2014 Congressional District 1 Candidate Debate: Michelle Lujan Girsham and Michael Frese

You Presenting the Congressional District One debate between Democrat Michelle Luhan Grisham and Republican Michael Fries brought to you by public media partners from across New Mexico and moderated by veteran journalist San Donaldson in the K&M East studios in Albuquerque. Welcome to New Mexico PBS's 2014 debate between Congresswoman Michelle Luhan Grisham and challenger Mike Fries. Each candidate will be allowed 60 seconds for opening and closing statements, 60 seconds for answering each

question, and 30 seconds each for rebuttals. And during the debate, we'll be asking several yes or no questions that candidates will have only 10 seconds to answer in a very short rebuttal. We'll begin with opening statements, the order of which was determined by a drawing of straws. Mike Fries, you drew the long straw, you elected to go first, so please proceed. Thank you, Sam. I'm running for Congress to restore America's future. We once believed that our own efforts determined our success. Now our faith in the American dream is fading. We once believed that the Constitution protected our individual freedoms. Now our faith in that protection is fading. And we once believed that our nation protected freedom around the world. Now our faith in our leadership is fading. Our challenge is to restore America's future. To do that, we need to do three things. One, for a growing job creating economy,

we must restore economic freedom by reducing federal regulation. Two, for more freedom from government intrusion, we must restore respect for the Constitution. And three, for a safer world, we must restore the world's faith in America. Our friends should trust us, and those who would declare themselves our enemy must beware. Thank you very much, Mr. Fries. Congresswoman Nuhangrisham, it's your turn. You're opening statement. Thank you. Good evening. I want to thank KNME for hosting this debate in Sam Donaldson for moderating. As a lifelong New Mexico, and I know how important it is to put New Mexico families first. And that means standing up for veterans and their families to restore and reform the VA system and passing legislation to protect the Sandy Mountains. And fighting to restore $16 million to rebuild an elementary school that serves at-risk kids. It also means fighting to keep high-paying jobs at Curtlyn Air Force Base, while at the very same time holding bureaucrats accountable for cleaning up the jet fuel spill

that threatens our drinking water. I am cutting through the gridlock in Congress to get things done. When you elected me two years ago, I promised to stand tall for New Mexico families, and I've kept that promise. I want to continue to be your champion working for New Mexico. Thank you, Ms. Lohan Grisham. All right, let's get started with the questions. The National Unemployment Rate has dropped to 5.9%. But in New Mexico, the rate is almost a full point higher. And the data shows that we are near the bottom in job growth. So, here's the question, if you're elected to Congress, what will you do to promote jobs for this state? And please be specific, Mr. Freeze. Well, I'm going to the United States Congress. I will not be going to the State House in Santa Fe. I think that in order to promote jobs in this state, we have to promote a vibrant job creating growing economy nationwide. And I think the way to do that, very clearly, is to reduce federal regulation.

We are killing jobs, strangling jobs with Obamacare's health insurance regulation. We are making the cost of new workers very expensive. We're making it very difficult for businessman to count on the future, the uncertainty in this president's economic programs and his deadlines is more than any businessman can stand. So, in order to make things work better for New Mexico, we have to work on the national economy. That is a hundred percent, one minute for you. Well, I appreciate that we're seeing growth in the economy and we're seeing reductions in the unemployment rates across the country. It is true that New Mexico has had a tougher time. Part of that has been the lack of investment. I mean, the federal government should not have done a sequester that hurt Sandy and Kurtland. Without regulation, we would have no regulation that takes $2 billion and puts it into small businesses

right here in New Mexico. We can't be risk adverse. We ought to be leveraging every public dollar, every private dollar, and creating a sustainable diverse economy for the future. And I'll tell you that I also believe that New Mexico because of this environment, we've lost a little of our hustle factor. There is no reason that New Mexico can't be the start-up state for the United States. With our tech transfer opportunities, we can, in fact, grow small business. And I'm dedicated to making sure that the federal government does its fair share of those investments. It's a freeze, a 30-second rebuttal. Every time the federal government creates a job, it takes the job away from the private sector. How are we going to create more jobs for New Mexico if we're taking jobs from other states and creating jobs in other states by taking jobs from New Mexico? The federal government doesn't create jobs. It takes money from this person and gives it to that person. And that's not a great way to increase the economy which New Mexico desperately needs.

I disagree. In order to have a robust economy, we can't just have good and services in our own state. There has to be exports of those jobs, those goods and services. We have to make sure that we have partnerships. You want the federal government and your state government and your private sector all working together. That's the kind of leveraging that will make a difference in job creation, not only in this state, but continue to provide that sort of job creation across the country. And one of the things that Congress could do immediately is pass important infrastructure funding. Now, if we did $1.3 billion in infrastructure, that's more than 20,000 jobs nationwide. You both mentioned regulation. In the 1980s, the regulation of the savings and loan industry didn't really work for everybody. The federal government had to clean it up. And for the last 10 or 15 years, maybe the deregulation of the financial community didn't really work for everybody. And we got in bed because of that. Yet, on the other hand, I think everyone understands that over-regulation would kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

So where's the balance? Where do you balance? Well, you've spoken of federal regulation being something that didn't work in the last financial crisis. And you're absolutely right. And it goes well before the present decade. It started back with the Community Reinvestment Act where the regulators decided that banks needed to make loans that weren't of the kind that the banks had normally made on houses. And we ended up with many, many people who lost what they put into their house because they got a loan that they couldn't pay. You have to do something about that. And still over-regulation. That's over-regulation. Yeah. I think that's under-regulation. I mean, you hit the nail right on the head. What we have to have is a balance. I would tell you that those Americans, those New Mexicans that lost their life savings because we were under-regulating two big-to-fail banks

that are now going through foreclosures because we were under-regulating ourselves and Freddie May and Fanning. It doesn't make any sense. What we have to have is a balanced regulatory structure that promotes small business growth. In fact, I would be in favor of passing tax reform to make sure that our tax rate for small businesses gets to 28% and lower. It's a small business owner. I recognize the value of those kinds of investments. And I recognize that while Dodd-Frank does a lot to make sure that we don't have the two big-to-fail bank crisis, we don't have balance because we don't keep adjusting. We should be doing more to make sure that community banks, right? And credit unions can lend money. Right, your vote of time is up. Let's move on to another question here related. For years now, Congress and the American people have fought over fiscal policy. We spend less or what on social programs or not. We continue to raise taxes, particularly on the wealthy or not. We shut down the government to make a point. We vote for against the national debt ceiling being raised so that we can pay our bills to make a point. Now, this is the general question,

but give us some idea of where you stand on this question of taxation and spending. Ms. Lohan Grishan? Well, again, I think we ought to have balances, Sam. So I want to just point out that part of the problem in Congress is that it's, again, all or nothing. So we're going to close the federal deficit. We're not going to do any investments. We're not going to do any kind of tax reform for folks at the highest end to pay more taxes. And in fact, we did a bit of a balanced approach. We're moving some of the sequester and asking those at 400,000 above to pay a little more taxes. And look what's happened. In fact, we're closing the federal deficit faster than anticipated. And I think today we're seeing that it's well below $500 billion. And that's the kind of balanced approach that makes, I think, an effective approach in fiscal policy in this country. And Mr. Freeze, what do you stand for this business of taxation and spending? Well, you're addressing the deficit, the increase in the debt. Every year, the money that we have to borrow every year, in addition to what we've already borrowed.

And I'm a firm believer that we need not to have our federal government be larger than 18 to 19%, which it historically has been, of our total production. So I think we need to cut federal spending and we can do that in a balanced gradual way, take 10 years to reduce federal spending, to get rid of the deficit. I don't believe that we can afford to have the federal government taxing any more than it already does. And it is taxing at that 20%, 19% level. So we have to get our deficit under control, because only that way will our economy grow like it used to grow. The present economy, this recovery, has been incredibly long and slow and it's not producing the kind of growth that New Mexico needs from the national economy. Twice now in the last 20 years or even less, the federal government has shut down, because of a fight between Congress, members of Congress, and the president often.

If you are in the House of Representatives, will you cast a vote that you know will result in the federal government actually shutting down? I would do everything in my power to prevent the government from shutting down. I mean, we spent upwards of $25 billion in a government shutdown that produced absolutely nothing except a greater divide. I was proud to be part of that women's coalition, bipartisan by-camera, all that ended that, all or nothing debate. That was nothing more than a political stand about the Affordable Care Act instead of having reasonable discourse and discussion about what kind of ideas would make a difference. You pointed out just a moment ago, Sam, that what are we doing about our fiscal policy? We've reduced taxes in New Mexico over and over and over again, but you haven't seen that economic growth, balanced approaches, balanced approaches. Mr. Freeze. Would you cast a vote that you knew would shut down the government? In the last shutdown, Sam, the House passed a bill and sent it over to the Senate, and the bill called for nothing to get the debt ceiling lifted except that Congress should not take the benefit

that nobody else gets. The money ponied up to pay for the health insurance from the health insurance exchange. And the Senate rejected that bill. I don't know exactly who voted to shut down the government, but I think it was probably the Senate not the House. Well, is your answer yes or no? How would I know? There are two bodies of legislation, the House and the Senate, yes. They disagree. What would I do? Would you cast a vote that you knew? I would have voted for that bill, absolutely. Fair enough. By the way, would both of you close your notebooks, the lights in the studio are glaring off of them and making a vote for you? I don't have a notebook. But there may be a glare from I. We spent a lot of time on those questions. They're very important. Let's go to another important question, foreign affairs. The United States and many other nations, as you know, are mobilizing to stop the murderous rampage of the group. That says it wants to set up an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria. They behead people and all that.

And the question would become, would U.S. ground troops be used? The Obama administration says no. Not send U.S. ground troops. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Demsley, says it might be necessary. John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, says, yes, it's going to take U.S. ground troops. Would you vote to authorize the President to send U.S. ground troops to the Middle East on this occasion, Mr. Freeze? I would. The President has not asked for such things. What should he, if he wants to do it? He has. I know. If he wants to do that, then I would certainly vote for that. I think it's essential that we stop ISIS in Iraq and Syria. And we not let them launch terrorists attacks here in the United States, which I believe that they intend to do if they get a free reign and have can set up camps and train people. They have the financial resources to do so. So this President has, has let the opportunity for action past time and time again. He drew a red line in Syria against the use of chemical weapons against the people of Syria by Assad.

He ignored the passing of that. We cannot afford to allow this plan of his to go forward. It won't accomplish anything. He says he's got a coalition of we who will stop ISIS and I think we can only hope. So you would vote if it's put to you to send U.S. ground troops. If you believe the situation required it. If the situation required it, I think it's essential that the United States step up. Is the Hungrysian? I think that's a very reckless approach. We have the facts that we have today indicate exactly we want in terms of credibility around the world. We have to have partners who are using airstrikes, training and weapons to make sure that collectively we're battling these very serious and real terrorist threats. The notion that we're going to do boots on the ground and go to war against every country that indicates that it wants to do us harm means that we're going to be at war everywhere all the time. This is making sure that we are prepared in the most effective way to do real damage

and to grade ISIS to make sure that we are investing in an international community, which has been the criticism before now that we don't invest in an international community that collectively will degrade, minimize and defeat ISIS. And I'm prepared to make the votes that do the very best effort at making sure that occurs. If the president should decide to send ground troops, do you believe he is obligated by law, constitutional authority, or what have you to come to Congress and ask for permission? I absolutely believe that he does and he should be and any of our commanders in chief ought to be prepared to bring real evidence about why that's the only option. And I would be interested in how we pay for it with the international community's doing. And I want that real intelligence about exactly what's occurring. All right, now a couple of those ten second questions. A yes or no questions. I really like a yes or no. And I understand that may be unfair from the standpoint of looking at your whole position, but let's try it out and say. Here's the first question. It was freeze to you and then you get to answer it. Do you believe that new federal gun control laws are needed? No.

That's good. In a sense of a short answer. Yes. I wish we had more time with these things. Do you have one in mind that you wouldn't vote for? Well, the Toomey Mansion bill came out of the Senate. It was in the Senate. It never came out of the Senate. It was pushing for a background check at gun shows. It would have made it illegal for us in New Mexico to sell guns to our second cousin. You don't lie as if we wanted it. And I wouldn't have brought my own rule about a short answer. But you gave it and I gave you a chance to. What about it? Do you see a law that you think really be passed? We should be doing everything to do something about gun safety in this country, Sam. In fact, I spend more time in Congress. I'm talking about federal legislation. Absolutely. Federal legislation. I mean, I do five minutes of silence to provide congressional condolence to the families and children and individuals. Because your answer is yes.

I do as much as I can. There's several. Absolutely. All right. Now I'm going to try one more and yes or no. I think we can do this. We did yes or no. I know. And then I said, well, thank you. Should New Mexico become a right to work state, Mr. Freeze? Well, gee, that's a question for me as a citizen of New Mexico. I want to be clear where my answer is coming from. I would not impose that from Washington. But yes, I think New Mexico would be much better off if it were a right to work state. Is it hungry? I'm not convinced that being a right to work state is going to improve our economy. I'm convinced, actually, to the opposite, that it's likely to hurt working families, that it minimizes our ability to get a meaningful wage and, quite frankly, with New Mexico's poverty rates. But you say you're not convinced. I'm not convinced. You say you're not. I think it's been harmful. And I don't think there's any evidence that shows that it's really improving economies in the states where it exists. Thank you. All right. Big question for this state, for the Southwest, and for the nation. Immigration undocumented workers. Do you favor reform of the nation's immigration system to allow many, if not most, of those who are here now illegally to have some way to stay legally in the United States?

Sam, absolutely. I'm on the legislation right now in Congress that needs a vote. We believe it would pass, if Speaker Boehner would bring it to the floor for a vote. It calls for comprehensive immigration reform. It reflects the values of the country. It protects and secures the border. And it has a realistic approach to dealing with the 11 or million or more undocumented families and individuals in this country. That means that you pay your back fines. You go to the back of the line. That you have a very arduous and rightfully so, process for citizenship. You know, comprehensive immigration reform would bring nearly a trillion dollars to this nation's economy over two decades. It gives us real opportunity to grow small business. And in fact, there are reports that indicate that at least $2,000 more would be in the pockets of every New Mexico worker as a result of immigration reform. What about it? Have some paths to staying legally in the United States for undocumented workers? Well, I think we should start by enforcing the laws we have.

And I think the most important law we could enforce would be the law against allowing people who are in this country illegally to work or to receive welfare benefits. And I think if we were to be able to put a wall around our welfare office in our workplace, we wouldn't need one at the border. I believe that we need to keep from attracting people to come across the border. I have a lot of sympathy for the people of our neighboring nations that suffer from poverty and lawlessness. But I think that we have working families in this country that need protection, too. And I believe that we could draw wall around our workplace and we can make it so that people who are here illegally can't work. And I think that's the first step. Let me see if I understand you. You believe there shouldn't be or there should be some way to allow some, if not most, of people who are here now undocumented to remain legally.

Well, if we first make it so that the people who are here have to have documentation in order to work, they won't be able to work. You don't think they should be able to work? You don't think they should be able to work? I do not believe that those who are not here legally should be allowed to work or should receive welfare benefits. And I think we should work to make that the law of the land, if you will. But it is the law of the land. Well, to be clear, frankly, federal government and state legislation prohibits most of those benefits from being available. Now, does that mean that we need tougher regulations maybe at the state level to make sure that they enforce those productively? Maybe so. But in fact, this is the first time that we've had labor, business, agriculture, the faith community, all saying that you've got to do comprehensive immigration reform. And my opponent is suggesting that you would deport 11 million people. You would harm the economy. We would wrap, I'm not sure what that means, a wall around employers to prevent them from what recruiting and keeping some of the best research talent in the country

because we don't have an immigration system that allows you to stay for that work visa. That's going to harm our national security efforts to boot. Your battle? The government knows very well that H1B visas allow people to be here legally, and those are the intelligent minds that the semiconductor researchers want in this country. So she knows very well that that's a false example, a strong man, if you will, I won't bother with that. We need to make it possible for employers to know whether someone is here legally or not. And that's the first step to enforce that law. When we enforce the law about welfare, about employment, being limited to people who are here legally, will be in much better shape. And Sam, if you don't mind, of course you'll get to stop me if you do mind. But states have done that. They've in fact been very clear about undocumented workers working and crops didn't get picked. And economies around the country really failed.

The long-term care and direct care sector. Now, I want to be clear. I'm not suggesting that we don't hold people accountable. But the notion that we can ignore this problem and create secure tracking and for legal immigrants and those who aren't. I mean, this is all about big brother investing in a way that doesn't make any sense, comprehensive immigration reform. All right, let's move on. All right, quickly. Ten seconds. So I believe indeed that we would have all those economic dislocations that my opponent has pointed out. And that we would then be able to have a guest worker program, temporary work visas for those people. And I am in full agreement that we need that. That our economy needs those people's production. But I think we first need to make sure that those people who are here illegally can't work, can't get benefits. It's happening today and we need to do something about it. All right, now let's come back home to Albuquerque. And the Albuquerque Police Department. Like many police departments across the country, we're not unique here.

The department is being criticized. And the Justice Department is investigating and accusing the Department of, on occasion, using excessive force and violence and carrying out its duties, particularly single out the shooting of the homeless man, James Bird, in the Sunday of foothills. Boyd, rather. Now it's clear that the department has its critics and its defenders. Here's the question. What is your view of Albuquerque's police department's actions and the stance taken by Albuquerque Mayor Barry and other city officials? I'm very disturbed and very concerned about Albuquerque's police department. I would embrace every single one of the Department of Justice findings and then some. I would immediately work to provide those reforms and to create a safer and more civil rights balanced police force. And in fact, to make sure that the federal government and my role as a Congresswoman affects those kinds of real reforms and necessary changes. I passed a $10 million amendment to make sure that police forces have access to behavioral health,

money for training, and support to understand those particular crises. But I am feeling as if we are waiting and that we are fighting some of those recommendations that we aren't taking serious, that we need significant internal reform inside our police department. That's being fought. Who's fighting? I think that the police department itself, that the Barry administration, I worry that some members of the city council they are not embracing. And when you have a Department of Justice issue issues, significant issues, you work immediately to take those recommendations and do everything in your power to restore a safe, protective, appropriate police department. Mr. Freeze, what's your view of the department of the criticism and support for it and of Mayor Barry and the other council member's stance? I think that we need to be clear about the fact that our policemen are out on the street protecting us from people who many times just want to do us harm.

And many times people want to do policemen harm, and they want policemen to do them harm. We had terrible incidents in Albuquerque, John Hyde, for example, killed a couple of officers who were coming to his house to help him because his doctor and his family had asked for help. I think we need to be in a position locally, but I want to say again, this is the United States Congress I'm running for. I'm not running to be Mayor of Albuquerque. And I actually believe that RJ Barry is doing a fairly good job of responding to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice's criticisms were vague and I don't believe they're specific enough that we can say that the police department and the Mayor are not responding to them at this point. My disagree, you know, more than 40 pages of very significant findings. They were, in fact, not vague. They identified that the use of deadly force

was not warranted. That those decisions were actually made by officers before even being engaged in those specific situations. You can't go to the scene, have no evaluation in that scene, and decide and determine that you're going to have lethal force. They further found that many of the independent special units have no cross-training or cross-communication whatsoever. It was very specific. DOJ, the Department of Justice, is an example of good regulatory federal oversight to make sure that you protect and support your police officers, but you protect, protect, protect your community as well. Final word on this subject, Mr. Freeze. Well, I think it's clear that my opponent has very strong feelings about the Albuquerque City Administration. And I think it's great. Unfortunately, it'll be a year and a half after I beat her this fall before she can run for Mayor of Albuquerque. You would want to rebut that I'm certain, but let's move on. Another local issue, Kirkland Air Force Base. 15 years ago,

it was discovered that jet fuel was leaking into the ground from Kirkland. And still, now that 15 years later, the problem has not been remedied. So why has this been allowed to continue? And what will you do in Congress to bring a halt to this travesty? Well, I'm doing it. In fact, immediately upon taking office, as the Congresswoman for the first district, I said that the number one local priority ought to be by everyone in the delegation to do something about the jet fuel cleanup. I immediately demanded the Air Force hire a qualified expert who was managing every aspect of the research and development to do treatment. The Air Force, this is not their first jet fuel spill. They know how to pump and treat and evaluate. And in fact, they've not been even holding their own contractors accountable. Why haven't they done it? I think because nobody has made them do it. And I don't think it's good. Can you make them do it if you're back in Congress? We're making them do it. We are making them do it. And for the first time, they are re-evaluating that plume, and they're getting ready to treat that jet fuel spill.

No more waiting. They're taking action immediately. And I'm following up on that action every single day. Mr. Freeze, the curtain spill. Well, the Air Force should be fully responsible for remediation and the prevention of any harm to anyone from that jet fuel spill. I'm 100 percent on that. And, of course, I'm not running for president. I'm running for Congress. So I will speak to those people and try to get them to do the right thing, just as my opponent has done. Well, but do you have any idea why they haven't done it? Is this just another example of government not working? So the scientist in me pops up when you ask me this question. Good. It is very difficult to remove anything that you've spilled that's going into the groundwater. That fuel is sitting on top of a groundwater surface, which is hundreds of feet below the surface. It is moving toward the pumps because the pumps are drawing water there.

It's a very, very difficult physical problem. It's not that best minds couldn't... It could solve this if we gave them all the data. There simply isn't enough data. It's money, you think? It could be solved. So people are trying to do what can be done, the best it can be done. Do you think it's money? I don't think there's enough money to pump all of that groundwater out and get all of that fuel out of there. Down to the level that the EPA insists is required. One molecule, the EPA says, is enough to damage someone's health. So I don't think there's enough money to purify that water and the entire federal budget. Well, Sam, I'll tell you that the New Mexico Environment Department, the Water Utility Authority, the experts at Curtlyn, the experts that deal with jet fuel, disagree and believe that they can get it done. They didn't get it done because I don't think they were really being held accountable. They also have the resources. That's part of their requirement and commitment. They set aside those resources. This has really been that we're the right people leading

and the right people paying attention and immediately upon taking office. I determined that that was an issue that we needed to pay attention to and that my expectation is, and it's working, that the Air Force would get this dealt with and clean up that jet fuel spill. My opponent has the year of the president. I don't know why the Air Force doesn't listen to the president, but apparently that channel of communication doesn't work perfectly. Sir, you have just given me a perfect transition to another one of our questions. Thank you. Coming up an election. I don't have to tell the two of you that or our viewers. And I'm going to bring up President Obama because all the polls show, all the political pro-gostigators show, that he is a factor in this election. In fact, David Axelrod, one of the people who helped bring him to the White House, one of his great political gurus, said the other day when the president said, my policies are on the ballot. They ought not to have said that because David Axelrod doesn't like the president because he thinks that's politically not wise.

So, here's the question. Congresswoman Nuhon Grisham. What kind of job as a leader do you think this president has done? Sam, I think it depends on the issue. There are issues where I've been disappointed in the administration. I agree that the president should be doing more to hold the Air Force accountable here, to actually hold states accountable in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act to make sure that New Mexico does something about dealing with its hunger problem. I want an administration that's focusing on the right things, that does something about the Social Security Administration, and absolutely does something to reform the VA health care system. Yes, but on the bigger questions for the country. On the bigger questions, I think it depends on each of those issues, which is why I don't follow partisan politics as a representative of this district. I focus on the district where those votes in Congress improve the quality of life for a New Mexican. I don't ask myself if this is the president's platform. I ask myself about representing those New Mexicans on several occasions. I vote against my party or against the president.

Several occasions I vote with them. It really depends on what we're focusing on here. To use the question often asked by terrible people like me, political reporters. In this case, are you running away from President Obama this fall? No, I am really focusing absolutely on running into the district, focusing on breaking through the gridlock. I'm very proud of being the president of the most bipartisan freshman class in the history of Congress about being part of a coalition of women, past the Farm Bill, violence against women, clean debt ceiling, stop the government, shut down, got a bipartisan budget pass for two years. The kinds of things that my constituents are expecting that we get done. Mr. Freeze, President Obama, what kind of a president and what kind of a leader? Well, he's not been much of a leader. He is a professorial aloof, not decisive. He seems to take forever to make decisions. And we can't afford that kind of leader. We need a leader who will address the problems quickly

and make a decision quickly and stand behind his decision firmly. And I certainly don't see that from this president. Can you think of anything that you think he's done and done well and done right, that you might support even though most of what you see you don't like? As far as I know, he plans to leave office on January 20th, 2016. So that's good. And his final question on this subject, can you think of anything that he's done that you really hate? Strong words, Sam. There are certainly things that I disapprove of. I mean, one of the things recently that the administration asked members of the Democratic Party to support his administration and not to extend in perpetuity. So, forever, a research and development tax credit. In a state like New Mexico, I was really disappointed that we aren't focused on the economic realities of states like New Mexico with that kind of opportunity but are still really lagging behind an economic recovery in the country. And I was proud to stand for New Mexico on that vote.

So one more. Yes, go ahead. I actually admire the president for backing off his decision to close Guantanamo and bring all of those terrorists to New York and try them there and make New York a target for further terrorism. So I think that was something he really didn't want to do. And I think it was a wise choice. And again, it's a tough subject. The president of your own party, the president that you may oppose. And yet, you're generous enough to say that no, not completely 1,000% bad. And I think people respect that kind of dialogue. But it's just amazing to me that people like Leon Panetta, the former CIA director and secretary of defense, in the Obama administration before that chief of staff for president Clinton, a long time Democratic member of Congress said yesterday, or rather last week, that the president had lost his way in Iraq and the Middle East and had, by his Iraqi policy of withdrawal, provided a breeding ground for this ISIS, these terrorists, and other Democrats. It's amazing.

But of course, the election is not till November, and history will be written about President Obama long after we're gone and we don't know. I don't know what it will say. But it's time for two short and two short questions. I'll try them again. Never give up. Whether it works or not. And this does feel, this does right in. Ten seconds each, and then a little tiny ribbon. Should the Affordable Care Act, the new health care law, Obama care, if you will, should be repealed? Yes. We should return the regulation of health insurance to the states. New Mexican should be making decisions for New Mexico. No. That's repealing it is just another bonus right to insurance companies. We want to keep those protections. We want to make sure no lifetime to cap. We want to make sure that pre-existing conditions don't prevent you from being covered. Okay. Those are important protections. Forget the rebuttal. I think we both know. Everyone knows where you stand. So the second, ten second question. Do you support or oppose the decriminalization of marijuana for recreational purposes? It's legal for medicinal purposes in New Mexico. Mr. Freeze.

Once again, you've asked me a question about New Mexico. Is the citizen of New Mexico? I don't think it would be a good idea. New Mexico seems to have a fair bit of trouble handling alcohol. Mr. Hungry. Sam, I certainly was very involved in helping New Mexico pass the medical marijuana program. I'm in favor of the advisory questions because I think it's a debate that we now have to have in this country. So I'm really actually interested to be a voter on this and to see what the rest of the voters in this district say. I think it's time that we have a discussion and a debate about it. All right, back to your larger questions now. And one that has to do with New Mexico. But of course, Congress has a lot to say, whether you like it or not, about these questions. This is child well-being in New Mexico, very controversial. Not that we want to take care of our children, but let's face it. This state has had a disgraceful, according to all the people who report on it, record on child care. And the Annie Casey Foundation says that we're 49th in the nation for caring for our children. So, Mr. Hans Grisham, what in Congress could you do about this?

Well, I've already done some things about it in Congress. I specifically wanted to be on the Agricultural Committee, which has part of its appropriations are to do food security and make sure you're investing and providing free and reduced free lunches at schools. It gets right to the heart of that poverty. And to one of our worst indicators, hunger here. I'm a little disappointed, actually, I'm a lot disappointed, that the state has run away from focusing on removing poverty, investing in those kids, putting them first, and recognizing that hunger is real. I voted against the first farm bill that had $20 billion in cuts. I voted for the second farm bill after having the opportunity to work through much reduced cuts, $8 billion, and those $8 billion cuts, based on the way they're applied to states, don't apply to New Mexico, giving us every real opportunity to address poverty and to focus on kids and making sure that they're not going to bed hungry and that we improve their public health outcomes. Child well being in New Mexico and elsewhere. Mr. Freeze, if you go to Congress, is there anything you can

and will try to do about it? The very most important thing we could do for child welfare in New Mexico is to create more jobs in New Mexico, to raise more families, give them the dignity, raise them out of poverty, and enable them to care for their children in the way they would like to do so. I think that the most important thing we can do is to stop solving every problem in Washington, D.C. We need to turn those problems back to New Mexico. We need to say, we'll help make the economy of New Mexico stronger by making the economy of the nation stronger, and the way we do that is cut federal regulation. If we don't get the federal government out of the hair of small businessmen, we will never have a strong growing job-creating economy. So there's not a specific program other than creating more jobs and improving the economy that you would point to from the standpoint of child well being. That's correct, Sam. I think that we don't need more programs in Washington that take money from the people of other states,

the people of New Mexico, and spend it the way Santa Fe has spent them. Ms. Grisham has been a secretary of health in Santa Fe. She's been a secretary of aging in Santa Fe. She has worked for Santa Fe government and Santa Fe control of New Mexico for many, many years, and in fact, what we have as a result of that is a weak state economy that sinks in relationship to our neighboring states. I want you to wrap up now in the next 60 minutes, both your rebuttals on this subject, but the companion subject of poverty, and whatever you want to say about what you just heard, because poverty is also, as you both pointed out, ramp it in New Mexico with a 49th state in this union when it comes to poverty. That's right. Sam, it's deplorable in the federal government. Look, in the two years since I've been there, we've removed half the sequester, but I became a member of Congress during this sequester, and I would argue the state had two years without those investments to make a difference. We fell.

We didn't make a difference, we were worse. I will tell you that I've got both experiences. I know how to run these programs. I know how to operate a small business. I own a small business, and I've worked in the private sector. I will tell you that we were not last, when I left the Department of Health, that we were at the highest school-based health centers and behavioral health programs. We were doing very well with community schools. We had some of the best aging programs, which saved us money by making sure that seniors are living independently and spending money in the economy and living with dignity. This is a partnership. The state should not abandon its priorities. It ought to invest in early childhood education. Every investment for a child and a poor family, we reap so much more on the back end in real dollars and real support for this state and the country. Poverty is a separate question then just building the economy, which I think everyone appreciates that you're right on that. I'm sorry, meaning that building the economy is very important for all these questions. Let's talk specifically about other measures that you as a member of Congress might adopt or be in favor of to help bring people out of poverty.

We have a lot of conflict in Washington, D.C., precisely because people in New York don't agree with people and Texas don't agree with people in California don't agree with people in Utah don't agree with New Mexicans. I think these programs are best handled in New Mexico. We should get the federal government out of as many things as we can and return those programs and those dollars if we have to and can to the states. Another perfect transition for me in what you just said when you talked about the people don't agree in New Utah and New Mexico and Colorado and wherever and that's quite true. Although we are one country. Let's talk about congressional inaction and gridlock in Congress. For years now, Congress and you can blame either or the other or both parties has been unable to really help move to solve the nation's problems because it might wear the highway and they're not going to make a deal and no compromise with you and things that when I came to Washington 50 years ago

I didn't see in either party. So when it comes to negotiating and trying to make a deal, would you negotiate with the other side and good faith? Would you compromise your positions? Ms. Lewand Christian? Oh, absolutely. I promised I would do that if elected and I've done that repeatedly and in fact I've passed four measures which by the way is above the average regardless of party and regardless of seniority or tenure in Congress. And I hope to pass an additional measure or two before December. It means reaching across the aisle. It means getting on bipartisan legislation. It means developing relationships. And again, I want to remind viewers that as president of the freshman class, I meet with the Republican freshman class. We try to develop an agenda together. We're working diligently to create a new voice of compromise, of getting things done, of breaking through the gridlock in Congress. I had noticed that the House Republicans and the House Democrats have been able to get together on much at all. So your meeting produced what?

Well, for example, meeting with the Republican freshman class we're talking about economic measures that we can both support. We're talking about fixes to the Affordable Care Act. I will tell you that we've got a focused infrastructure design that we think would be focused enough that's not every project in the United States, but certainly deals with transportation. We've got specific measures for the Affordable Care Act fix, dealing with the taxes on durable medical equipment, making sure that we do better rate review, making sure that we do something to minimize increased costs for co-pays. Those are all things that our combined freshman class and bipartisan members are working on, a moderate response to getting things done in Congress. Mr. Freeze, would you actually negotiate in good faith with the other side and would you possibly see yourself making a deal compromising? I see that it's critical that whoever goes to Washington goes to protect New Mexico's interests. And I think what we heard here is a litany of government programs. And I don't believe that government in Washington

is a solution to New Mexico's problems. The solution to New Mexico's problems lies in New Mexico in ourselves and in our state legislature. And I would make a responsible agreement. I would vote with my opponents just as Ms. Grisham did. I'm sure that 350 members of the House of Representatives voted for that Farm Bill she's so proud of voting for. And it's a big number. So hardly anybody voted against that bill. I think that there are plenty of Wheeler dealers in Congress easy eager to satisfy their supporters in the farm industry in the Midwest and get that Farm Bill going and satisfy the people like Michelle New Hungrysham who wants to move forward and send more money to programs for individuals. I think our viewers might appreciate you're saying that you would vote for a responsible negotiated agreement. But the word responsible is like the famous man who said, what is the meaning of is?

What is the meaning of responsible? Too many members of Congress on both sides, we see. Believe responsible means doing it my way. And if you don't do it my way, it's not responsible. I couldn't vote for it even if a majority wanted to have it. We often talk about gridlock. You know Sam very well. I know that gridlock is built into our political system into our legislature where we have two houses. One is populated according to population. One is by state structure. We have a senate, we have a house. They don't always agree. And right now they're held by two different parties who believe very, very different things about the future and the critical nature of this moment in history. I think we have got to stand by our principles and persuade the others to come along with us. If we can. I don't mean to heck to you. I think this is so important. You're both engaging it. But does stand by your principle? All of them, as you say. Does it ever not mean, however?

Well, the other side has a plan. I may not like it. I mean I think it's the best thing. But they want to try it. And we've got to move the country forward. So rather than block it, I'll negotiate a settlement and agree. Well, I did say that I would vote for a proposal to move troops into Iraq if the president made it. And I think that that's one example where I'm willing to go along with the opposite side. And not just oppose him because he's not of my party. So there are programs where... And I'll give you another example, the VA. We had this problem of the Veterans Administration not getting people appointments in timely fashion, putting them on separate lists. And the both houses of Congress came together and voted a bill to take care of that, to vote extra funding for the VA, and to move that forward. That happened very quickly. No gridlock there. All right? Mr. Luhun, Gresham, I know, for instance,

about looking at your website and your positions. You're very much in favor of increasing money for child lunches. You're for food stamps for other things that you believe are necessary. However, many people Congress disagree with you. Would you negotiate and agree to take less than what you think is important in those important areas in order to compromise? I did. It was a tough vote on the Farm Bill that took $8 billion out of a program that I know has a meaningful benefit for New Mexico. May I? Yes. It was food stamps specifically. And it had other cuts. And I will tell you that the ranchers and farmers, folks who were doing housing development, all of our alternative energy investments, I think that they are... That's a global group in New Mexico's economy that really wants a Farm Bill that doesn't have any cuts. And so I voted on a Farm Bill that had many of those cuts. And I want to just point out that that was not an easy vote. That failed several times. Many amendments failed. This was really women by partisan who negotiated a deal to make sure that we could represent our constituents effectively.

And I will tell you that my opponent wants it both ways. He says that we don't want Santa Fe style politics, but we want the state to be in charge of everything. He says that he will compromise in the federal government, but the Tea Party, that agenda, which he is aligned with, is the agenda that fails to compromise and is locked step in a situation and a position not to make any investments in this country. You need a rebuttal on this week. No, I don't think so. I believe that my programs and my ideals and the people that I support stand for themselves in the face of that. All right, that's strong criticism. I want to give you a chance if you want to. No, I think it's fine. All right. Now, we're short of time, but we have another big subject we'd like to cover. Climate change. There's no debate over where the Earth is warming. The debate is over whether human activity is significantly contributing to this warming because so much is involved. Not only the climate, the air, the water, and all of that, but our industry, our economy, jobs,

and all of this. So, where do you stand in human activity? First of all, Mr. Freeze. Do you believe that we are contributing significantly to global warming? So, I want to repeat something that you said. It is certainly true that the global surface average temperature has been increasing over the previous century. And that data shows that. Anyone in a reasonable scientist has to agree with that. So, I do believe that, yes and deed, we have global warming going on. The question, as you put it, is how much man contributes to this. And I will tell you that the only evidence we have for man's contribution to that rise in temperature is the predictions of computer models compared to the data for that warming over the last century. Now, I worked 35 years in a computer modeling of very significant complexity. I worked with models that are equally complex to climate modeling. And I was very, very, very confident that I wrote the models.

I thought they were good, but I knew very well that we had to compare them to experiment. Beginning 15 to 20 years ago, the temperature of the surface began to remain the same. It began, it came steady. Time is up. So, I simply want to finish the thought, which is that I think bad models make bad policy. We need models that agree. The models do not show that stopping of temperature rise. And we need to get that right before we behave rashly. Okay. Mr. Hungression, more than 60 seconds, take another 10. Well, we are having a stand and denying that there is a real human impact. And that our carbon fuel emissions are having an impact. A drastic and dramatic impact on the earth's warming. And that we have climate change. That it's real, I agree with the vast majority of scientists. Not just in this country, but worldwide. That the best thing that we can do immediately is not to ignore it. Not to wait any further, but to use current science to reduce our carbon emissions,

which we are doing in a variety of ways. And I think that that's exactly the path that we should be taking. I think that we also want to have fossil fuel independence, which means it's a finite source, which means we have to be doing alternative energy investments. That's high-tech jobs. That's making sure that we have energy independence. And that's really and truthfully addressing global warming and climate change. And I think it's been really dramatic in Congress to see any members of Congress continue to fight that we do have climate change. We'll not look at the science and aren't making the changes that we need to reduce our carbon footprints. She says it's an open-shot case. Rebuttal, please. So I think I heard my opponent accuse me of being a climate denier. I said very clearly that I believe that the temperature change is rising. And I am disturbed that she thinks I would ignore the data. I don't ignore the data. And it is not true that the influence of man on the climate is a settled issue. There is nothing in science that is settled.

And I guarantee you we don't know the beginning of this issue. We have to understand how climate is coupled to man's activity by computer modeling. And I'm telling you we don't know. Rebuttal. Again, I disagree for all of the scientific evidence that's very clear about carbon emissions and about what carbon does and about the heating and destroying our ozone. We're clear about what carbon does. We've always known that carbon is a real risk and that the best thing that we can do and private businesses even doing, we're looking at ways to reduce our carbon footprint by having it above all approach to investing. And alternative energy designs that again grow the economy, give us independence from fossil fuels and do everything in our power to protect the earth. Okay, we're one minute away from your closing statements. So I have a chance to do another two of these thread. Yes or no questions. Do you support or oppose a woman's right to choose a question of abortion? Mr. Freeze.

I don't think the federal government has anything to say about abortion. I'm happy with the Supreme Court for having said what it said. I think New Mexican should be making those decisions for New Mexico. Okay. I believe in a woman's right to choose. All right. And the second question is, do you support the right legally, whether you think it's a good idea or not, of gaze to marry? I support marriage equality. So the answer is? Yes. An unequivocal yes. Proud of New Mexico for our stand early on marriage equality. I don't oppose gay marriage. I have a brother-in-law and a partner married in New York. I don't oppose it. It's a done deal. This train has left the station. Thank you for answering these questions. And I think the audience takes you. It's time now for your closing statement. And is the Hungrysian? You go first. Thank you. I want to thank Canemey and Sam for tonight's debate. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to attend the naturalization ceremony, where I got to shake the hands of 150 new citizens as they took the oath of allegiance

of the United States of America. Now, I bring that up, that experience up, because as frustrating as politics can be, I still believe in our democracy. I was inspired by the pride in these new Americans. In the same way, I'm inspired by veterans who talk to me about their service, and about young entrepreneurs who want to start a farm in the South Valley, and by teachers who were satisfied not by test scores and evaluations, but by seeing their young students succeed. I'm further inspired by a young constituent Jeremy from Bernalillo, who's battling courageously a life-threatening illness that doesn't allow him to work. He was denied his Social Security Disability benefits that he paid for. I've introduced legislation to protect Jeremy and others to get the benefits that they deserve. I'm honored to be your United States representative in Congress. I humbly and respectfully ask you for your vote. Thank you. Mr. Freeze, according to the draw of the straw, you have the last word. Thank you, Sam. Thank you very much for moderating today.

And thank you to Mexico Public Television, and thank you who joined us tonight. You care about our future. Solutions to most of our problems lie in ourselves and in New Mexico, not in Washington. My opponent believes Washington knows best. Washington causes problems, so there's much to undo there. Health insurance, regulated there, isn't better. Free speech, control there, isn't freer. An economy run there will never make enough jobs, except for bureaucrats. Some problems are federal problems, controlling immigration, protecting our rights, defending our nation at home, and abroad. Those are all jobs. My opponent will come down on the wrong side of, and we'll do badly. Finally, I want to thank the dozens of young people who work for my election every day. I'm a great bearded professor, but they fight alongside me to ensure you're right the pursuit of happiness. I ask for your vote, so we can begin to restore America's future for them. I want to say, I thank you both for participating in this debate.

It is your right not to any politicians, but I admire people who are willing to debate no matter whether they're ahead or behind. So I thank you. And that's it for our debate. Thank you, Representative Michelle Lohan Grisham. Thank you. Manmike Fries, our public media partners and our production team. And ladies and gentlemen, thank you for watching and supporting public media in New Mexico. I'm Sam Donaldson, goodnight. Thank you. You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You

You You

You You You You

You You You

You You You You

You You You You

You You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You

You You You