Illustrated Daily; 5005; Race for the Legislature: District 1 Forum

You You The 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. Republican incumbent congressman Manuel Lujan, Democratic State Representative Ted Asbury, a forum on the issues and the race for the United States House of Representatives from New Mexico's first congressional district next on the Illustrated Daily. The Illustrated Daily, Managing Editor Howe Roads Good evening, personalities and partisan sentiments have always played a large part in American politics. Issues too often have seemed neglected, but not tonight on this first in a series of 1984 election year campaign forums here at the Illustrated Daily.

We are now in a headlong rush to the November General Election and among the many important decisions facing New Mexico voters this time out is the race for the United States House of Representatives from the state's first congressional district, a race which pits Republican incumbent congressman Manuel Lujan, the dean of the state's congressional delegation, against his Democratic opponents state representative Ted Asbury. Tonight, the major party candidates first full-length joint television appearance this campaign season, and Congressman Lujan, Representative Asbury, welcome, it's nice to have you both back at the Illustrated Daily on this occasion. Gentlemen, before we continue, let me introduce our guest reporters this evening. They are the journalists who will be putting the questions to the candidates this evening, Diana Stoffer, news reporter at Albuquerque Radio Station, K-O-B-A-M, and Pam Maples, political reporter for the Albuquerque Tribune, Pam, Diana, welcome, it's nice to have you here as well, I'm sure you have some things you'd like to discuss with the candidates, but before

we do that, I'd like to explain that there are a few ground rules here this evening. Each reporter in each round is entitled to one question and one follow-up. Candidates in turn will be allotted equal time for all questions posed of them, 45 seconds for primary questions, 30 seconds for all follow-ups. At the conclusion of the program, each candidate has been a lot of time for brief closing statements first. However, our journalists are poised to question the candidates and Diana Stoffer, we will begin with you and by the draw of the straws, you would direct your first question to Congressman Luhan. Great, Congressman, let's talk about the budget deficit. There's a growing school of thought that we need taxes, new, more revenues, to offset that deficit. I'd like to know if you subscribe to that idea, what kind of tax structure is the most equitable, and do you go against your president, President Reagan, who says, no taxes? Well, at a last resort, maybe.

Well, I think that's the difference. No, I do not support tax increases to balance the budget. I think as you know, you never say never, and that's why he's saying that, but there's no intent on the part of us to raise any taxes. You balance the budget by reducing expenditures, which we have been unable to do because we don't control the house, and by the increase in business activity, which is happening right now because of the tax reductions that we gave during this year, but absolutely not. On my personal agenda, there are no increases in taxes. What about the flat tax that you have discussed? You said you would support a 10% flat tax or modified flat tax instead of the system that we have right now. Is that really more equitable to all income earners? I think so, a 10% flat tax, which I propose and I support, is a simplification tax. It has nothing to do with raising more money for the federal government. Ideally, we would come out exactly the same, but with all the additions and deductions and all of that, you know, it's a horrendous thing to prepare an income tax return.

And so what we're saying, let's make it simple. Representative Asbury, do you support taxes as a way to reduce the budget deficit? Or do you support the Mandel-Ferraro tax plan? I'm not sure that you do need to use a tax increase to be able to get the deficit in line. I think that what is required to be able to get the deficit in line is to adjust the expenditures and the revenue side. Having served in the legislature, I've had a fair amount of experience with that in the New Mexico revenue stream. What we need to do is to revise the taxing structure in such a way as to do away with things such as the endless listings of deductions, the marriage tax where you get one tax schedule if you're single, and another one if you file jointly to do away with the end runs made by corporations in today's paper, for instance, we see that of the top 500 corporations in the country, 129 of them paid no tax at all.

So I think that- I'm going to cut you off so the Diana might do her follow-up. Right. Well, you talked about certain deductions being eliminated. What would you eliminate then? Well, I think that deductions such as allowing people to buy the city hall in Atlanta, Georgia, when Andrew Young sold the city hall and then leased it back as a tax deduction, we see the same thing at the convention center, are those kind of loopholes, the golden parachute claws within the tax structure provides giant loopholes that huge, high investors can get around paying a fair and equitable tax and corporate taxes. Now then, Pam Maples has a question for you- Representative Luhon, describe for us what your primary goals, objectives and priorities as a congressman would be. Well, one of the first ones would be, of course, is to not only balance the budget, but also to make sure that it's balanced with a reasonable approach, not to balance it on the backs of Social Security and Medicare, as have been proposed and have been done to

date, like the tremendous cuts that we've seen. So you need to balance the budget, but you need to do it in a reasonable fashion. For New Mexico, I see things that are very important, like the development of a solar industry, expansion of our educational opportunities, providing new job and educational opportunities for New Mexicans. These are the kinds of things, comprehensive energy plan. These are the kinds of things that are definitely on the horizon and need to be addressed. How would you balance providing constituent services against shaping policy, larger overall policy? Well, constituent service, I think, is 5 to 10 percent of what a congressman is capable of doing with satellite type communications that are available today. We can transmit letters and correspondence and inquiries back and forth in a matter of milliseconds between Albuquerque and Washington. So all of those things can be done, but a dynamic leadership that we need to be able to say that we're using more oil than we're able to produce and that disparity is getting greater needs to be addressed, solar is one way to do that.

Congressman Mulhan, tell us about your goals and objectives. Do you see shifts in your approach as a congressman? No, I don't see any shifts. The primary thing that we have to do in the next session of Congress is to balance the budget. I support a constitutional amendment such as we have in New Mexico to balance that budget. I support also a line item veto for the president that he can veto just one line out of a whole bill. No new taxes is another priority. In New Mexico, I have two priorities. One, I've been working for the last six months on a bill to try to solve the water problem between ourselves and I'll pass off. I've got it ready to go. And then I've got another one on ditches. Jobs are important as Ted says. There's no question about that. I serve on the Committee on Science and Technology and through that, I'm involved in new technologies for new jobs. You were noted and you emphasized your constituent services and some people talk about the few pieces of legislation you introduce. Are there plans to be more active and introduce more pieces of legislation yourself?

Well, you know, we have different styles. I work with other people and bringing about legislation. You will never hear me refer to. I did this, I did that, you will always see that we do this. On constituent service, let me tell you, you know, that's very important. When a guy calls me and he can't get into the veterans hospital, this actually happened. He's got cancer. His wife calls. He finally gets in. They operate on him and he gets five years additional life. That's very important on the part of the congressman. Hi, Diana. You have a question for the congressman? Congressman Luna, on the environment, it would be very specific on the environment. The San Jose well number six, and the Albuquerque South Valley has been closed down, suspected Carson, Jensopin, found in it. There are other wells who have identified petrochemical products, even sewage. The state is saying it may be impossible to clean up. Why isn't the San Jose well or the South Valley on the super fun list? You remember?

Well, let me tell you, you know, as a matter of fact, that was brought to my attention by Dr. Merchant. And as a matter of fact, if you will remember, I'm the one that brought it to the public attention, I call it EPA, finally, you know, the state is denying that there's any problem. Let me also say one other thing, a difference in what we stand for. I think that the polluter, whoever the polluter is, that's who ought to pay for the pollution. Ted criticized me for that vote here some time ago, indicating that he would support the government paying to clean up all pollution. I think that's a big difference in our approach. As a ranking member of the Interior Committee, what are you doing to locate that polluter? Well, you know, it's not my responsibility as a member of Congress to locate the polluter. We have agencies. We have the Environmental Protection Agency. We have the EIS here in New Mexico. That's their responsibility. My responsibility is to say, by law, if you pollute, you pay for it, brother. And that's exactly, you know, the way that I voted in the Congress.

Representative Asbury, the pollution problem in the South Valley is water wells. As a congressman, what do you think you could do about it? And do you think there is a role that the federal government should play there? Yes, I'm going to tell you that, yes, there is a difference, and we're going to start the battle right here and now. Because Congressman Manuel Luján voted against extension of the Superfund. He voted against a 12 percent side to side. He voted against allowing the continuation of tax on chemical companies to create the monies to go clean these up. And I'm going to say, without equivocation, Mr. Congressman, then indeed, you are not a supporter of Superfund. And that's one of the reasons why San Jose, well number six, has got carcinogenic levels of one-one trichlorethylene and dichlorethylene in them. It's because we don't have a commitment, and I'm going to offer one other thing to you. It is on EPA lists to be able to clean up, and it should be cleaned up. And if we had an act of aggressive Congressman to go out there and push for Superfund clean up, we'd clean them up. Are you urging the federal government to pay for the entire cleanup?

No. What I'm saying is that the money is set aside from taxes on chemical companies. And that money should be available for municipalities and people who are affected to be able to move ahead with that cleanup. The money is there. And if we did, if we had an aggressive Congressman who was willing to take the leadership role and start to do it, we'd already have some activity. I'm going to ask Mary, shifting gears a little bit. Do you feel like illegal aliens are taking away jobs from American citizens? Yes they are. The illegal aliens that are permitted to pour across the border each year poses an ever-increasing problem for this country. There is no question about it. The Simpson-Mazoli bill was an attempt to address it. And again, Mr. Luhan and I have sharp contrasting differences. I think you need to vote on every provision. There were provisions within that bill where he abstained. I would not abstain, and that had to do with the temporary farm workers coming to relieve pressures on agricultural community.

That was a bill that started to address the alien problem. I don't believe that Americans should have identification cards, which is the crux of why that bill probably will fail and should fail. Describe for us your ideal immigration bill. I think that the immigration bill should be such that you first of all allow the people who are in this country to have some temporary status. We should not allow the continual pouring in from another country to be able to overload our educational and health and other systems that we provide. The second thrust of that should be to stimulate the economy in places Mexico is the main place. Stimulate the economy in Mexico to provide opportunity there so they don't have to come here to get it. Congressman Luhan, do you believe that illegal aliens are taking away jobs? Absolutely. And I think we disagree completely. I do not favor amnesty. You know, I see us rewarding someone for having violated the law. I ran into a lady the other day that came over from England.

She's been here three years. She's not eligible for citizenship. She had to leave her daughter over there. Now I said, if you were to go back and come in illegally in this law passes, you're better off than having it done legally. I really don't think that we ought to grant that blanket amnesty. What then is the answer? Do you have an ideal immigration? We ought to do the amnesty on an individual basis. Say someone that I ran into the other day as a matter of fact that has been here 26 years already. Her family is grown, I think, to that person if she's abided by all the laws, we ought to grant amnesty. Secondly, on the employer sanction. I don't believe that the employer should be responsible for enforcing the law. I think we can do it through social security. There's many people that have 40 or rather many numbers that are used for 40 different people. Let the INS enforce the law. Not the employer. All right. A midpoint in this forum and in the nature of things, we will refocus our attention away from domestic issues to foreign and defense policy questions beginning with Diana Stoffer.

Thank you, Hal. One question is sort of related to the budget and talking about defense and the spending on defense. I think the United States is strong enough to fend off aggression against itself and its allies. Are we strong enough right now? Absolutely. We certainly are. And I don't like to see people saying, well, we have to do this and we have to do that because we're a second-rate country. I don't believe we're a second-rate country. I think we have the best defense in the world. And the proof of that is that if we didn't have the best defense in the world, I think that the Soviets would be trying us out. They don't try us out only because we are strong in defense. If we're strong enough now, do we need the MX and the B-1 bomber and the Star Wars system? Yes, we do. You have to keep improving your weapons system. It's just like if you bought a car in 1960, you know, you keep fixing it. The B-1 bomber, incidentally, is such an example. The guys that fly it today are older than the younger than the airplane itself and you have to keep upgrading.

And that's what we're doing. Representative Asperg, do you think the United States is strong enough? Do you have to fend off an aggressor against itself and its allies? I don't think that our country really has ever been in a position where we have been at a point where any one of the world's superpowers could have attacked us successfully. You know, I don't ever question it. The strength is the question is the maintenance of that strength. And I think that indeed we have maintained that. But I think that the extension of nuclear power into the heavens and Latin America policies that we have seen and been supported by my opponent are just, they're on the brink of insanity. So then you would be opposed to these new, more elaborate weapons being built? Well, I think to put nuclear weapons in the heavens is just that is the beginning of the end of mankind because that's when nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare truly will run absolutely out of control. What we should be doing is taking our vast technological capability and surveillance capability and sharing that first with a step of saying, we'll let you see what we're doing and we'll

take a look at what you're doing and through mutual cooperation. You know, you can't build an atom bomb in a garage or a factory or in the side of a mountain. So with realizing that, I think you can create surveillance. Thanks, sir. Pam Maples, your question for Representative Azbrick? Representative Azbrick, you mentioned Latin America. Do you support covert military aid to the Contras in Central America? Absolutely not. I think that the idea of remolding those governments in Central America is another position of what I call a myopic fear of something that doesn't exist. The problems in Central America are socio and economic and this myopic fear that the Russians are coming at every corner is one that, again, Mr. Luhan and I certainly disagree on. I think that what we should do is to try to stabilize their economy and create a good, healthy living conditions and full stomachs and an educational program for those people and to allow their government to be our friend.

Well, expand on that and then how should the United States do that? Are you talking about a reorientation of aid or more aid than a domestic areas into Central America? Well, I think the first thing we need to do is to stop sending guns and bayonets to everybody down there that happens to be wearing khaki. The second thing we need to do is we need to start to stabilize their economy where that they don't use all of their GNP to pay the interest that's owed to an ever-growing debt. The next thing we need to do is to work with them to develop an educational system, to develop water and sewer systems, transportation system, and educational opportunity so that they have something that is better than their grandfather's or their great-grandfather's. Congressman Luhan, do you support covert military aid to the Contras in Central America? I would prefer that it be overt, but these liberals went out and passed a law that we can't help our friends. The reason for the help to Nicaragua rebels to the Contras is because they are helping us to introduce when Nicaragua starts sending arms in throughout the rest of the Central

America. Now let me tell you, anybody that thinks that that's a civil war is just as naive as they can be. You go down there and see what the influences of Fidel Castro and the Russians are, and then come back and tell me that it's a civil war. Be a little more specific on what you think the United States' role in Central America should be. The United States' role in Central America should be to tell every nation to keep their cotton-picking hands off of this Western hemisphere by doing it both, by military aid which we do, and by the domestic aid, 75 percent of the money that we send into Central America is for domestic aid, not military aid. But we got to continue. You have to keep the pressure on. If the Russians were to walk away from there today, I would say let us do it, but as long as they don't, we should not. Congressman Luhan, the Reagan administration is receiving pressure from a fundamentalist in this country to withdraw American dollars to overseas foreign aid programs specifically population-neutral programs if that money would go and be used for abortions in the

third world. Do you think that we ought to be setting those kind of conditions or with dollar funds? Well, I think you said, on foreign aid, you said all kinds of conditions. Now, I'm not saying that non-population to draw because I happen to think that population is the greatest problem that we have when you take the environment, the food, and the whole thing. But certainly, we ought to set limits on our foreign aid. For example, any country that is willingly participating in the exportation of drugs into the United States, we ought to say, cut you off, baby. But if that country permits abortion as a birth control method and uses American money for that, do you think we should end that? I don't believe we should use any American taxpayer for any abortions anywhere in the world. Representative Asperg, on this question of population control in the third world, fundamentalist say we should not be sending American dollars overseas in programs that would be spent on abortions in the third world. Do you think that's correct policy?

Well, first of all, I don't think that Jerry Farwell should be running our government. And again, Mr. Luhan and I disagree. I disagree that I'm a liberal, but I'm going to further disagree that Jerry Farwell should be setting our foreign policy and telling us how our foreign aid should be spent. But I think the internal problems with another country should be only, our foreign aid should be directed in such a way to allow their governments to reach stability and to improve living conditions for their people. And it's the old case of rebuilding their governments the way we want them to be. And I think that's typical of what we see when we have the kind of philosophy that we've heard here today. That foreign aid should be able to make those people and that government our friends and to make them strong from outside aggression. Should there be no conditions at all then on assistance sent to the third world? You know, I think we do need some conditions on the foreign aid because it's still Americans money that is going outside this country.

But the breadth of that should be set by policy within the Congress, the policy making bodies of government not set by Jerry Farwell. Representative Asbury, do you support trade quotas? To some extent, I would support trade quotas where we see conditions and particularly right here in New Mexico where we have 40% of our workforce in Adalgo County that's out of work because there's no copper market. And yet United States dollars are going into the International Monetary Fund and coming back to support outside countries competition with our copper market where we see our own automotive industry inundated with the Japanese automobiles and we see our steel industry and many other industries equally threatened not because of their abilities but because of our indirect or direct financing of the competition. As a Bill in Congress now pending that we put conditions on foreign trade or trade coming to the United States that involves the human rights of that country that would be doing the trading and what their policies are on human rights.

Do you support those kinds of conditions and restrictions put on foreign trade? Well, I think that everyone would agree that human rights is certainly a horizon that we should address and continually keep in the forefront of any policy that we make around the world. The particular measure that you are addressing are not intimately familiar with so I couldn't address that specifically but human rights are something that I as a Democrat don't think that I would ever turn my back on regardless of what stress that we may have in particular countries. Congressman Luhand, do you support trade quotas? Well, it depends who's ox is being gourd. In the copper industry I certainly do. And I have a philosophical reason for it not only because it's copper in New Mexico but copper is heavily subsidized by Chile, we'll say, by the country that's giving us the biggest problem. And it's not really free trade, I believe in free trade but that's not free trade when one country subsidizes it so heavily that it causes us problems. Do you support the kind of conditions that the One Bill pending in Congress now would put

on trade? Yes, I do. It's kind of the same question that Diana asked a little while ago, you know, should we put conditions? And if I believe in human rights as I do, if I believe in no drug traffic in as I do, then we put those conditions on. Folks, it seems that we have run out of time for the question and answer period of this evening's form, which means we now turn to our closing statements and beginning with the reverse order of the draw of the straws, representative Asbury, it would be your turn to make your closing statement. Okay, I didn't realize our time went by so fast. Highs when you're having fun. Yes. Before have the voters of this congressional district had a clearer choice for their own future, I know that in today's age of satellite communications that the taxpayers are entitled to far more than just a staff-prepared letter of postcard. I too was shocked to review the official roll call votes. To find that our congressman had voted to cut social security to reduce Medicare by over $11 billion to vote against New Mexico's veto power of nuclear waste to vote against proper funding to clean up chemicals in our water supplies.

Yet by using our water to create pipeline slurries to send our water and coal outside the state. So the choice is not for friendship and longevity, but for our future, the future of our seniors, our children, and for New Mexicans. Thank you, Representative Asbury, Representative Lehan. Thank you, Hal. I think we're looking at a very decisive election this time. How are countries going to be run? We're running on a record that says, look at the last four years, less taxes, less inflation, more people working, all of those things. And I think those are the things that we want to continue. On the other hand, we're offered by the opposition, more taxes, $158 a month more, according to Mondale, a value-added tax, which is a sales tax that Ted proposed at the press club the other day. That's why people are leaving the Democratic Party in droves, because they don't believe in the tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend philosophy of the past. Congressman Lehan, thank you very much, Representative Asbury. This does have to conclude our forum on the race in New Mexico's first congressional district

this evening. Obviously, we'd like to thank our guest reporters this evening, Pam Maples, political reporter at the Albuquerque Tribune, and Diana Stop for News reporter at Radio Station K-O-B-A-M. Thanks a lot. And, of course, a special thanks to Republican Congressman Manuel Lehan and Democratic State Representative Ted Asbury, the major party candidates in the race, the United States House of Representatives for New Mexico's first congressional district. That's it for tonight. Tomorrow, the candidates for Congress for New Mexico's second congressional district Schien and York face off at the Illustrated Daily. Meanwhile, thanks for joining us. I'm Hal Rhodes. You have a nice evening. 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.