2014 Cogressional District 2 Candidate Debate: Steve Pearce and "Rocky" Lara

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US FOR THIS ELECTION 2014 DEBATE. I AM SAM DONALDSON. WE WELCOME REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE STEVE PEARCE AND HIS DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER ROCKY LARA. THEY I'LL HAVE 60 SECONDS TO ANSWER EACH QUESTION, FOLLOWED BY A 30 SECOND REBUTTAL. WE'LL ALSO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS WITH 10 SECOND ANSWERS AND BRIEF REBUTTALS. WE BEGIN WITH OUR OPENING STATEMENTS. >> STEVE PEARCE DREW THE STRAW AND ELECTED TO GO FIRST. >> THAT IS YOU SAM, APPRECIATE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS DEBATE. I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE MY ANSWERS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I APPRECIATE THE SECOND DISTRICT FOR HAVING E LEGISLATED ME BEFORE AND I AM HERE TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO GO BACK AND CONTINUE THE FIGHT FOR NEW MEXICO FAMILIES. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN THE COUNTRY IS A SENSE OF DISMAY, A SENSE OF CONCERN THAT MAYBE IT IS TOO LATE TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY. ALWAYS I SAY THAT THE COUNTRY

IS GOING TO DETERMINE ITS FUTURE AND DETERMINED -- I LOVE FOR THOSE THINGS WE SHARE IN COMMON. ACROSS PARTY AISLES. LIBERTY, FREEDOM, FAIRNESS THAT WE TREAT EVERYONE THE SAME. AND ABILITY TO CARE FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE UNIVERSAL TO AMERICA. AGAIN, I THANK MY OPPONENT ROCKY LARA FOR HER WILLINGNESS TO RUN. THIS IS A A DIFFICULT CALLING SO AGAIN, I AM HERE TO EARNING YOUR SUPPORT TONIGHT AND THANK YOU FOR WATCHING. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU KRWG, THANK YOU SAM DONALDSON FOR MODERATING AND THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN PEARCE FOR JOINING ME IN THIS DISCUSSION. AS I TRAVEL ACROSS THE DISTRICT I SEE THE SAME THINGS EVERY WHERE. PEOPLE ARE FED UP WITH CONGRESS. THEIR DYSFUNCTION AND PARTNERSHIP IN WASHINGTON IS

LEAVING SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO IN ITS WAKE. WE CONVINCE CONGRESS TOGETHER BUT WE HAVE TO TAKE OUR VALUES TO WASHINGTON, TO PROTECT MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. I'LL FIGHT TO CUT WASTE FROM GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND BALANCE THE BUDGET AND I WILL FIGHT TO LET SMALL BUSINESSES RIGHT HERE IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO, Z WE CAN GROW AND CREATE JOBS AND STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY. I AM SO PROUD TO BE HERE ON MY OLD STOMPING GROUNDS AT NMSU AND LOOK FORWARD TO OUTLINING MY VISION FOR SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. >> THANK YOU. LET'S BEGIN WITH THE FIRST QUESTION THAT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK IS NO. 1. JOBS, ECONOMY. THE GOOD NEWS FOR THE COUNTRY IS UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AT 5.9% BUT NEW MEXICO'S RATE IS AT LEAST ALMOST 8/10'S PERCENT OF A HIGHER. WE RANK NEAR THE BOTTOM. MR. PEARCE IF YOU RETURN TO CONGRESS, WHAT WILL YOU DO TO

HELP NEW MEXICO SPECIFICALLY? >> WELL, I'LL CONTINUE DO THE SAME THINGS WE HAVE BEEN DOING. NO. 1, PRESIDENT SET CORRECTLY THAT THE CORPORATE TAX RATES, BUSINESS TAX RATES ARE TOO HIGH IN AMERICA, MAKES US NONCOMPETITIVE AND LET JOBS GO OVERSEAS. I SENT HIM A LETTER THE DAY AFTER HE MADE THAT COMMENT IN THE STATE OF THE UNION. I WILL WORK WITH YOU ACROSS PARTY LINES AND WORK WITH YOU ACROSS ALL LINES THAT EXIST. I BELIEVE YOUR CORRECT. THE SECOND THING WE NEED REFORM. THE THIRD THING THAT I FOUND IS BRING HEAD OF ARMED SERVICES INTO NEW MEXICO, SPENT TWO DAYS LOOKING AT BASES HERE AND LOOKING AT MILITARY ASSETS, WHAT NEW MEXICO PROVIDES TO THE NATION. HE LEFT SAYING, THESE PLACES IRREPLACEABLE AND THAT IS AN IMPORTANT UNDERSTANDING. WE NEED TO GET THE WHIP SIDE BACK OPEN AND WE NEED TO TAKE JOBS FROM THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE STATE OVER TO THE WESTSIDE

WHERE JOBS ARE NOT AS PLENTIFUL AND WE ONE TIME HIRED 57 PEOPLE IN SUN LAND PARK TO WORK ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STATE. WE'LL CONTINUE THOSE EFFORTS. >> SAME QUESTION FOR YOU MS. LARA, JOBS FOR NEW MEXICO. >> ABSOLUTELY. WE WORK ACROSS THE DISTRICT AND WE HAVE SOUTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO THAT HAS LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATES. THEN YOU GO ACROSS TO PLACES LIKE LUNA COUNTY WHERE THE RATE IS NEAR 15%. AND, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES RIGHT HERE AT HOME. I WAS LUCKY IN BEING ABLE TO COME BACK AND SUPPORT MY COMMUNITY AND HAVE A CAREER BUT NOT ALL THE KIDS IN NEW MEXICO ARE ABLE TO DO THAT TODAY. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO IS CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES THAT ARE GIVEN TO CORPORATIONS THAT ARE SHIPPING OUR JOBS OVERSEAS, TAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS PUT THEM RIGHT HERE IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO SMALL BUSINESSES, TO HAVE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM.

LOOK AT PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS FOR TRAINING INDUSTRY TO MAKE SURE WE ARE TRAINING PEOPLE FOR THE JOBS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND HELPING TO CREATE JOBS FOR OUR PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. >> CLOSED CORPORATE TAX LOOPHOLES, REBUTTAL? >> WHEN I ASKED MY FRIENDS DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN, THEY GAVE ME ACCOUNTING WRITE-OFFS, THOSE ARE LEGITIMATE THAT MAKES COMPETITIVE IN THE WORLD. I AGREE COMPLETELY WE SHOULDN'T HELP PAY FOR SKY BOXES AT SPORTING EVENTS BUT WE HAVE A TAX RATE THAT MAKES UNUNCOMPETITIVE WORLDWIDE AND PRESIDENT SAID HE ADDRESSED IT. I WISH HE WOULD RESPOND BECAUSE I WOULD WORK WITH HIM TO DO THAT. >> ABSOLUTELY. I FIND IT VERY INTERESTING THAT CONGRESSMAN PEARCE CONTINUES TO TALK ABOUT APPROACHING THISSISH NEW A BIPARTISAN MANNER WHEN IN PAINTING HIMSELF AS A MODERATE WHEN HE VOTES 92% OF THE TIME

WITH THE TEA PARTY AND IS NOT A MODERATE. HE HAS BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR OVER 10 YEARS, YET NEW MEXICO IS STILL AT BOTTOM OF THE PILE WHEN IT COMES TO JOBS IN THE ECONOMY. WHERE ARE THE THINGS THAT HE TALKS ABOUT NOW AND WHY HASN'T HE DONE THEM IN THE PAST. >> LET'S KEEP IT GOING. GO AHEAD. >> SURE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ANY PARTY OFFICIAL WILL DO IS GOING TO VOTE 90% OF THE TIME WITH LEADERSHIP BECAUSE MANY BILLS ARE SIMPLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. I HAVE BEEN A MORE INDEPENDENT VOICE IN WASHINGTON. IN FACT, RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY BY THE WALL STREET JOURNAL AND NEW YORK TIMES SAYING THIS GUY GOES OUT AND WORKS ACROSS THE AISLE WITH ANYBODY AND HE MIGHT SHOULD BE THE EXAMPLE FOR THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. I FIND MY CHALLENGER COMMENTS UNTRUE. >> DO YOU READ THOSE BILLS? >> SOME OF THEM YOU STUDY. SOME OF THE BILLS TO HAVE TO DO WITH NAMING POST OFFICES, I

RARELY READ THOSE, BUT MANY TIMES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE BILL REQUIRES MUCH MORE THAN JUST A SIMPLE READING, YOU HAVE TO REFER TO STATUTES AND GO BACK INTO OTHER STATUTES AND SEE WHAT IS CHANGING THERE. IT IS A COMPLEX PROCESS. >> LET ME TELL YOU WHAT DOESN'T CREATE JOBS FOR SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, LIKE CONGRESSMAN PEARCE AND TEA PARTY ALLIES DID. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU TRY TO REPACKAGE THAT, CONGRESSMAN PEARCE VOTES 92% OF THE TIME WITH TEA PARTY. WHEN THAT SHUT DOWN OCCURRED, HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN PROTECTING SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO AND HELPING OUR COMMUNITY OR VOTING WITH HIS PARTY. HE CHOSE TO VOTE WITH HIS PARTY AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, HURTING SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. >> LET'S GO TO ANOTHER QUESTION. I THINK THE TWO OF YOU HAVE SAID THE PARTISAN FIGHT HAS ALL THE DEAD LOCK IN CONGRESS. IT HAS BEEN LIKE THIS FOR

YEARS, WHEN NEGOTIATING SOLUTIONS TO SOME PRESSING PROBLEMS. HOW WOULD YOU BREAK THIS DEAD LOCK OTHER THAN A LOT OF PEOPLE SAYING, DO IT MY WAY. >> AGAIN, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES WALL STREET JOURNAL BOTH RECOGNIZED ME AS ONE WHO WORKS WITH DEMOCRATS, PROBABLY MORE THAN ANYONE. WE WORKED TO CRAFT IMMIGRATION LAWS AND YET, WE'RE FINDING A COMMON GROUND THAT WE BOTH BELIEVE WE CAN INVOLVE. WE WORKED WITH CONGRESSMANS OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO. WE WORK WITH REPRESENTATIVE FROM WISCONSIN ON THE NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BILL. IN FACT, WHEN MY BILL CAME BEFORE A COMMITTEE, 14 OF THE 25 DEMOCRATS VOTED WITH IT. SO, I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, WE LEAD BY EXAMPLE BUT THE SECOND THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT WASHINGTON

REALLY FUNCTIONS MUCH THE WAY THE AMERICANS WANT IT TO. REPUBLICANS WANT TO US GO THIS WAY AND DEMOCRATS WANT TO US GO THIS WAY, WHEN AMERICANS WANT US TO LINEUP AND DO LIKE WE DID ON THE VETERANS ISSUE WE INVOLVED THAT IN THREE MONTHS, HOUSE, SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THERE ISN'T A DEAD LOCK. HOW WOULD YOU WOULD BREAK A DEAD LOCK. >> I ACTUALLY HAVE A RECORD OF BIPARTISAN WORKING TO SOLVE ISSUES. THROUGHOUT MY ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE AND SERVING ON THE COUNTY COMMISSION, I WORKED WITH PEOPLE OF ALL PARTIES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TACKLED THE THINGS THAT WERE AFFECTING THE COMMUNITY. THE BEAUTIFUL THING ABOUT NEW MEXICO WAS WHEN WE HAD AN ISSUE TO SOLVE, WE DIDN'T WALK INTO THE ROOM AND SAY, WHO IS A DEMOCRAT, WHO IS REPUBLICAN? WE WALKED IN AND ROLLED UP SLEEVES AND SAT DOWN AND GOT TO WORK TO SOLVE THE ISSUE AND FIX THE PROBLEM. THAT IS THE WAY WE DO IT IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO.

WE GET UP EARLY, STAY UP LATE AND WORK HARD TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN AND DON'T DIVIDE PEOPLE. WE COME TOGETHER. WASHINGTON COULD USE SOME OF THAT SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO VALUE AND THAT IS THE KIND OF LEADERSHIP THAT I'LL BRING SO THAT WE'RE WORKING A BIPARTISAN MANNER TO ADDRESS THE BIG ISSUES FACING OUR COUNTRY. >> ANOTHER GENERAL QUESTION, NOW, IT APPEARS WHOLE COUNTRY STARTED A FISCAL POLICY, SPEND LESS ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS, CUT AND SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A POINT VOTE FOR OR AGAINST RAISING THE NATIONAL DEBT, IT IS A GENERAL QUESTION. BUT, GIVE US SOME IDEA WHERE YOU STAND ON THE FIGHT OVER TAXATION AND SPENDING. >> THE FIRST THING I WOULD ASSURE PEOPLE I THINK THAT YOU WILL HANDLE MONEY BETTER THAN WASHINGTON WILL. I WAS COMMITTED TO RETURNING AS MUCH MONEY TO YOU AS WE CAN.

I AM GENERALLY OPPOSED TO TAX INCREASES. HAVING SAID THAT, THE COMMISSION WAS STUDIED TO FIND OUT WHAT WORKS, SPENDING CUTS OR TAX CUTS OR TAX INCREASES. LOOKING AT THOSE RESULTS, THE NATION GOT THEMSELVES INTO FIX WE ARE, NATIONS THAT TRY TO SOLVE IS WITH TAX INCREASES HAVE FAILED THIS IS LOOKING AT IT HISTORICALLY. THOSE WHO HAVE ATTACK IT FROM A SPENDING, SUCCEED SO THAT TELLS US IF IT WORKS IN OTHER NATIONS WE MUST BE AWARE OF WHAT WILL WORK HERE. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS IS SHOULD WE STAND-BY WHILE A NATION TEARS DOWN A FISCAL PATH TO RECOLLECT OUR ECONOMY WRITE. I DIDN'T GO TO WASHINGTON TO BE SILENT. I VOTED AGAINST LEADERSHIP THAT IS IN THE WRONG AND I CONTINUE TO DO THAT. >> ABSOLUTELY. WE CLEARLY HAVE A PROBLEM IF THIS COUNTRY. WE NEED TO BALANCE THE BUDGET, WE NEED TO PAY DOWN OUR DEFICIT.

AND I SUPPORT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT PROTECTS MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. AND CUTS TAX BREAKS. WE CAN BALANCE THE BUDGET. I BELIEVE THAT STRONGLY BUT I WILL FOUGHT SUPPORT THAT ON THE BACKS OF THE MID OLE CLASS AND SENIORS LIKE PEARCE HAS. WE CAN PAY DOWN THE DEFICIT. CONGRESSMAN PEARCE VOTED FOR A BUDGET THAT WOULD END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT. AND REQUIRE SENIORS TO PAY THOUSANDS MORE IN OUT OF POCKET COSTS, CUTTING EDUCATION FUNDING FROM HEAD START TO PELL GRANTS AND STRAPPING OUR STATE OF ANY OPPORTUNITIES THEY CAN HAVE TO GROW AND SUCCEED. TAKING OUT THAT FAIR PLAY. >> WHY DO YOU DO TO PAY FOR TAX BREAKS FOR BILLIONAIRES AND MILLIONAIRES LIKE HIMSELF. >> MY SUPPORTERRERS CAREFUL TO SAY THAT REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR THINGS THAT WOULD END MEDICARE

AS WE KNOW IT. WHAT SHE NEVER SAYS IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS, IT IS AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT TOOK 700 BILLION FROM THE SENIORS, TOOK IT OUT OF MEDICARE IN ORDER TO PAY FOR OTHERS. IF SHE WOULD TALK ABOUT THE OUTCOMES INSTEAD OF VOTES, I WOULD A LOT MORE RECORD FOR THE POSITION BUT I SIMPLY SAY, THERE IS WORDS AND IT IS MORE POLITICAL TALK. >> CONGRESSMAN PEARCE IS ATTACKING ME ON SUPPORTING MEDICARE SAVINGS OUT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BUT THE FACTS ARE CLEAR. CONGRESSMAN PEARCE, YOUR ATTACKING ME FOR A VOTE THAT YOU TOOK. THOSE SAME MEDICARE SAVINGS WERE IN THE BUDGET THAT YOU SUPPORTED AND WITHOUT ANY OTHER SAFETY NET FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THOSE CUTS WERE IN ADDITION TO EDUCATION CUTS, CUTTING AUTOMATIC THE STUDENTS OUT OF HEAD START AND PELL GRANTS BELIEVE TO PAY FOR TAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRESES AND

MILLIONAIRES. >> DID YOU VOTE THE WAY SHE DESCRIBES IT? >> THE ONLY CUTS TO MEDICARE HAVE COME FROM THE DEMOCRATS FROM MR. OBAMA AND THAT IS THE WAY THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS STRUCTURED TO TAKE MONEY FROM MEDICARE. SHE SAYS SHE SUPPORTED IS UNILATERALLY. I THINK YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHAT IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING IN WASHINGTON. >> YOU SAY YOU WANT TO CUT MONEY FOR THE PRIVATE MEDICARE PROGRAMS, IS THAT CORRECT. >> FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS WHAT HE MISSTATED SOMETHING. HE SAID THAT SUPPORT AFFORDABLE CARE ACT UNILATERALLY. WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS FIX SOME OF THE PROBLEMS. THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE ACT AND WE NEED TO TACKLE THOSE INDIVIDUALLY. I DO NOT SUPPORT A TOTAL REPEAL OF IT BECAUSE THAT IS THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER. I WANT TO MAKE MY POSITION

CLEAR. >> DID YOU VOTE PRIVATE INSURANCE NOT HAVING TO PROVIDE MEDICARE PROGRAMS TO THE EXTENT THEY DO NOW. >> I SUPPORT THE MEDICARE SAVINGS THAT ARE IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND I SUPPORT THOSE BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TAKES CARE OF AND I WOULD NOT EVER VOTE TO TURN MEDICARE INTO AVOUCHER SYSTEM AND CREATE A SITUATION WHERE SENIORS HAVE TO PAY THOUSANDS OUT OF POCKET FOR PRESCRIPTION HEALTHCARE COSTS. >> YES OR NO, CUTS TO PRIVATE TO PROVIDE MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PROGRAMS, DO YOU SUPPORT THAT? >> I SUPPORT THE MEDICARE SAVINGS THAT ARE IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, SAM. >> ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. >> IT WAS PROMISED TO THE

AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT YOU CAN KEEP YOUR INSURANCE AND DOCTOR AND WE FIND OUT THAT PROMISE THAT YOU CAN KEEP YOUR INSURANCE IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. ALSO, I HAVE EMPLOYERS IN THE SECOND DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO WHO TELL PEA THEY HAVE TO LAYOFF EMPLOYEES SO IT IS COSTING US JOBS IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. I HAVE SINGLE MOM'S SAYING COSTS HAVE GONE UP SO HIGH THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. I VOTED MULTIPLE TIMES TO REPEAL THE ACT AND I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THE GOOD PARTS IT FROM BUT NOT LEAVE IT IN PLACE BECAUSE IT IS DAMAGING THE ECONOMY. >> ONE OF THE COMPLAINT LEVELEDDED AGAINST SOME REPUBLICANS IS THAT YOU OPPOSE THE ACT FOR REASONS YOU STATED BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE. >> THE ALTERNATIVE IS SUGGESTED BY A CONGRESSMAN NFROM TENNESSEE. IT WAS ONE OF MY COMPLAINT ABOUT LEADERSHIP THEY WERE LATE COMING TO THE TABLE, THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK WAS A CREDIBLE ARGUMENT. FOR MYSELF, I THINK THERE ARE PIECES OF THE ACT WE SHOULD

USE, PREEXISTING CONDITIONS, PRENATAL CONDITIONS. I THINK HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS WOULD BE GOOD TO PUT IN THERE,. A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE THE MEDICAL SYSTEM HERE BUT TURNING IT OVER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN A MISTAKE. >> CONGRESSMAN PEARCE TALKING NOW HE SUPPORTS PARTS OF THE ACT AND THEN WANTS TO CHANGE PARTS OF IT. HIS VOTES HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY TO REPEAL THE ENTIRE THING. HE IS SAYING HIS POSITION NOW WE MIGHT AON SOMETHING. I RECOGNIZE THERE ARE PROBLEMS. ONE OF THE FIXES IS SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE CREDITS UP TO 25. WE SHOULD EXPAND THAT AND ALLOW EMPLOYERS TO HAVE UP TO 50 EMPLOYERS TO TAKE CREDIT, THERE ARE PIECES WE NEED TO FIX. IT IS JUST A MATTER OF DOING IT. >> LOCAL QUESTIONS, FROM THIS DISTRICT.

CONGRESSMAN, THE PRESIDENT AS YOU KNOW HAS BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY CREATED ORGAN NATIONAL MONUMENT, A MUCH LARGER AREA. THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THIS MONUMENT. >> THINK THE PRESIDENT VASTLY OVER REACHED AND REMOVED THE ISSUE FROM A WAY THAT PEOPLE HERE HAVE A VOICE. THIS BILL ACTUALLY CAME UP SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AGO, WE BEGAN TO PUSH BASH IMMEDIATELY SAYING I AM FOR PROTECTING THE ORGANS. FOR HIM TO TAKE IT OUT OF PUBLIC SPHERE AND REMOVE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, THAT BILL DID NOT PASS UNDER REPUBLICAN CONTROL OF THE SENATE, IT DID NOT PASS WHEN JEFF BINGAMAN TRIED TO PASS IT WITH DEMOCRAT CONTROL OF THE SENATE, WITH HARRY REED, THEY STILL COULDN'T GET IT THROUGH, BECAUSE LOCAL PEOPLE OPPOSED IT.

THE PRESIDENT WENT TOO FAR IN MAKING THIS MONUMENT. THE PEOPLE THAT SUPPORTED SMALL FOOT PRINT, I ASKED SPEAKER TO INTERVENE. HE HAS USED THIS EXAMPLE THAT MANY WE SHOULD NOT THIS STAND UNCHALLENGE $, WHETHER FUNDING PIECES OF IT, TRYING TO REROUTE IT, I AM OPEN TO ADJUSTING WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE UNILATERALLY. >> MY QUESTION IS WOULD YOU SUPPORT ADDITIONAL FUNDING? YOU HAVE EXPLAINED THAT -- MAYBE NOT -- >> IT DEPENDS THE WAY IT IS LAID OUT. UNTIL YOU SEE APPROPRIATIONS, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW IT IS DESCRIBED. WE HAVE MONUMENTS RIGHT HERE THAT HAVE NO ONE GOING TO SEE THEM, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY FACILITY THERE FOR PEOPLE TO CHECK IN AND SO IF WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DECLARE MONUMENTS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF REMOVING GROUNDS FROM PUBLIC'S USE, I WOULD LOOK AT WHAT IS TO KEEP THE PEOPLE TO WHERE THEY CAN HAVE A SAY IN WHAT THE LAND IS USED FOR. >> YOUR TURN. >> ABSOLUTELY. THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FEDERAL

FUNDING, I DO SUPPORT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NATIONAL MONUMENT HERE AND AT WHAT LEVEL THAT FUNDING SHOULD BE, REQUIRES MANY, MANY HOURS OF DISCUSSION, I BELIEVE. THAT WAS BECAUSE A PUBLIC VOICE IN THE COUNTY, WE HAVE HAD SO MANY STAKEHOLDERS AT THE TABLE WORKING HARD ON THIS ISSUE FOR OVER A DECADE. WE HAVE HAD CONSERVATIONISTS, HUNTERS, BUSINESSMEN, WE HAVE HAD ALL KINDS OF FOLKS COMING TOGETHER HAVING THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND CREATING A PLAN. THE PRESIDENT THEN TOOK THAT PUBLIC VOICE AND DESIGNATED THIS NATIONAL MONUMENT WITH OVERWHELMING APPROVAL OF THE CITIZENS AND I BELIEVE THAT ANY TIME YOU'RE DOING ANYTHING ON A FEDERAL POLICY LEVEL, YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR VOICE. >> THE CONGRESSMAN SAYS BASED

ON THE SIZE OF THE MONUMENT, THE PRESIDENT -- >> I THINK THE SIZE IS ABOUT RIGHT AND IT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE CITIZENS OF DONA ANA COUNTY. THE LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE NATIONAL MONUMENT. >> LET'S GO ON TO THE SPACE PORT NOW. 10TH ANNIVERSARY THIS WEEK OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SPACE PORT. WOULD YOU APPROVE OF FEDERAL FUNDING, CONGRESSMAN FOR THE SPACE PORT. >> I HAVE BEEN A STRONG SUPPORTERS OF THE FEDERAL SPACE PORT. I WORKED WITH CLOSELY AS THEY BEGIN TO CHART THAT FIRST AIRCRAFT, OR SPACE SHIP. I WOULD SUPPORT THE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAMS THAT HAVE A GOOD INTENT. IDEA BEHIND IT IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO USE PRIVATE FUNDS, PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND WE HAVE HAVESTATE-WIDE FUND AND FEDERAL THAT HAVE GONE TO THE FACILITY

BUT A LOT OF AT THIS TIME COMES FROM PRIVATE INVESTORS. 100 MILLION WAS INKED WITH A FACILITY HERE IN THIS TOWN AND I THINK THAT FIRSTOPEN KEYS, WHITESANDSS WHICH KEEPS ALL COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC FROM FLOWING THROUGH THAT AREA IT SOME IS SAFER HERE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE. BUT, ABSOLUTELY, I BELIEVE, THAT THE HIGH TECH FUTURE OF NEW MEXICO RESTS ON IDEAS LIKE THIS. >> FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE SPACE PORT. >> YES, SPACE PORT GETS TOGETHER AND HAS A GOOD SOLID PLAN. THE BIGGEST THING MISSING RIGHT NOW FROM THE SPACE PORT IS A REALLY GREAT PLAN INTO THE FUTURE OF WHAT CITIZENS OF NEW MEXICO CAN EXPECT. AND CITIZENS NEED TO BE A PART OF THAT. SPACE PORT IS A TREMENDOUS IDEA, A WONDERFUL FACILITY, IT HAS GOT FANTASTIC POTENTIAL FOR TOURISM AND SHOWING THE LEADER IN TECHNOLOGY THAT NEW MEXICO

IS. WE ARE HURTING RIGHT NOW WITH NOT ENOUGH STAFFING AND PLAN AND WE NEED TO HAVE THAT ESTABLISHED. IN CONGRESS, WHAT I WOULD DO IS WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR STATE E LEGISLATED OFFICIALS, WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND JOIN WITH COLLABORATIVE EFFORT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A GOOD PLAN THAT IS GOING FORWARD AND FEDERAL FUNDING CAN BE A PART AND A PIECE OF THAT. >> I THINK IMPORTANCE FOR THE COUNTRY, YOU US AND MANY OTHER NATIONS ARE STOPPING RAMPAG AND ISIS. PRESIDENT INSISTS NO U.S. GROUND TROOPS WILL BE USED BUT IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAYS HE THINKS IT WILL BE NECESSARY. SO, THE QUESTION IS, IF THE PRESIDENT ASKS FOR IT, WOULD YOU VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE USE

OF GROUND TROOPS IN THIS FIGHT? >> I THINK ABSOLUTELY. I SUPPORT TARGETED AIR STRIKES THAT ARE HAPPENING NOW AND I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE TIME THAT THE PRESIDENT COMES TO CONGRESS AND ASKS FOR THAT AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH GROUND TROOPS. GENERAL DEMPSEY, THAT ME MIGHT NEED TO DO IT. AS WE CONTINUE THERE IS GOING TO BE MORE INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT A GOOD DECISION AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT THE EXPERTS ARE SAYING. LIKE MANY SOUTHERN NEW MEXICANS AND WHAT I HEAR TRAVELING AROUND, I AM VERY WORRIED ABOUT SENDING GROUND TROOPS TO THAT AREA. WE NEED TO LOOK AT INTERNATIONAL COALITIONS AND COLLABORATIONS AND SEE WHAT INFORMATION IS PRESENTED AT THE TIME THAT WE ARE TAKING THAT VOTE IN CONGRESS. THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. WITH THE COST OF THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS BEEN SO GREAT WITH

LIVES AND FUNDING, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN MAKING DECISIONS. >> IF THE PRESIDENT SAYS HE WANTS TO DO THAT, DO YOU BELIEVE HE IS OBLIGATED, LEGALLY OR CONSTITUTIONALLY TO COME TO CONGRESS AND GET PERMISSION? >> YES, ABSOLUTELY. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD COME TO CONGRESS AND GET PERMISSION FOR THAT. >> WHERE DO YOU STAND IN THE POSSIBILITY OF USING GROUND TROOPS IN THIS FIGHT? >> ISIS THREAT IS EXTREME. I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CROW TO GET TO THE GAME, HE WAS SLOW TO GET TO THE GAME. HE DESCRIBED THEM EARLY ON AS A JUNIOR VARSITY THREAT AND MISSED A LOT OF SECURITY BRIEFINGS. WHAT I WOULD DO IS LISTEN TO THE GENERALS. I HAVE SAID THAT REPEATEDLY. I WAS IN VIETNAM AT A TIME WHEN POLITICIANS BEGAN TO RUN THE WAR AND I HAVE A -- THEY LEFT YOUNG SOLDIERS IN VIETNAM AND DO NOT WANT TO PUT OTHERS IN THAT POSITION. SO IF THE PRESIDENT ASKS FOR THAT PERMISSION, THEN I WILL

TRY TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT HE IS LISTENING TO THE GENERALS, WHETHER OR NOT HE IS GOING TO LET OUR TROOPS FIGHT TO WIN AND WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS THE HEART TO FINISH THE PROCESS. HE TELLS YOU HE IS PULLING OUT OF AFGHANISTAN, OUR GENERAL SAID THEY ARE NOT READY TO BE ALONE. FOR HIM TO UNILATERALLY PULL OUT OF IRAQ WITHOUT STABILIZING PRESENCE THERE WAS A BIG MISTAKE AND WE'RE PAYING THE PENALTY FOR IT. I WOULD ANALYZE INTENT BEFORE I GAVE HIM APPROVAL TO USE MORE LIVES OVER IN THAT THEATER. >> CONGRESSMAN WOULD RELY ON GENERALS AND THEIR VIEW, WHAT BUT ANALYSIS. >> THAT IS EXACTLY THE THING I WAS THINKING ABOUT, GENERAL DEMPSEY, WE NEED TO RELY ON THE EXPERTS THAT ARE GENERALS AND PERSONNEL THAT ARE INVOLVED AND RIGHT THERE ON THE GROUND WITH THESE ISSUES. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WE CAN

TAKE THE MOST INFORMATION THE BEST INFORMATION AND MAKE A GOOD DECISION BEFORE SUBJECTING AMERICAN TROOPS TO FURTHER BATTLE. >> ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE DEBATE AND WE COME TO THIS TERRIBLY UNFAIR 10 SECOND QUESTIONS. HOW DO YOU ANSWER ANYTHING THAT IS IMPORTANT IN 10 SECONDS. WE CAN TRY IT. FIRST QUESTION, DO YOU BELIEVE FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE NEEDED. >> I DO NOT, SAM. THE GUN CONTROL LAWS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE WOULD HAVE PREVENTED ANY ATROCITIES THAT OCCURRED. >> SAM I THINK WE NEED TO CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES THAT ARE ALLOWING GUNS INTO THE HAND OF CRIMINAL AND MENTALLY ILL AND WE CANNOT HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT GUNS WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT ACCESS TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES. >> WHAT ABOUT CLOSING LOOPHOLES. >> I HEAR THAT A LOT, BUT MOST OF THE LOOPHOLES HAVE BEEN CLOSED. IT IS NOT LIKE YOU CAN GO TO

GUN SHOWS AND ANYONE CAN GET THEM, BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE REQUIRED. I DON'T THINK WE NEED NEW LAWS RIGHT NOW. LET'S START ENFORCING THE ONES THAT WE HAVE. >> WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE ACCESS TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES BECAUSE WE ARE IN A SHORTFALL IN GETTING PEOPLE THE HELP THEY NEED FOR THOSE SERVICES AND THAT IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE COMING OUT OF GUN TRAGEDIES. >> DO YOU SUPPORT THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE? >> SAM, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THERE IS A FEW STATES THAT HAVE DID HE CRIMINAL USED MARIJUANA AND I AM TAKING A WAIT AND SEE APPROACH. I WANT TO SEE THE IMPACT IT HAS TO THE ECONOMY, HEALTHCARE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THOSE STATES BEFORE WE MAKE THE DECISION FOR THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. >> MARIJUANA MR. PEARCE. >> I GREW UP IN 60'S AND 70'S AND DURING THOSE TIMES WHEN THE

ILLEGAL DRUGSES FIRST MADE WAY INTO HIGH SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES. LOOKING IN THE REARVIEW MIRROR OF LIFE, SEEING THOSE KIDS WHO SAID, THIS IS RECREATIONAL AND UNDERSTANDING THE WASTED LIVES, AND LOST OPPORTUNITIES AND FAMILIES THAT WENT WITHOUT PARENTS WHO WERE RECREATIONALLY USING DRUGS, I DON'T SEE HOW I CAN SEND THAT MESSAGE TO PARENTS AND I WOULD NOT VOTE TO LEGALIZE. >> DO YOU AGREE THAT GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL AS IT IS NOW IN NEW MEXICO? >> ABSOLUTELY. I SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE TREATED IN EQUAL WAY, NO MATTER WHO WE LOVE. I COULD NEVER IMAGINE TAKING THE JOY OF MARRIAGE AWAY FROM SOMEBODY ELSE AFTER MY FAMILY HAS CELEBRATED DECADES OF ANNIVERSARIES AND I HAVE BEEN MARRIED TO MY WONDERFUL HUSBAND FOR ALMOST 16 YEARS NOW.

>> SAME SEX MARRIAGE QUESTION OFTEN IS APPROACHED BY PEOPLE SAYING THAT IT IS ONLY FAIR, BUT THE UNTOLD PART OF THAT IS THAT WE CAN'T JUST HAVE TWO SYSTEMS THAT PARALLEL EACH OTHER, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THAT WE DECLARE SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE OKAY. IF SAME SEX MARRIAGES ARE IMPLEMENTEDDED THEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE YOUD, WHO ARE ATTACKED FOR THEIR BELIEFS, WHO ARE TOLD YOU CAN'T TEACH THAT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL WHO SAY THAT YOU ARE CHURCHES CAN'T TEACH IT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED TO COME IN AND CORRECT THOSE PEOPLE WITH THE WRONG VIEWPOINT. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN HERE IN NEW MEXICO, A LADY THAT WAS JUST SAYING, I WANT TO MAKE VIDEOS OF YOUR MARRIAGE, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE JUDGE SAID, YOU DON'T THE RIGHT TO BE IN BUSINESS AND DO THAT. EVEN THOUGH I THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NEVER TELL PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIFE, I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD LET THIS ISSUE REDEFINE THE MARRIAGE. SHOULD WE LET IT REDEFINE WHAT

MARON IS AND I DO NOT THINK -- MARRIAGE IS. >> I DON'T KNOW THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE AND SAME SEX. IT IS ALL MARRIAGE. IT IS TWO PEOPLE WHO LOVE EACH OTHER, IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP AND WANT TO BE TOGETHER. THESE ARE CREATING ISSUES TO STAND BEHIND HIS POSITION THAT HE HAS TAKEN ALL THESE YEARS AGAINST SAME SEX COUPLES GETTING MARRIED. THE COUNTRY IS MOVING FORWARD. LEARNING, TO THINK IT IS NOT OKAY, IS NOT OKAY. THE TRAIN HAS LEFT THE STATION AND THIS IS MARRIAGE FOR ALL. >> WE ASK FOR 10 SECOND TO ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS DEBATED IN LIVING ROOMS. BIG QUESTIONS NOW. WHILE IT IS NOT ON THE BALLOT MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE ALL POLLS SHOW THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA IS ON THE BALLOT IN ONE SENSE IN THIS

COMING ELECTION. HE SAID ABOUT 10 DAYS AGO HIS POLICIES ARE ON THE BALLOT. WHICH ONE OF -- SOME SAID HE SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT. MOST REPUBLICANS AND YOU SPEAK FOR YOURSELF AS A REPUBLICAN OPPOSE PRESIDENT ON MANY ISSUES BUT NOW DEMOCRATS SUPPORTERS OF HIS ARE OPPOSING HIM. LEON SAID, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, LONG TIME DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF E -- SAID THE PRESIDENT HAD LOST HIS WAY IN IRAQ AND COMMITTED A BREEDING GROUND FOR ISIS. YOU'RE THE DEMOCRAT AND I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN WITH YOU. >> I AM NOT RUNNING AWAY FROM THE PRESIDENT IN THIS ELECTION.

I AM WORKING HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO VALUES ARE PROTECTED. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT ON AND SOME THINGS I AGREE ON BUT IT MAKE NO, SIR MATTER. THE POINT IS THAT THE DIVISIVENESS, DYSFUNCTION AND PARTISANSHIP IS HURTING SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. I AM RUNNING ON MY RECORD AS GOALING THINGS DONE, WORKING ACROSS THE AISLE AND STANDING UP FOR PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY, STANDING UP FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND FOR SENIORS, STANDING UP FOR OUR VETERANS AND STANDING UP FOR OUR CHILDREN. BECAUSE, I DON'T THINK THAT ALL HOPE IS LOST. I BELIEVE WE CAN FIX CONGRESS TOGETHER AND I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN BRING NEW MEXICO OUT OF THE BOTTOM OF THOSE RANKINGS. >> IN GENERAL, WITH THAT SPECIFIC ISSUES HERE AND THERE DO YOU THINK IN GENERAL, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN A PRETTY GOOD LEADER? >> AGAIN, THERE IS SOME THINGS I DISAGREE WITH AND SOME THINGS

THAT I AGREE WITH HIM ON. SO, IT IS HARD TO DESCRIBE EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF LEADER I THINK HE HAS BEEN. I THINK HE HAS MADE BAD DECISIONS THAT HAVE HURT SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO AND DONE SOME GOOD THINGS THAT HELP WILL SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. THAT IS MY FOCUS, WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH EVERY ISSUE AND HOW IS IT GOING TO IMPACT FAMILIES IN OUR DISTRICT. >> YOU HAVE WRITTEN THE PRESIDENT A LETTER COMPLIMENTING SOME OF THE SPECIFIC THINGS HE HAD DONE BUT SURELY IF THE WEBSITE IS CORRECT, THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT YOUR OVERALL VIEW OF LEADERSHIP. >> CARTER SAID THAT HE HAS MADE HUGE MISTAKES. FEINSTEIN IN CALIFORNIA SAID HE DON'T HAVE A -- GENERALS ARE SAYING HE IS NOT PROSECUTING MILITARY STRATEGY CORRECTLY, NOT SHOWING UP AT DAILY BRIEFINGS. I CAN WORK WITH PEOPLE I DON'T AGREE WITH. THAT IS EASY. WE WORK ON THAT HERE IN THE

DISTRICT BUT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS PRESIDENT PROMISED HE WAS GOING TO UNITE US AND BRING US TOGETHER AND THIS COUNTRY NEEDS THAT. WE WERE LOOKING FOR HIS VISION AND LEADERSHIP AND HE DID NOT COME THROUGH. AND IN FACT, MANY TIMES HE HAS BEEN MORE DIVISIVE AND BEEN A STAND ALONE GUY SAYING TO CONGRESS, AND HE CAN DISMISS WITH US WITH THE WAVE OF THE PEN AND I AM SORRY BUT THE PROCESS OF AMERICA WANTED CHECKS AND BALANCES AND FOR HIM TO UNILATERALLY GO AROUND THOSE, IT EATS AWAY AT THE HEART OF THE REPUBLIC. >> IF YOU THINK HE HAS NOT BEEN A GOOD LEADER, WHY IS THAT? I LISTEN TO TALK RADIO AND I HEAR SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HIM AS NOT A GOOD AMERICAN AND SOME CLAIM HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN. >> SAM, I CAN'T LOOK INSIDE HIS HEART. YOU JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT IS THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHY HE HAS MISSED THOSE BRIEFING.

I DO NOT KNOW WHY HE DECIDED TO PULL OUT OF IRAQ -- I WENT THERE THREE OR FOUR TIMES LAST YEAR, WE WERE IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ AND THEY ARE SAYING, PLEASE, WE NEED TO BE HERE AS A STIFF BACK BONE. WHY THE PRESIDENT DID THESE THINGS, I DO NOT KNOW. FOR THE DIVISIVE THINGS, I FEEL LIKE IT HAS POLITICAL UNDER TONES TO THAT. HE SAYS ON TV, PRESIDENT CALLED ME WEEK AND A HALF OR TWO WEEKS, IT APPEARS TO HAVE POLITICAL UNDER TONES. >> YOUR IMPRESSION ON THIS POINT. LISTENING TO A TALK SHOW HOST WHO SAYS THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE SOME OF THESE THINGS ON PURPOSE TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY, MR. SAVAGE SAID. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT. >> I CAN'T BELIEVE ANYONE IS IN PUBLIC OFFICE AND PURPOSEFULLY SET OUT TO DAMAGE THE COUNTRY. INTENT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH IT. THE GREATER THING IS WHAT HAS HE DONE.

THE POLICIES THAT HE PUT INTO PLACE ARE KILLING THE POOR. IT IS DRIVING UP INFLATION. PEOPLE DON'T CARE WHAT THE PRICE OF GROCERIES ARE, BUT PEOPLE HERE -- >> I AM ASKING, I AM COMING BACK TO YOU, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF WHETHER IT IS A GOOD THING FOR THE COUNTRY WHEN PUBLIC VOICES SPEAK OUT AND MISCHARACTERIZE ONE WHO SAID THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE ALL OF THIS ON PURPOSE. >> I HEARD PEOPLE SAY ABOUT PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS A TRAITOR. I HAVE HEARD THESE VOICES AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS GAVE US FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THAT COMESES WITH RESPONSIBILITY AND IF WE DO NOT EXERCISE THAT RESPONSIBILITY, I AM WORRY BAD A GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD COME IN AND SAY, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING, SO I DISAGREE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING THIS PRESIDENT DOWN AND SAYING HE IS TRYING TO HURT THE

COUNTRY BUT THEY HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. >> TAKE THE TIME YOU REQUIRE. >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I AGAIN FIND IT INTERESTING THAT CONGRESSMAN PEARCE CONTINUES TO TALK ABOUT DIVISIVENESS BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FED UP WITH CONGRESS ABOUT. IS THAT DIVISIVENESS, DYSFUNCTION AND PART SONSHIP AND HOW IT HURTS OUR FAMILY. HE PART OF THE BATTLE OF THE WAR ON THE POOR. WE VOTED FOR THAT BUDGET ENDING MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT AND COSTING SENIORS THOUSANDS. HE VOTED TO CUT HEAD START PROGRAMS AND STUDENTS CANNOT HAVE ACCESS TO HEAD START. THIS HURTS LOW INCOME FAMILIES IN NEW MEXICO THAT ARE TRYING TO GET A HIGHER EDUCATION. THOSE ARE THE THINGS WAR ON THE POOR.

HE VOTED FOR ALL OF THOSE TO PAY FOR TAX BREAKS FOR MILLIONAIRES LIKE HIMSELF. THOSE ARE THE WRONG PRIORITIES AND SAME ARE THE PART OF PARTISANSHIP AND DIVISIVENESS THAT HAPPENS IN CONGRESS. >> AGAIN, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT MY OPPONENT IS SAYING THAT WE DID THESE THINGS. THOSE VOTES WERE NOT ACTIONS, ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT THAT KEEP PEOPLE FROM GETTING LOANS BECAUSE OF A REGULATION PASSED BY DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRAT HOUSE AND SENATE. THOSE ARE STARVING COMMUNITY BANKS OUT AND LOCAL PEOPLE CAN'T BORROW MONEY FOR ANYTHING. THAT IS THE REAL WAR ON THE POOR, INFLATION COSTS BY PRINTING OF MONEY. THAT IS THE WAR ON THE POOR. THOSE ARE ACTUAL THINGS THAT ARE OCCURRING. THOSE ARE NOT HYPOTHETICALS, THEY ARE REAL. >> DO YOU DISPUTE HER RECITATION OF THE VOTES AS SHE SAID THEM. >> I DISPUTE THE FACT THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING THAT HAS DONE THAT

HAVE CUT THOSE THINGS. THOSE ARE A BUDGET THAT IS A BLUEPRINT. THE CUTS THAT ARE GOING ON ARE THE IMPORTANT THINGS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THAT IS COMING FROM HER PARTY RIGHT NOW. >> CONGRESSMAN PEARCE IS ATTACKING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND PEARCE IS ATTACKING PRESIDENT OBAMA. THIS RACE IS NOT BETWEEN CONGRESSMAN PEARCE AND PRESIDENT OBAMA, THIS RAISE IS BETWEEN CONGRESSMAN PEARCE AND MYSELF AND ABOUT WHO HAS PRIORITIES AND INTERESTS TO WORK HARD FOR SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO FAMILIES TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT ARE AFFECTING US RIGHT HERE EVERY SINGLE DAY ON THE GROUND. AND WHO IS GOING TO CUT THROUGH THAT DYSFUNCTION IN WASHINGTON TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. >> SUBJECT OF INTEREST AND QUESTION IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY, IMMIGRATION REFORM, PER SE, OR NOT. DO YOU FAVOR REFORMING THE NATION'S IMMIGRATION LAWS TO ALLOW SOME AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE NOW ILLEGALLY TO

REMAIN IN THE U.S.? >> IMMIGRATION IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS TO THIS. AS I WAS GROWING UP 10 YEARS OLD, MOM TAKES US DOWN TO THE FIELDS BEHIND US AND THE THREE OLDEST BOYS WOULD JOIN THE RASCONS AND OTHERS THAT WERE WORKING IN THED FIELD AND A GROUP THAT WOULD DO ANYTHING TO FEED FAMILIES. I BELIEVE IN IMMIGRATION AND I BELIEVE WHAT IT BRINGS TO THIS COUNTRY. WHERE PIE OPPONENT AND I DISAGREE IS ON THE IDEA OF AMNESTY OR THE PATH WAY. I DO NOT THINK THAT IS THE WAY WE SHOULD ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. I HAVE ADDRESSED IT SINCE I FIRST GOT TO CONGRESS, TOLD THE SPEAKER WE NEED TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. I WAS ON WORKING TEAM TRYING TO GET THE TWO SIDES TOGETHER AND VISIT WITH CONGRESSMAN GUITERREZ TODAY, SO I STILL BELIEVE WE SHOULD REFORM IT BUT AMNESTY IS NOT THE SOLUTION. I WOULD SUPPORT THE GUEST WORKER PROGRAM WHERE AMERICANS

ARE OFFERED JOBS FIRST AND IF THEY DON'T TAKE IT, THEN PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND WORK BUT WOULD NOT RECEIVE BENEFITS WHILE WORKING. >> THIS COUNTRY DESPERATELY NEEDS REFORM AND I SUPPORT A BIPARTISAN COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL TO TAKE CARE OF THAT PROBLEM. WE HAVE OVER 11 MILLION PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT ARE UNDOCUMENTED AND THEY ARE IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND WORKING AND PARTICIPATING IN OUR COMMUNITIES. WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GETS THOSE FOLKS OUT OF THE SHADOWS AND MAKE THEM TAX PAYING PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS OF AMERICA. SO, I SUPPORT COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM. THAT DOES SEVERAL THINGS, THAT INVESTS IN INCREASING INVESTMENT IN BORDER SECURITY AND CRACKS DOWN ON EMPLOYERS THAT ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES. REFORM OF THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE AND PROVIDES A PATH WAY TO

CITIZENSHIP WHICH IS NOT A FREE PATH. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE IMMIGRANTS TO GET IN THE BACK OF THE LINE, TO LEARN ENGLISH, TO PAY BACK TAXES AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO PASS THOSE BACKGROUND CHECKS BEFORE THEY BECOME CITIZENS. >> HOW COULD YOU DO THAT WITHOUT AMNESTY. AMNESTY SUGGESTS A FOR GIVENESS OF ILLEGAL ACT. >> SURE, THAT IS A MISCHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT I SUPPORT. WAY SUPPORT IS A TOUGH WAY TO CITIZENSHIP. IT HAS SEVERAL HOOPS AND THEY ARE TO PASS THAT GROUNDS CHECK, TO PAY BACK TAXES, GET IN THE BACK OF THE LINE AND TO LEARN ENGLISH, SO THEY CAN BECOME PRODUCTIVE TAX PAYING CITIZENS. JUST PASSING REFORM ALONE, WILL

BRING A TRILLION TO OUR ECONOMY OVER TWO DECADES. >> WHAT DOES AMNESTY MEAN TO YOU, THEY SHOULD ALL GO BACK TO THE COUNTRY AND GET IN THE BACK OF THE LINE OF IMMIGRATION. >> WITH REGARD TO ANY POLICY, CHALLENGE WE HAVE IS WHAT IS FAIR TO ALL CONCERNED. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND A PATH WAY OF AMNESTY, BECAUSE TO ME THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE FAIRNESS TO THE PEOPLE WHO COME HERE LEGALLY. WE GET ABOUT AS MANY IMMIGRATION CASES BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION CLOSE TO THE BORDER. WE SEE THAT IT TAKES UP TO 20 YEARS, FPEOPLE COULD COME HERE AND LEARN ENGLISH, PAY BACK TAXES, WE MUST HAVE A PROCESS BY WHICH PEOPLE COME TO THE COUNTRY AND BECOME CITIZENS. PATH WAY SAYS COME HERE ANYWAY YOU WANT TO AND LEARN ENGLISH AND PAY THE TAXES AND WE MIGHT GIVE YOU A 15 BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE YOU A CITIZEN, THAT TELLS EVERYBODY EXACTLY WHAT IS

HAPPENING, THE PEOPLE WILL COME FLOODING HERE, BORDER PATROL SAYS, WE ARE OUT OF RESOURCES AND CAN'T STOP THE FLOOD. THERE HAS TO BE A PROCESS. THE PROCESS MUST BE CLEAR AND SAY YOU CAN COME HERE AND WE'LL TAKE CARE OF YOU IS NOT THE SOLUTION. >> WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY. >> SECURE THE BORDER, SECONDLY, REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION -- I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD LIVE WITH THAT, NOW, WE HAVE A PROBLEM, WITH PEOPLE WHO SAY WE NEED A PATH WAY, WE HAVE A DYNAMIC PROBLEM, IT IS SAME THOMAS IT IS TODAY. I WOULD SECURE THE BORDER, I WOULD THEN FIX LEGAL IMMIGRATION AND ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION, DO YOU WANT TO BE A CITIZEN OR NOT, THEN THERE IS A PROCESS. IF YOU WANT TO WORK AND FEED

YOUR FAMILY, LET'S GET YOU A PERMIT. MOST PEOPLE TELL ME, THEY WOULD CHOOSE TO STAY AND WORK, THEY SAY THEY DON'T COME TO BE A CITIZEN. >> SO I UNDERSTAND, IF YOU WANT TO BE A CITIZEN, THEY SHOULD GO BACK AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. >> SURE. >> IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A CITIZEN, WE DEPORT THEM? >> YOU GIVE THEM A GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. I WOULDN'T SEND THEM BACK, YOU SIMPLY SAY, GET ON A GUEST WORKER PROGRAM AND IF YOU HAVE A JOB, YOUR WELCOME TO BE HERE, IF AMERICANS DON'T TAKE THE JOB, WE'LL GIVE YOU A JOB. WITHOUT A JOB, YOU NEED TO BE BACK IN YOUR COUNTRY. IF YOU LET PEOPLE COME AND GO WITH EASE. MOST PEOPLE WOULD SAY, I WANT MY KIDS TO GO TO SCHOOL -- AND THOUGH MAKE IT SO DIFFICULT TO GO BACK AND FORTH -- IF WE HAVE A SIMPLE PROCESS TO GO BACK AND FORTH, WE WOULDN'T HAVE MANY OF

THE PROBLEMS. >> WE HAVE TO DEVELOP A PATH WAY TO CITIZENSHIP AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE REFORM. THIS PASSED THE SENATE BILL FOR BIPARTISAN IMMIGRATION REFORM PASSED OVERWHELMINGLY AND BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE CAME TOGETHER. SOME HAD THINGS THEY DIDN'T WANT. THAT IS A UNIQUE EXAMPLE TO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN CONGRESS RIGHT NOW. I BELIEVE IF THE HOUSE BROUGHT THAT SAME BILL UP FOR THE A VOTE IT WOULD PASS AND I AM NOT SURE WHO CONGRESSMAN PEARCE IS TALKING TO AROUND THE DISTRICT, MOST IMMIGRANTS THAT I SPEAK TO WANT CITIZENSHIP AND THEY WANT CITIZENSHIP FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT CHILDREN IN AMERICA HAVE AND THEY WANT TO BECOME PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS AND NOT LIVE IN THE SHADOWS ANYMORE. THIS IS A HUGE POLICY PROBLEM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WE NEED TO FIX IT.

>> CONGRESSMAN SAYS IF THEY WANT IT SHE SHOULD GO BACK AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. >> WHICH IS WHY REFORM IS A PART OF BIPARTISAN COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM. YOU CAN'T DO THIS IN A PIECEMEAL SECTION, YOU HAVE TO TACKLE THE ISSUE AND DEAL WITH ALL THE PARTS AND PIECES OR ELSE YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH MORE PROBLEMS. >> I THINK WE HAVE TIME FOR ONE MORE BIG QUESTIONS. THE BIG QUESTION IS OVER CLIMATE CHANGE. IT IS A FACT CLIMATE IS WARMING AND THE QUESTION BECOMES TO WHAT EXTENT DO WE BELIEVE HUMAN ACTIVITY IS CONTRIBUTING, PERHAPS DANGEROUSLY TO THE WARMING. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS CONTRIBUTING IT TO, WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT. >> I DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, THERE ARE SCIENTISTS TO HEY THAT HUMAN ACTION IS NOT CAUSING THE GLOBAL WARMING AT ALL. IN FACT 17 YEARS THERE HAS NOT

BEEN GLOBAL WARMS IT IS STABLE. I THINK ALL OF US HEARD THE IDEA FROM AL GORE THAT THE ICE CAPS WILL DISAPPEAR. THEY HAVEN'T DISAPPEARED. WE HEARD PEOPLE WHO SAID, I WAS JUST THERE THIS PAST YEAR, ICE CAP IS THERE, IN FACT THE LAST THREE YEARS, IT HAS INCREASED BY 50%. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE PEOPLE WHO PRETEND -- THEY WANT TO TAX AMERICAN PEOPLE BASED ON IDEA OF GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS TAX THEY ARE AFTER. I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO TAX THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MORE TO PAY FOR SO THAT MONEY CAN BE REDISTRIBUTED WHICH IS THE INTENT OF THE WHOLE ISSUE. >> DO YOU BELIEVE HUMAN ACTIVITY AS CONTRIBUTED. >> I DO BELIEVE THAT IT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO GLOBAL WARMING AND LIKE YOU SAID, SAM, IT IS A FACT THAT IT EXISTS.

I APPLAUDE CONGRESSMAN PEARCE EFFORTS TO GOOGLE THE ISSUE, BUT I DON'T GET ALL OF MY INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET. I RELY ON EXPERT OPINION AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING AROUND THE WORLD. WE NEED TO LOOK FOR GOOD INVESTMENTS AND PLANS AND VERY STRATEGIC TARGETED PLANNING FOR OUR FUTURE. WE ARE LUCKY TO LIVE IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. THIS IS THE ENERGY DISTRICT OF THE UNITED STATES. WE HAVE OIL AND GAS, BIO FUELS AND GEOTHERMAL AND WE HAVE WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY AND POWER. WE HAVE GREAT UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND WE CAN BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF TECHNOLOGY. JUST AS NEW MEXICO IS A LEADER IN OIL AND GAS, WE CAN BE A LEADER IN RENEWABLE SOURCES AS WELL. I SUPPORT ALL OF THE ABOVE ENERGY PLAN AND LOOKING FOR WAYS TO MAKE THESE THINGS HAPPEN. >> NEW MEXICO CAN BE A LEADER IN EACH ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES, THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION.

THE QUESTION IS, WOULD WE LEVY A NEW TAX ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN ORDER TO PAY FOR WHAT PEOPLE SAY IS OCCURRING. INTERESTING TO HEAR OPPONENT