Public Affairs Special; Candidates 48th Congress

Election Night Specials are made possible by a grant from a RPG vote with major funding for this continuing series provided by Disneyland park by Peter and Mary Foundation and by viewer support. Welcome to election 92 one of a series of television programs presenting candidates and issues in the November 3rd general election an Orange County program will present candidates in the 48 congressional districts. This general election is especially important to voters because it will be the first one where all the assembly state Senate and congressional districts are new ones redrawn because the reapportionment there are now three congressional districts fully contained in the county plus three more that include both Orange County and parts of adjoining counties. The new forty eighth congressional district is the largest inland area of all six districts representing Orange

County. It covers large land areas in San Diego County and in Riverside County as well as all of Orange County south of Mission Viejo in Orange County it includes all of San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Dana Point Coto de Caza and Rancho Santa Margarita as well as parts of the going to beach in Laguna Hills in Aliso Viejo. In San Diego County It includes Oceanside in Riverside County It includes a Temecula and part of Rancho California. The three county area of the 48 district has a total of 300000 voters of these 48 percent live in Orange County 48 percent in San Diego County and 5 percent in Riverside County. The entire district Republicans total one hundred sixty eight thousand or fifty six percent Democrat total eighty seven thousand or twenty nine percent of the pay of a member of the U.S. Congress is now a total of one hundred twenty nine thousand five hundred dollars per year plus a number of congressional allowances. This is not just another election. Voters are now facing some of their most critical choices in

20 years. The economy dominates the list with the nation still in the most stubborn recession since World War Two. The national debt is now four trillion dollars. The federal deficit this year is three hundred thirty four billion dollars 9 million 400000 Americans are out of work 16 percent of that number one of the half million workers are jobless now in California. The new Congress must confront this and other crucial issues. And now let's meet the candidates. Ron Packard Republican was elected in the forty third district in 1982 by a write in vote. A former dentist practicing in Carlsbad. He served on the city council and as Mayor for four years. He currently serves on the House Committee on Public Works and transportation and on Science Space and Technology. Michael Farber Democrat of Escondido is a businessman and was a founder and president of fiber and fiber Corporation a development consulting firm from 1086 in 1901. He was previously CEO of the Investment Exchange corporation dealing in real estate brokerage and investments. Ted Lowe libertarian of Oceanside works in sales for a supplier to the auto

body repair industry. He's been a member of the Libertarian Party party for 10 years originally from Arkansas. He later attended McComb County College in Michigan. He had lived in Oceanside for 10 years. Not President Donna White. Peace and Freedom Party a resident of San Diego. She's a single parent of two children. She said she went on able to attend each candidate will now give a one minute statement on his candidacy. After which I'll ask questions on the issues. And now let's start with you Mr. Packard. Thank you Jim. Today America stands at a critical crossroads Never before has a need for good leadership been more crucial to this country. The American people have made it very clear that they would not tolerate a continuation of business as usual. I want to reaffirm my commitment to the American people and to the people of this district that I will work for the kind of change that they're looking for. During my service in the Congress I have led the fight to reduce taxes to bring about less regulation less

government and less spending. The National Taxpayers Union has listed me as the number one tax cutter and spending cutter in the Congress. I will continue to work for congressional reform. I will continue to battle for a line item veto for the president. I'll continue to work for the balanced budget amendment that will force the Congress to live within their revenues. I have led the fight for transportation for California for water for Californian for a solution to our immigration problems. Thank you. All right thank you Mr. Farver and thank you very much. Today we are at a critical point in not only world history but United States history. We have a decision to make. Will we go forward or will we go backward. We have to make fundamental changes in our government. I am the person that can make that change. First and foremost the country is broke. We have to have economic growth and job creation to put this country on an economic

recovery. Health issues are of utmost concern. Thirty six million Americans many of you out there this evening are under covered or not covered at all by health. We need long term health care. Thirdly choice choice is a fundamental issue that must be covered in this election. Thank you. I thank you Mr. Low. I represent the Libertarian Party and those are part of our philosophy. So we intend to downsize government and bring it back to its original meaning. And that was to protect our borders from aggression. We intend to reduce taxes by reducing the size of government. We intend to bring business back to California by reducing the burden of taxes and regulation on those businesses. We intend to decriminalize drugs to loosen up the jails and the court system for what it was intended to do and that was to settle disputes and jail the very harmful criminals

and otherwise education should be returned to the people and return to the private sector where it can be handled more efficiently and give you a better choice of where you want to accumulate your education. Thank you. I thank you I'd like to have each of you comment on what I think is the most crucial issue confronting the country today and that is the jobs the job situation 9.4 9.5 percent unemployment in the country nine and a half million people out of work in this nation. A million and a half people out of work in California. Ninety three thousand people out of work in Orange County as we do this for this program and almost comparable number in San Diego County. What about the jobs what are we going to do about this terrible terrible economic. The problem we have in the country let's start with you Mr. Butler. Well again it will get you. It stems in job creation. You know this district is very very demographically diverse. We have a strong defense industry the defense industry in my opinion needs to be cut slowly and methodically so as not to displace

too many individuals in that field. Also we need retooling within that industry and tax incentives to retool and for job retraining and within the agriculture industry. I think passing the naphtha the North American Free Trade Agreement would hurt our agriculture industry tremendously. So I would not support that this is for job retention. Thirdly small businesses we have to have a loosening of the credit restrictions on the small businesses so that small businesses can flourish. Small businesses will be critical in turning the economy around. All right. Mr. Packard we had a boy economic loss of jobs we had. We have an anti business climate in Congress and that's got to be changed. We have passed laws that we have decided this incentivized our tax policy so that business literally is groaning under the weight of regulation and under the weight of taxation. We have to do business

small business especially is the engine of our economy and it's the producer of jobs. And we have literally killed in many instances business and especially in California they're fleeing California because they we have such an anti-business climate both at the federal and the state level. And so I think we've got to take away some of the onerous regulatory requirements on business. We have to create incentives for business to flourish again and we have not done that yet. There's a dilemma that we have in California and that is that we have what we have so much defense industry one. One argument said that we should cut the fence. And take a piece bonus and do other things with it to solve the problem. Other people say if you cut the fence too much you're going to hurt the economy. What it where do you come down on there's no question that we're going to have to cut defense we are now in a global environment where we can cut defense. The question is how much and how quickly. And I think that's going to have to be done very cautiously because there are jobs at stake it would be a mistake to dump 100000 or 200000 military people into the job

market at a time when we have no jobs for them and put them on the unemployment lines. So I think it has to be very cautiously done. And I think we can do it very carefully. What about retraining taking the people who are out of the industries and retraining. There's no question we must do that in the laws that are being considered before the Congress to do just that. Mr. Low. Jobs in the economy. The reason we are hurting for jobs in California is of course as everyone knows because of the over taxation in the over regulation of the workforce and businesses. I contend that if we get government out of the way and let the free market take care of the business environment in California and open the borders and bring the troops back home and put them to work in productive jobs instead of. Protecting the foreign countries at our expense. I think that would be a great improvement to your economy in California.

One problem that is unique to this district the forty eighth congressional district is the problem of immigration because it's a main thoroughfare through which many illegal aliens come into this country. How do you what is your general philosophy on immigration policy are we doing the job right or are we doing it incorrectly. And no I think history has shown that we're not doing it right because people are fighting to get across the border. And after they get here they establish themselves in the welfare program in the workforce and it's obvious that our business people need these these people are here because they work for low wages so they encourage them to come across. I would say. Let them come across the border but don't give them welfare and don't give them subsidization of any kind when they get here. You've been quoted in the paper as saying that you are more than angry about delay of 11 years that you've been told about to build a new checkpoint south of San Clemente for the

Border Patrol. Your opponent has said that that's just political rhetoric what do you say about that. Well there's no question that we've got to do a better job of securing our borders. I personally believe and support the Free Trade Agreement because I think that one of the real attractions for these people coming across the border illegally is because there is such a wage and economic disparity between the two countries and the free trade agreement I think will help both countries in that area. But at the same time we must take better control of our borders we're doing some fairly decent work at the border where we build a steel fence at the border we put roadway along that steel fence. We put flood lights in the ravines that will shine at night. And we've done some fairly good work. But at the checkpoints my first goal was to try to eliminate the checkpoints. But I have yes absolutely will not stand still for that they feel are crucial to their second line of defense and frankly they do a good job of interdicting drugs stolen vehicles and illegal aliens. So I felt that if we're going to have to keep the checkpoints then let's make the most effective

by operating them 24 hours a day full time and by making them so that in high speed chases will not emanate from the checked events and bad accidents and some terrible acts of sin we must make them more effective. Now what about this 11 year delay. We have we have obtained I got the money for the building of a new checkpoint for the design of the building of a new checkpoint 30 million dollars. And when I found out not too many days ago that it was going to take up to 11 years to build it. I absolutely hit the ceiling because I can't understand why we should take that long and so if we're going to make the corrections let's put it on a fast track and get it done and that's what I intend to try to do. All right what about that. You said that that the political rhetoric is a political rhetoric or do we need a new checkpoint on this. Well I say no. I think putting a new checkpoint and putting a Band-Aid on a hemorrhage. This the checkpoints are symptomatic of a bigger problem. We have to look at immigration on a major scale. Why are these individuals coming to this country. They're coming to this country for jobs. What we

have to do is first and foremost have employee employer sanctions to stop the immigration. When you're going for a problem you look to solve the problem from the root of the problem not short term solutions that are short sighted quite frankly. And in response to Mr. Packard's approach on that. I am a proponent of free trade. And yes in the long term the naphtha will benefit America but this country is in deep recession and we cannot afford today to pass that because we cannot afford losing 100000 plus local jobs from our economy when we have the ability to absorb those jobs when the economy is recovering. That is the time to institute. You mean you're opposed to this where the North American Yes I am opposed to that. Not in the long run but in the short run we have to look out for the interest of our citizens locally today. This country cannot afford to go on an equal footing with Mexico at this point.

Studies don't bear out the fact that we will lose jobs in this country even on the short term studies bear out that the viability of our economy and the ability for our companies to compete in the global marketplace creates jobs. It will not lose jobs but the fair trade for a Fair Trade Agreement also gives us an opportunity to do some many other things that are positive for the for our own workforce here you will you will vote yes when I will come I'll support it if you're going to vote no if we worked hard to bring about some changes in the free trade agreement that will address California's specific needs and I think Carla Hill has done a fairly good job of addressing those concerns that that we in California expressed. It's a law how would you vote for a trade agreement. And we're talking about that between Canada Mexico and USA. I am a proponent of free trade everywhere in the world. I don't think there should be any government intervention. I think there shouldn't be. I have salute freetrade and in the free markets have flourished throughout the world there would be no need for intervention.

I like talk a bit about environment. Even with the constraints of the budget the terrible budget deficit I want to talk about that in a minute. But even with that terrible budget deficit would you as a congressman be concerned about the environment this is a new book called vital sign that's put out by the worldwide Worldwatch Institute and that talk about all the environmental damage we're doing to the whole planet. In other words a planetary look and it says if we cannot reverse the trend that are undermining our future environmental deterioration and economic decline may soon start to feed on each other depriving future generations of the opportunity to support themselves. Does environment belong as an issue in this race. I believe it does today more than ever. We are again at a critical point in world history. But it's not to say that we have to exclusively go on an environmental side. What we need is a balance. I know that's a cliche of a word but that's the word we have to use we have to have a balance when we're looking at environmental policy throughout this country. We have to take the human element into it. We have to take the environmental

element into it. There are no easy solutions but it takes on a case by case basis rational thought and look at each individual case and see what in fact is best for man and what is best for the environment. The board of his congressional district has a long stretch of coastline. How do you feel about offshore oil drilling. Well yes or no I've done yet avoid on that I would probably support offshore offshore oil. You would say you have a view of it that way. All right. Offshore oil I don't know I have thought offshore oil drilling for a long time off our shorelines because there are better sources of oil elsewhere that needs to be explored. And frankly I think that the tourism in this area is of such crucial importance to Calif Southern California that we would better be conserving our our purpose and our economy here in California by not permitting it here unless it's a last ditch. But the broader question now the broader question on environment. How much of a priority would you put

in there. I don't given the constraints we have and that big budget deficit. I agree with Mr. Farber that there needs to be a bunch better balance and we now have we must look at our environment and we've got a fairly decent job we're doing a lot more in protecting our environment than we've ever done before. I've led the fight for alternative fuels for our vehicles and that's particularly important in California where we have gridlock on our freeways. I think it's important that we look at human needs and human requirements and then we look at the economics of the area. And we've not done a good job of balancing the human needs the environmental needs and the economic needs in our policies which are low terrible damage being done to our planet the chlorofluorocarbons and depleting the ozone layer and burning off the rainforests. Of global warming. All those things are they what they be a high priority with you as a congressman. I think most of the scare that has been thrown into the population is is high. I don't think it's as serious a problem as

as it's been told to us that it is. I feel that if we need the resources that are offshore we should be able to go out there and get them. I believe that if the government would just get out of the way and let the individuals free to handle the environment no one is going to intentionally destroy their environment. What about for example the rainforest that are being systematically destroyed in South America. I'm not an authority so I can't tell you but I as I said before I think most of it is hype. I think that it's not as big a problem is it as it's been told to us that is let's let's get some other issues that people would like to hear about. Prop 164 on the state ballot would limit terms of congressman six years record representative and 12 years for Sen.. How are you going to vote yes or no. I would vote no.

I don't think that issue should be solved in this on the state level I think that should be a federal issue. And I do support term limits but I think they should be 12 years and not six years for congressmen and 12 years for a state. United States senator also prop 164. I support term limitation but I don't support the way that 164 would do it. We cannot afford in California to allow other states to dominate in the Congress and distribute the money there is a strong A.B.C. attitude or syndrome and washing that is anywhere but California. And we struggle when I say we the members of Congress in California struggle just to get our fair share of government. Because of that attitude that exists if you take away the ability for all congressman from California to serve as Chairman of Committees or as ranking Republicans on the committees or in leadership that never be a under Prop 164 that never be a speaker from California there'd never be leadership because they'd never rise up in the seniority list. It took to protect count if it were a federal law that was a

universal term limitation where all 50 states would live by the same conditions of term limitation at the same time. That's no problem it's a low turn limitation. I had naturally a support term limitations because it's part of downsizing government. Government officials should be elected to serve a short term or as long term as it takes to take care of the job and get out and let someone else take that sometimes and race is a litmus test as ask a candidate how they feel about the issue of abortion. In some ways the congressional vote might affect whether there should be government funding measure abortions or not. What is your position on abortion. Well I am pro-choice while not a proponent of abortion again I think we have to look for solutions. There's too much relate exactly what's happening in Congress today partisanship going on and it's with issues also. Let's look to solve the problem. Let's have a better sex education. Let's have better

contraceptive research. Let's look to solve the problem. I oppose abortion always have except in the case of incest or rape or the life of the mother. And I don't believe the taxpayers ought to be required to pay for abortions. How about abortion issues. Abortion is a completely personal decision that should be made by the people involved. The government has no choice in that decision. In a recent and recent survey they have said 70 percent of the people in California are disenchanted with their own Congress. The Harvard Second Congress has just come back it didn't address health care reform. It didn't solve the deficit problem. It didn't solve many of the issues that we have that have to be solved. It is more conspicuous by what it didn't do than what it did do. So what about restoring some kind of respect and regard in the public for integrity of the institution of the Congress. What would you say has to be done.

Well first thing I think we have to change the sitting incumbents. That's critical. Why. Well it is gridlock. They're basically bought and known by the Special Interest Groups of this country. Are you including Mr. Packard in that. Yes I am Mr. Packard was picked as one of the 10 most obscure congressman by Roll Call magazine. I think that's indicative of exactly what's happening in Congress. I don't blame Mr. Packard solely for this this is not a Republican problem it's not a Democratic problem it's a problem throughout Congress. This disenchantment though of the Congress cuts across both parties. Absolutely and with the Democrats and the Republicans the institution of the Congress what needs to be done to restore some kind of public regarding the integrity of the Congress. Congress is led and controlled by the liberal Democrats in Washington and there's no question about it. And there's no question that Congress needs to be reformed. I've tried for as long as I've served to reform Congress. I think we should cut the staff of the Congress. I think we should cut the staff of the of the of the of the staff of the committees I think that we should reform the procedures of the Congress there's no question

Congress is a gridlock. But it's but I don't blame the Republicans for that and I I but and it and rethread reference to Mr.. Barber's comment about obscure let me just add here that what it was that you said mortified was I was listed as one of the 10 among the 10 obscure members of Congress but in the article that they they said these are the workhorses not the show horses of Congress. These are those the legislators that get things done not for reelection but for the good of the country that's what they were listing. This was not necessarily a negative. OK let's hear from you. Restoring integrity in the institution of the Congress. Everyone has the impression today that government is the answer to all their problems I say downsize the government and look to yourself for the solutions to your problems. Because the government can't solve your problems the politics are in the way. One of the half billion dollars need to be spent to control the Santa Ana River floodplain because of their work on the Santa Ana River. What about that.

I have taken the lead in getting not only the project authorized through my subcommittee and committee but I've also taken the lead in getting the funding and we've already got the funds some of the funding started so it's in the pipeline that you're going to see that project move right forward to completion. It's the most serious flood control problem west of the Mississippi. How would you do that would you work towards making that more than half a billion dollars lose for the pleasure only but I think again this goes back to the issue being on Capitol Hill and being a worker and being seen and being available to meet your other congressmen and women getting out there working with them so we get a fair share for southern California expression for the 48 district one of the propositions deals with the question of yours that will in 1994 not that is not on this time. That would give twenty six hundred dollars to each for each student. That's the state plan. President George Bush has said you favor a voucher plan to give a thousand dollars for each parents for private education. You think it's a terrible idea or a good idea. I don't think it's absolutely terrible but it's not an idea that should be instituted a public

education is the foundation of the strength of this country and it should remain public education and not education for every little special interest group out there. So you vote no on a vote absolute or in Congress or in the state ballot that's correct. Roger education I would vote no Also I I have no problem with vouchers that would allow parents to to choose within the public institutions or within public education what schools they might wish to go to but I do not support using public funds for private institutions that would include religious and another private institutions and I think that would violate the separation of church and state. Mr. Lowell about vouchers is a terrible idea a good idea. I think any idea that turns the educational process over to the individual is a good idea. The only thing wrong with our public school education is that is that it's being run by government. I think though that if the communities had a better say so and what went on in their schools they would be more efficiently run and the kids would get

a lot better education out of it. So either in the either in the federal government level or on the state level you would favor vouchers either the 20 $600 voucher plan or the $1000 VOC voucher plan for the federal government by Heather Vance by George Bush. Yes. All right thank you. Our times almost up now and I want to thank our guest we're talking about the issues. Tune in tomorrow at this same time for another in our special election 92 series. I'm Jim Cooper. Thanks for being with us. Election 92 specials are made possible by a grant from a RPG

vote with major funding for this continuing series provided by Disneyland park by the Peter and Mary moon Foundation and by viewer support.