace initiatives can we generate? They have not seemed to listen to the ones we've done before. There's one in Congress now that I think is appropriate. It's called, it's the so-called quick freeze. What it is is that taking the initiative to put a moratorium on the deployment of nuclear

weapons for a period of 90 days, 90 days is not a very long time. That gives us an excuse to get back to the bargaining table. It gives us a chance to see how they'll respond. It's just a little step to take. We have 30,000 nuclear warheads in the world. Carl Sagan has said that it only takes a thousand to create a nuclear winter. We have got to seek a means for peace. We have got to. We don't have any choice. People are frightened, and I care about the future, and I will fight for peace. Okay, Senator Domenici, refraising the questions for you, what a quick freeze work. What a 90 day initiative. If so, why not? What would you propose? Well, it wouldn't work, but before I do that, let me correct something my opponent said a while ago. I mean, I listen to some, and I'll take some that aren't true. But this super fun business that she's talking about, it's just absolutely untrue. Talking about my standing the way of super fun, clean up in New Mexico, we're going up to dedicate the first major cleanup up in Farmington, three of them are on the superfund list,

and I was one of those that got the superfund pass sitting right in Howard Baker's office we negotiated it. Now with reference to the Soviet Union and their recent announcement, I don't think it's anything new. I think they just decided to tell us about it. They were going to do it anyway. The truth of the matter is that the Soviet Union only understands strength. The most important thing we can do is to make sure that they know we are not going to give in to nuclear blackmail. When they are convinced of that, they will go to the table and they will negotiate. We don't need another treaty that lets us build more. That's what we've had. We've had three or four treaties and look where we're at. More weapons rather than less. Thank you, Senator. Okay, Senator, forgive me, Hal, but I would like to ask a follow-up question on superfund. I have superfund. The process hasn't worked on schedule. Again, we're not recovering by all accounts.

We're not recovering what we should be from the industries that have been doing the damage. Why is that? Oh, yes we are, but here's the point. Superfund was started just a few years ago and it's first year, it had $60 million. This year it has $670 million to spend. There's nobody that says it's out of money. It's just the most complex and difficult process. We just voted out a new superfund committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. I voted for it. It will give them money for the next five years. I'm not sure when they'll ever get on schedule. They've had some difficulty with the administrator. We call that person before our committee. We laid the law down as a matter of fact she got in trouble because of some of the things she told us that we insisted that she tell us and she lied to us. Have to cut you off, Senator. Very case brought. Well, however, we'd like to continue this conversation. To roll right along here with the Soviets and weapons systems, Senator, I'd like to ask

your opinion of whether or not you support President Reagan's so-called Star Wars offensive and defensive weapons system. I support, principally, the defensive Star Wars system. I'm not familiar enough with the offensive one, but I want to look more carefully at it. What of that, Los Alamos? I understand. And they teach me, and I'm learning. Well, let me tell you why I support the defensive one. Human beings have had a most difficult time agreeing to reduce their nuclear arsenals. I've been told by some of the finest scientists in the world, keep on, hopefully we'll make a breakthrough, hopefully people will agree. But in the meantime, the defense system in outer space might be science way of getting rid of nuclear weapons. Because if we find a way to destroy nuclear weapons before they can arrive, then it will

render them useless. It may be the paradox of all times that humans may succeed, and the scientists might succeed. All out there? Okay. I think you answered part of my question. Perhaps as a tag along to this, there was some initiative a couple of years ago to begin working on new research and development of an anti-balistic missile system for this country. What happened to that initiative? Well, basically, you know, the only real agreement we have with the Soviet Union at this point is that the anti-balistic missile treaty. We got that one because the Soviet Union found out we were ready to deploy it. It was obvious that it wasn't very important to us because of the way nuclear weapons could be delivered.

It could only protect our cities and nothing else. So they signed a treaty. That's still in the fact. We are looking carefully at it. It expires in about another year. We'll have to see whether that's good for us or not. I hope we can renegotiate at least one major treaty with the Soviet Union. And I hope that will be one. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Pratt, back on to the President's initiative, either take your choice. The offensive portion of the defensive portion, which are strategic in nature. And again, recalling that a lot of the work ostensibly would go to New Mexico organizations. Your feelings about this. It's almost big the question because I know you believe in a quick freeze. But is there room do we need to do this to protect ourselves from a possible future strike? Or is it not necessary? Well, first let me say that I do support a strong defense.

But beyond that, I support the human race, not the arms race. And I think peace is the most important issue in this campaign. And Pete Domenici again certainly has never met a weapon system that he didn't like. Now a lot of the funding at Los Alamos that had been used in the areas of cancer research, safe energy research has been diverted even more into military and defense research. I would like to see, and I think many, many of the scientists would like to see us solving some human problems and not spending every cent we've got in research and development on devising the most horrible potential weapons that the world has ever seen. As I said before, we have 30,000 nuclear warheads in the world now. We can already kill everybody in the world numerous times. I think it's time to stop and it's time to reduce. I wonder whether or not, and again, I may be begging the point with you, Representative Pratt, the man space program this country has had from Mercury, Germany, Apollo, Skylab, Apollo Soyuz, and our shuttle program really got their beginnings as military weapon systems.

And then people like us decided that we don't need to go that route. That technology was translated then into the civilian sector, like Teflon, for example. Do you still stand by this position that you have that we do not need to maintain a technological superiority in terms of weapons systems that we should channel more of that money back into medicine and other kinds of programs? The reason that so much research takes place in the military budget is because it's so lucrative to put out military contracts. People get wealthy off of building military hardware. It does not have to be the starting point. The starting point for research can be civilian. There's no reason why it has to be military. It's just that the priorities of this administration have been to spend all of our tax dollars they possibly can on wasteful military contracts and ridiculous military systems like the MX

missile. We don't have to start there. We can start with the kinds of things that civilians need. All right, Bill Tanner, we're back down at your end of the table and your question would go to represent it to Pratt. Now I'd notice you've been leaning about bending the rules. I'm going to bend the rules and ask sort of a... I guess then. Easy. Okay. I'd like to talk a little bit about election spending. Judy. That's awfully informal. Is that what you call your Judy? That's what you mean, right? Of course you do. You had to call him Pete. All right. You can call me Kim. It's going to call me Lake Ferdinand. All right. Ask your question. All right. There's been a lot of talk about the amount of money raised for this campaign. Senator Domenici is one of the leading Pac-Man of the country. He's at the top of the list or near the top of the list when it comes to collecting money from political action committees and you've done pretty well in terms of what labor is given.

I read in the New York Times every day. He got $50,000 from labor. And there are a lot of people in this country who feel that we ought to put some restrictions on the amount of money that is raised and spent on campaigns that some of it should be supplied by the government. There should be some way to make the contribution smaller and with many more groups. Even Senator Goldwater, a conservative, has said that these huge gifts are not gifts. They are an attempt to influence. And I wonder, Mrs. Pratt, representative Pratt, Judy, if you feel that there ought to be restrictions on the amount of money that is raised, if you feel beholden to the people that give you the most money, and if you think that there are some better way of financing campaigns. I've always supported campaign reform and I've supported public financing of campaigns. And certainly, we'd like to see a ceiling put on spending. Because when it comes to campaign funds, I only have about a tenth of what Senator Domenici has. He's got over $2.2 million right now and almost half a million has come from PACs. Now the kinds of, he is the ninth largest recipient in Congress. And those kinds of, the kinds of money he's gotten, for instance, $54,000 just from military

contractors. Now, I've gotten $50,000 from labor, which means those are working people who have made voluntary contributions to their political action committees. And I've gotten support because I, in fact, care about the working people. And I've gotten support from women's organizations, environmental groups, education groups, because I care about those issues and I'm beholden to those issues. But I'm not beholden to the kinds of interests that Senator Domenici is. $50,000 from Wall Street bankers, $44,000 from oil and gas, you're going to make me stop so I'm going to stop. Well, I wasn't quite ready to, but if you want to, fine, because I know Bill has a follow-up. And it must be a very brief follow-up bill. Brief follow-up, as you think there should be a limit on the amount of money senators can make speaking outside. I believe so. I think that Senator Domenici has certainly, certainly, made a lot of money giving boring speeches around the country. And I believe that it's not necessary for anyone to make extra amounts of money speaking at various appearances around the country.

Senator Domenici, do you feel that there ought to be restrictions on the amount of money people can raise and what news they raise them? And do you feel that there ought to be a, possibly, a reform where the government would pick up part of the tab and do you feel beholden to those people who contribute to you? Yeah, I think we ought to look seriously at campaign reform. There are a lot of problems with it because the United States Supreme Court has ruled a rich man can spend all he wants, outside groups can't be limited, so it won't be easy. But let me suggest with reference to my opponent and all deference to her. I remember a quote, she received $5,000 from a labor union and she said, it's like Christmas in August. I think really what's happened is she just hasn't had enough Christmases and I can't go around helping her raise money, that's her problem. I have 15,000 New Mexicans that have contributed to my campaign and I care about them. That's from $1 to the maximum of 1,000 from everywhere and all parts of New Mexico.

I think that's good. As far as being beholden, you know, I almost, it almost makes me angry for somebody to suggest that my vote is purchased. I literally have sent people out of my office who said if you'll vote against acid rain, we'll contribute. I told them there's the door. Sorry Senator, if you got a quick follow up bill, okay, a quick follow up is do you give boring speeches and do you think there should be a limit on them? Oh, I think I give great speeches and I don't think there ought to be any limit on them as long as I disclose them and do my job. I have a hard time with four children in college and I'm not a rich man. There are many rich people in the United States Senate. I think I ought to be able to earn outside money as long as the people know where it comes from and as long as they can pass judgment on whether I did my job right or not. Folks, our time for the questions is up this evening.

We will now go to the closing statements, beginning by the draw of the straw with you represented to do the threat. You have about a minute, ten seconds because we're a little bit short and so you get ten seconds from. You see what a nice guy I can be? They are. Well, I certainly hope we get some more debates. I think we need to give the public a chance to see where Senator Domenici and I stand and we've only been able to skim the surface tonight. And I also want to say that there's nothing sacred about holding public office. Politicians know that. The public likes to make changes when they disagree with an elected official. The public does disagree with you, Senator. Just as they disagreed with Parrish and Schmidt two years ago. And I will vote most often with Jeff Binghamon when I'm elected. Now, I've fought for New Mexicans and because of that I was elected by over 63% of the vote in my district and I was elected House Democratic Chair because I'm a fighter and Senator Domenici tries to cast me as a fringe candidate.

Now I'm straight with the public and I stand with the voters when they say overwhelmingly that they want to protect social security and services to the poor. They want the ERA and they wanted the 1984 Civil Rights Act. They want a nuclear freeze and they don't want poison and nerve gas. They don't want military adventures in Central America. And they want a Senator who cares. That is the mainstream and that leaves you Senator Domenici way out on the fringe. All right. Thank you very much, Representative Pratt. Now Senator Domenici, your closing statement, please and again, you have a minute 10 seconds. See? Thank you for having me. Thank you everyone. It's great to have been your Senator for 12 years. I've visited every community in this state. It's been wonderful to learn from you and it's been magnificent to turn your ideas into laws. That's been one of the most exciting things that has happened to me. To see Carl's badge soon to be protected against floods. To see the asek is soon to be built because you told me about your problems.

I'm going to keep on doing that. You are in my mind's eye as I visit those very big rooms in Congress or in the White House. I can see the wonderful people of this state and their problems. I hope you'll let me do that for another six years. I think you've seen tonight a clear distinction. Anybody who would like to go back to the past of more taxes and more government or somebody who wants to look to the future for more individual effort, more prosperity and more real opportunity. Thank you very much. Thank you Senator Domenici. I'm afraid folks are time is up. This does indeed conclude tonight's special hour long edition of the illustrated daily a forum on the 1984 New Mexico race for the United States Senate. I would very much like to thank our panel of guest reporters this evening, guest journalist William Tanner, who is the editor of the Albuquerque Tribune. Susan Muchigimba, K-O-B-T-V News, and Barry Casebold, city editor at the Santa Fe, New

Mexican. And of course a special thanks to our candidates this evening, the major party candidates and the race for the United States Senate this year, Republican incumbent, United States Senate, your veto, energy, democratic challenger, state representative Judith Pratt, candidates thank you both very much. It's a pleasure having you here at the illustrated daily. And thank you for joining us as well. I'm Hal Rhodes. Good night. Good night. That's whatever you do. Promotional assistance on supporting material for tonight's debate has been made possible

in part by a grant to the League of Women Voters Education Fund from the W. Alden-Jones Foundation Charlottesville, Virginia. Thank you.