Illustrated Daily; 6113; 1st Congressional District Democratic Debate

Two Democrats seek their parties nomination in the June primary. To oppose first district Republican congressman Manuel Lujan in the general election this fall tonight in their first joint television appearance of the current campaign season. It's Manny Garcia versus Steve Kramer next on the Illustrator Daily. The Illustrated Daily, managing editor Hal Rhodes. Good evening. New Mexico has three seats in the United States House of Representatives and all of the incumbents will seek re-election this fall.

Meanwhile there is the approaching June primary election and interestingly only in one of the state's congressional districts is their competition for a major party's nomination. The party's nomination to Congress as we move towards that June third primary date. That would be the state's first congressional district where two Democrats seek the opportunity to oppose long time Republican congressman Manuel Lujan in November. Tonight the issues in that Democratic primary contest with candidates Dr. Stephen Kramer, a professor of history at the University of New Mexico, and Mr. Manny Garcia, an Albuquerque mortgage banker. First, Luis Maffet has prepared this background report on the two candidates. 43-year-old Manuel Garcia is the regional vice president of Troy and Nichols Incorporated, a national mortgage banking firm. He moved to Albuquerque in 1978 as a Republican. In 1983 he became a Democrat and a year later ran for the Democratic nomination to the first congressional district,

losing to former state representative Ted Asbury. Garcia has been involved in the Democratic Party as a ward and precinct worker. He is currently an instructor on real estate at Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute and serves on the Planning and Zoning Committee for the village of Tiharras. He believes that his experience in money and people management are what's needed in Congress. This is the issues that will face the people in the first congressional district in a foreseeable future. The majority of them are related to money. We have the Graham Rudman Hollings proposal that is going to affect all of our lives. Therefore, we need to get the most efficiency out of our dollars. I have a record of success as a businessman. I've had to work with a balanced budget all of my adult life. 39-year-old Stephen Kramer is a professor of history at the University of New Mexico. Since moving to Albuquerque in 1975, he has worked in the Democratic Party as precinct chairman and editor of the Bernalillo County Democratic Newsletter, and is currently president of a grassroots organization known as the Democratic Council. Kramer served as president of the University of New Mexico Faculty Senate in 1982 and 1983.

He recently spent two years at the State Department as a policy planning officer in the Latin American division, returning to UNM convinced he says that what the country needs is to create a consensus. I think all of us come from one political point of view or another. People started on the left, they started on the right, they started many different places. The most important thing is to be able to dialogue together and transcend the things which divided us and find a program which we can all agree on and that can work. Not a program that everyone can agree on is just PAP, but a program that really can work. And presumably, if we use the talents we have in this country, we can arrive in answers. So, often running for the Democratic nomination to Congress from the State's first congressional district, and I should mention that the candidates this evening have been limited to a minute and 30 seconds for each of their answers. And we'll start this evening, Mr. Manning Garcia with you. Before either you, Mr. Garcia or Dr. Kramer for that matter, are able to run against Congressman Manuel Duhaan in November. One of you, of course, has to win the primary election.

Why would Democrats find in Manning Garcia a stronger candidate against Manuel Duhaan in November than they would in the candidacy of Stephen Kramer? Well, first of all, let me say that I appreciate for the opportunity of being here this evening. Manning Garcia, two years ago, when he ran against a former State Representative, Ted Asbury, was successful in obtaining over 42% of the Democratic vote. I have had literally thousands of Democrats encourage me to seek this nomination. The reason that I feel that I'm a better candidate than my opponent is because the issues that face our people in the first congressional district today have their roots and their roots in money. I believe that having over 20 years of experience and working with the management of money and people that I am the candidate that can get the most out of the resources that we have available, primarily the management of the people resource that we have and also the limit of supply of our taxpayers' dollars that are going to be available to meet the expense of government.

All right, sir. Thank you very much. Dr. Kramer, same question. What makes you think you would be a stronger candidate against Congressman Manuel Duhaan in November than would be Mr. Manning Garcia? Well, I think I've been working in the Democratic Party for almost 20 years in one way or another. I've been very much involved in the Democratic Party. And secondly, as an academic, I've done a lot of thinking about the problems which this country faces and our relationship with the rest of the world. And as a person who spent two years in the State Department in 1983 to 1985, I've had a lot of practical experience in the way Washington operates. And I've gotten a very clear sense of how serious the situation that this country confronts is.

And so I think I have the kind of experience it's necessary and the thinking and educational background necessary to be able to do something for the State and something for the country as well. Neither you nor Mr. Garcia have ever held elective office in the past. And as you probably know, there are within your own party, important party leaders who argue privately at least that better known candidates did not seek the Democratic nomination in the first congressional districts precisely because they consider Congressman Manuel Duhaan to be unbeatable in November. What do you say to that? Well, I say that it's not true. I think that the Republican Party is extremely vulnerable. I think that the record of the Reagan administration doesn't look very good today. The economic situation of the country is not good and there's a real element of chaos in the way our foreign policy is conducted. Congressman Duhaan has been part of the Reagan administration. He's voted with the president on almost every single issue.

And I don't think that the Congressman represents what New Mexico wants. I think that by and large, if New Mexicans voted on each issue that came before Congress, they would vote the opposite way of Congressman Duhaan. So I don't think that Congressman Duhaan is unbeatable. I think on the contrary that this is a good year for me to defeat him and for the Democratic Party to begin the march towards 1988, which will lead to a new kind of administration. All right, sir. Mr. Garcia, same question. What do you say to those who argue that better known Democrats did not enter the first district primary this year because for all practical purposes, they have decided Mr. Duhaan is unbeatable. Well, my answer, first of all, let me say that better known Democrats do not necessarily mean better Democrats or better persons. People elect people to Congress because of what they stand for and what they believe in. Manuel Lujan is elected to Congress every two years because a majority of the Democrats vote for him.

And let me say that Manuel Lujan has done a good job in serving the constituents of the first congressional district. I think that as far as public service in service to the people, he has done good. I feel that Manuel Lujan is living a little bit in the past. He doesn't represent the generation of people that I represent. I currently have a family of five and I have experienced putting children through elementary school. I have experienced putting my children through high school. I have experienced putting my children through college. I have experienced making mortgage payments, paying bills and living the way we live today with what we have to work with. I believe that the people of the first congressional district want someone like myself who has firsthand experience in living in this area and meeting the needs from day to day. All right. On a substantive issue, if as could be the case, Graham Rudman passes its Supreme Court test.

The next Congress will apparently have to face up to the task of making further cuts in domestic spending in order to bring the budget into balance. Where do you see those cuts, least harmfully and most easily being made? Well, let me first say that what we need today is an attitude in our House of Representatives that we can have a balanced budget. We can have a balanced budget and get more efficiency out of the money that we have available to us. Just to give you an example and maybe you're going to touch on this later on, let me comment on it now. A couple of weeks ago, the House voted down the second time around aid to the Nicaragua incontras. And a few days before that, there was a very interesting story that appeared in the journal and I'm sure that it was from a national wire service that indicated that the 27 million dollars or so

that was given to helps the so-called Freedom Fighters in Nicaragua, 15 million dollars of that still remain an unaccounted for. 15 million dollars remained unaccounted for the government accounting office could not trace that down. This is the problem that we have today. We have to have more accountability in government of where the money is being spent. And if we do that, we're not going to be concerned that we won't have enough money to meet the social needs of our people. Maybe we'll get back to that later on to pick up. Dr. Kramer, same question. Assuming Graham Rudman is passed on by the United States Supreme Court where it's currently being considered. And the next Congress has to make further domestic spending cuts. Where can they most easily and least harmfully be made? Well, I would say that even good accountability is not going to make up for the fact that we have a $2 trillion deficit,

half of which was incurred by this administration, a remarkable accomplishment for an administration that claims to be fiscally conservative. I think that the problem is that you can't really cut very much in the area of social and educational programs they've been cut too much and the people of this state have paid the price. You can do some cutting perhaps in the area of defense, but you have to be careful there as well because you can't cut vital defense manners. I think what you have to face is two ways of increasing the amount of money available rather than cutting programs. You're going to have to look at certain areas of increasing taxes. I think everyone in Washington knows that and the only one who doesn't seem to know it is the president. You may have to do something like an oil import tax, which would have the advantage also of protecting the domestic oil industry. That may be one approach, but I don't think we can exclude increased taxes even if it's politically unpopular.

And I think the other thing which is going to be the most important is in the long term, you deal with the deficit by increasing American productivity and competitiveness in the international market. And that means the federal government has to make much more of an effort at helping the American economy develop, invest in new technologies, and compete with the Japanese and the Europeans. Let me understand you. Are you saying that you favor a tax increase and to the extent the answer to that question is yes. We know that Republican Senator from New Mexico, Pete Domenici, has recommended a six cent, a gallon gasoline tax increase, where as the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Democrat Tip O'Neill says he will oppose that measure. In this instance, would you support Republican Pete Domenici or Democrat Tip O'Neill, were you a member of Congress? I was talking about an oil import tax, which isn't the same as an excise tax.

Yes, I was testing you the question, would you support a six cent, a gallon gasoline tax as recommended by a Senator Domenici? Well, my answer is oil import tax. I'm not sure how I would react on a gasoline tax. At this point, I'm not sure that that would be sufficient to make much of a difference. I think I'd prefer the oil import tax. So you would not support a six cent, a gallon gasoline tax? I'm not sure at this point, which I'd vote depending on what other measures would be passed. All right. All right. Mr. Garcia, would you support a six cent, a gallon gasoline tax along the lines recommended by Senator Domenici, but opposed by the speaker of the United States House of Representatives? How I don't support any tax increases. We are sick and tired of being taxed to death. We have enough of our taxpayers' dollars being taken away from us from our government. What we need, and Mr. Kramer disagrees with us, we need more accountability. We need to know where those dollars are going, every penny of it, every dollar of it. All right. Very well. Let me go back to Steve Kramer here. On Central America, we have the issue of Nicaragua.

Central America in turmoil. It is conceivable, as President Reagan has recommended on a number of occasions, that we will be called upon, the next Congress will be called upon, to provide aid to the countries in Nicaragua of a military sort. Would you support such a measure as that? No, the answer is I would not. I've already gone on the record on that issue. I think we have an escalation of tension in the area, and the only way of stopping that escalation, which could easily lead to Americans being centafied in Nicaragua, is by an attempt to table temporarily, at least the contrary, of making certain kinds of steps, for example, to hold military exercises for three months in Central America, asking the Contras to call off, call a ceasefire. Expressing a willingness to negotiate directly with a Nicaraguan's, and waiting to see what kind of reaction we get from Managua.

Let's see whether the Nicaraguan's, if we take that kind of step, would be willing to end the state of siege. Let's see if they would be willing to send back some of the Cuban and Soviet advisors, and whether they would promise not to get further arms. Let's see whether they would be willing to negotiate seriously for a peace treaty. On that basis, if the Nicaraguan's are willing to take those kinds of steps, this process of mutual de-escalation could continue. I think that's the only way we can reach an honorable peace solution in Central America. All right, on foreign policy, Mr. Garcia, same question. Central America, in turmoil, President Reagan says the Soviets are establishing a foothold in Central America, in the country of Nicaragua, and has asked the Congress to provide aid to the Congress there. Would you support that measure? Were you a member of Congress? I would not support any further aid to the Nicaraguan contras. I think we need to sell the Nicaraguan people on our values and on our system of government. Obviously, the Soviets have done a better job in selling them on their system of government.

We have a good democracy here in our country. What we need our ambassadors, our ambassadors, meaning all of our citizens, to show the Nicaraguan people that our way of life is second to none. I believe that we can assist the people in South America by letting our neighbors to the South via the Contraorda Group try to equalize the tension that we currently have in that region of the country. Let's back up our neighbors to the South and give them an opportunity to see what they can do before we continue to send military aid to that region of the country and only intensify the situation there. I would not support any further aid to the contras. On the subject of terrorism, which has become a massive preoccupation of the American people in recent weeks and recent years as a matter of fact, what measures would you be prepared as a member of Congress to support to halt terrorism? The President has in effect declared war against terrorists. And where, if at all, would you draw the line in that war?

Well, let me first of all say that three weeks ago, I guess it was now when we sent our aircraft over Libya and that was all hailed by our current congressional delegation as something that should have been done and they were all in support of the President. Until the next day when the foreign news reporters started to show the photographs of the destruction that had taken place where innocent people died, that is when it really brought home to us the horror of war. To me, I don't believe that total economic measures were exhausted. Just to give you an example, as we speak today how we have at least five American oil companies that are still operating in Libya today and we're shutting down oil fields in New Mexico. I think we need to, the Congress of the United States has the power to exercise the economic sanctions through our own multinational corporations.

First, we need to begin at home and I don't think that that was totally exhausted before we went over and bombed truthfully. Let me just clarify if I understand what you were saying. You do not support the President's radar on Libya or you do. It was not clear today. After total economic sanctions were tried, then of course I would support it. However, total economic sanctions were not tried and I think we need to begin at home with our own multinational corporations that are based right here in the United States. Dr. Kramer, President Reagan's war on terrorism. As a member of Congress, what measure would you be prepared to support in the war against terrorism? Where would you draw the line if at all? Well, I'd like to point out that Mr. Garcia's suggestion sounds good but it won't work simply because the vast majority of investment in Libya comes from our European allies.

We have very little investment in Libya compared to them and the real difficulty that we face is convincing our allies that they should take measures that will jeopardize about 10 to 20 billion dollars of investment in Libya. That's why they're so reluctant to do it. They're afraid that if they do it and Libyan sees their property, they're going to be left without that property and the United States will not really do anything about it. I think that the most appropriate kind of action that can be taken against terrorism is if I dare say so, covert action. I don't think that covert action is usually a good means of foreign policy. In the case of terrorism, I think it's the most appropriate means. That requires a high intelligence capability of locating terrorist groups and I think when deals with them not in a very public fashion but deals with them in a very quiet fashion. Now, as far as whether or not I support the President, I think that we all agree that Qudafi deserved what he got. The question is whether this policy will work or whether it will not. I don't think it's going to work but I think we have to continue the war against terrorism in a vigorous fashion.

So do you or do you not support the President's rate on Libya? How, why do you want to either all answer? I think that we had a right to do it. I don't think it was the most effective means of dealing with terrorism and therefore if we could start all over again, I probably wouldn't have done the same thing he did. I don't think it was a wrong thing to do. It was not perhaps a wise thing to do. All right. Back to domestic policy. There's a growing tide of protectionism in this country, Mr. Garcia, free trade as it were under attack especially where troubled domestic industries are concerned, things like the Mexico's own copper and uranium industries. Briefly, do you think free trade should prevail or should protection be offered these industries? Well, are you talking about foreign industries that are exporting their goods to America? Is that what you're...

That could be the case, yes. Well, I firmly believe that we have the expertise right here in this country and we have been for many years the salesman of our goods and services throughout the world. I think we need to develop an attitude within our country and the federal government needs to support us in this by encouraging productivity within our country to balance the imbalance that we have now between what is coming in and what is going out. We have, for example, and let me kind of come around and answering this question regarding the Libyan situation and it kind of ties together if I may comment on this. Three or four days before the raid on Libya, Prime Minister Nakasoni was visiting Washington and the Japanese are one of the biggest trading partners of the Libyans. And here we have the power, I believe, to exercise restraint in our trading with the Japanese as an economic measure to punish the Libyans and we didn't use that.

Where was the injustice done there? Lawrence, thank you very much. Dr. Kramer, same question, free trade under attack, growing tide of protectionism in this country. Where in New Mexico, industries like mining of copper and uranium are concerned, troubled industries, would you support free trade or do you think some form of protection is in order? I think that there are areas where there are discriminatory practices against American products. For example, countries which subsidize their own products in order to lower their price compared with American goods. When you have violations of free trade by other countries in certain areas, I think the United States has a right to protect its own industries. The general concept of free trade, I think, is to our advantage and to the advantage of everyone. But for us to succeed in that, we do have to deal with the problem of the decline of American productivity.

One of the reasons for that decline is the lack of investment in American products. The fact that American industry spends half of what other countries do in research and development that American savings is half of what most European countries savings is. I think the government has to take measures which will encourage investment by American firms in American industry and savings by the American consumer in order to make our industries really competitive with the rest of the world. Under those circumstances, I think we will benefit from free trade. Back to the issue of taxes. Where other than an oil import tax, might you consider a tax increase essential? I think one of the problems is whether or not a tax system, as it stands, is a rational tax system. In other words, I think that there has been a legitimate call for restructuring of the whole tax system and tax reform. I think that part of the solution would lie within a different kind of tax system.

I think that the economic deficit is so great that in some areas we might have to think about raising taxes even if they were corporate or income tax. I think probably we would be a lot better off by having a reform of the tax system. One thing that can be done is to increase the amount of money given to the IRS. It's been proven that for every dollar that goes to the IRS five or six times the amount of money comes in. If our tax collecting system were more effective, we would actually pick up a lot of funds. Just a very little time left, Mr. Garcia. How on earth can we get the budget into balance? We've got an efficiency minded president who's been worrying on excess and efficiency in the federal bureaucracy most of its career. Do you really think without a tax increase we're going to lower that deficit? I think so. I don't believe we need a tax increase. What we need is a better tax system. I'm in support in sort of the people of the first congressional district and some sort of a modified tax rate.

We need to do away with $700 toilet seats for the military. We need to spend our money more efficiently. And I believe that we can do it. We just have to go to Congress with the attitude that it can be done. We have the ability. We need to have representatives like myself that can cause some change to take place in the House of Representatives. And I'm the kind of a person that if I have to get hauled off the House floor for being out of order, you can count on it. Okay. Well, gentlemen, one of you, I hope, will be back with us in the fall to debate Congressman Manuel Wuhan. Thank you, our time is up. We have to leave it at that. That's it for tonight. Tomorrow following yesterday's segment on the CBS program 60 Minutes, which looked at New Mexico's troubled human services department, Korean Wolf, the legendary fighter for improved social services programs talks about her struggles. Meanwhile, thank you for joining us. I'm Hal Rhodes. Good night. You