To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Maryland's 2nd congressional district

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maryland's 2nd congressional district
Maryland US Congressional District 2 (since 2013).tif
Maryland's 2nd congressional district - since January 3, 2013
Current Representative Dutch Ruppersberger (DTimonium)
Area 359 sq mi (930 km2)
Distribution
  • 98.3% urban
  • 1.7% rural
Population (2013) 745,135
Median income 60,376
Ethnicity
Occupation
Cook PVI D+11[1]

Maryland's 2nd congressional district elects a representative to the United States House of Representatives every two years. The district comprises parts of Howard, Harford, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties, as well as small portions of the City of Baltimore. The seat is currently represented by Dutch Ruppersberger (D).

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    703
  • Election 2016 Debate - NM 2nd Congressional District

Transcription

ELECTION 2016. THE NEW MEXICO SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT DEBATE WITH REPUBLICAN STEVE PEARCE AND DEMOCRAT MERRIE LEE SOULES. NOW, FROM KRWG AND NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, FRED MARTINO. >> THANKS FOR JOINING US. OVER THE NEXT HOUR WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR NEW MEXICO AND THE NATION. CANDIDATES WILL HAVE 90 SECONDS TO RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION, AND THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A 45 SECOND REBUTTAL. THE REPORTER ASKING THE QUESTION MAY ALSO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION FROM TIME TO TIME. OUR PARTNER IN THE DEBATE IS THE LAS CRUCES SUN NEWS, AND WE'RE JOINED BY SUN NEWS MANAGING EDITOR SYLVIA ULLOA, AND EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR WALT RUBEL. AND WALT HAS OUR FIRST QUESTION. >> Rubel: FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEARCE. AN ANNUAL NATIONAL REPORT ON CHILDHOOD WELL-BEING SHOWED THAT NEW MEXICO HAS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY THAN ANY OTHER STATE IN THE NATION. BEYOND THE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS THAT HELP PEOPLE SURVIVE, WHAT CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO TO BOOST ECONOMIC. DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN THE STATE AND PROVIDE THE GOOD-PAYING JOBS PEOPLE NEED TO GET OFF THOSE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS? >> THANKS WALT, APPRECIATE EACH ONE OF YOU BEING HERE, SYLVIA, FRED, THANKS TO YOU, CONGRATULATIONS TO MY OPPONENT FOR BEING IN THE RACE. I'D LIKE TO ALSO LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY WIFE CYNTHIA AND THE STUDIO AUDIENCE TODAY. THE ISSUE OF POVERTY IS ONE THAT SHOULD GET MORE ATTENTION NATIONWIDE. I BELIEVE I VISITED WITH YOU WHEN I WAS IN THE EDITORIAL REVIEW THAT IT IS FOCUS THAT IS GOING TO BE TIGHTENED UP CONSIDERABLY. IN THE UPCOMING CONGRESS. I HOPE TO BE PART OF THAT. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO DO IS PROVIDE YOUNG PEOPLE WITH EDUCATION. I GO CONSTANTLY INTO THE SCHOOLS AND VISIT WITH OUR KIDS, SECONDLY, WE HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THOSE JOBS THAT ARE POTENTIAL IN A RURAL STATE LIKE NEW MEXICO. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE FIGHT SO HARD FOR THE RURAL JOBS THAT ARE HERE. I THINK WE SHOULD START WITH TIMBER OUT OF OUR FORESTS, 123 MINIMUMS AT ONE POINT IN NEW MEXICO, A LOT OF THOSE MILLS IN THE SECOND DISTRICT HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN OVER GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. MINING, RARE EARTH MINERALS USED TO BE AN IMPORTANT JOB IN NEW MEXICO. OTHER PEOPLE SAY WE SHOULD GET HIGH TECH JOBS. WE NEED TO BE REALISTIC, THEY GO TO THE HIGH POPULATION DISTRICTS. WE SHOULD BE REALISTIC, THE SKILLS WE HAVE WOULD BE IMPORTANT. NOT ONE POINT I'VE BROAD EMPLOYERS INTO OUR STATE INTO THESE REALLY DESPERATE CONDITIONS YOU REFERRED TO. WE HAVE NOT JOB FAIRS, BUT HIRING FAIRS. WE HIRED 57 PEOPLE ON ONE DAY. I HAVE TAKEN REPRESENTATIVES FROM THOSE COMMUNITIES TO SOME OF THE JOBS HERE, WHERE THEY TELL ME THEY'RE LOOKING FOR PEOPLE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS. SOULES, SAME QUESTION. HOW CAN WE GET HIGHER PAYING JOBS IN NEW MEXICO? >> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. WE NEED TO BE LOOKING FORWARD NOT BACKWARDS. THE BACKWARDS THINGS MY OPPONENT HAS MENTIONED ARE RELATED TO GLOBAL COMPETITION. BUT IN NEW MEXICO, I WOULD LOOK TO ENERGY, CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY, AS A SIGNIFICANT PART OF OUR FUTURE. I KNOW FROM MY BUSINESS BACKGROUND, LOW COST ELECTRICITY IS ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT MAKE INDUSTRY POSSIBLE. AND NEW MEXICO HAS ALL OF THAT POTENTIAL. I WOULD ALSO LOOK TO CONNECT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, CONNECTIVITY TODAY IS A PREREQUISITE TO BEING ABLE TO DO BUSINESS. SO BROADBAND, INTERNET SERVICE, THAT CONNECTIVITY LETS THE PEOPLE RIGHT HERE FIND OPPORTUNITIES, MOVE FORWARD, WHEN WE'RE NOT CONNECTED WE'RE NOT GOING FORWARD AND WE'RE BEING LEFT HIND. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SYLVIA. >> Ulloa: HI, THIS QUESTION IS FOR MS. SOULES. NEW MEXICO VOTERS HAVE ALWAYS PLACED A HIGH VALUE ON SENIORITY IN CONGRESSIONAL RACES, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SMALL SIZE OF OUR DELEGATION IN WASHINGTON, STEVE PEARCE IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED MEMBER NOW WRAPPING UP HIS SIXTH TERM IN OFFICE. WHY SHOULD VOTERS GIVE UP THAT CLOUT AND EXPERIENCE FOR A CANDIDATE WHO HAS NEVER BEFORE SERVED A PUBLIC OFFICE? >> Soules: ABSOLUTELY. I'M A POLITICAL OUTSIDER, HE IS A POLITICAL OPERATOR, 12 YEARS IN WASHINGTON. BUT HE'S GIVEN UP ON US. HE'S JUST GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS. HE'S NOT WORKING FOR NEW MEXICO, FOR US, FOR OUR FUTURE. HIS MAIN ATTENTION HAS BEEN TO TAKE CARE OF WEALTHY INTERESTS, SPECIAL INTERESTS, PEOPLE LIKE HIM. I BELIEVE IT IS TIME FOR THE PEOPLE OF NEW MEXICO TO HAVE A REAL CHOICE IN WHO IS DOING THE HARD WORK IN CREATING A FUTURE THAT WORKS FOR ALL OF US, NOT JUST A FEW. >> Ulloa: WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? >> Pearce: SURE, I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT DISTINGUISHES ME THE MOST. THE ABILITY TO WORK THROUGH THE YEARS ON I HAVE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS. 1968, THERE WAS A BILL PASSED THAT GAVE SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO 18,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER FOR THE FOUR COUNTIES IN SOUTHWESTERN NEW MEXICO THAT NEEDED A SIGNATURE BY THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR. WE WORKED ON IT, THE LAST 12 YEARS, THE LAST DAY IT WAS GOING TO LAPSE, WE GOT THE SIGNATURE AT NOON ON THAT DAY. NOW WE CAN HAVE BETTER JOB OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH THAT WATER. WE WORKED 12 YEARS TO TRY TO GET THE FOREST SERVICE TO BACK OFF AND LET THE RANCHER MR. GOSS HAVE ACCESS TO HIS WATER RIGHTS, WE HAVE FOUGHT TENACIOUSLY FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT AND WE'LL CONTINUE THAT FIGHT. >> MR. PEARCE, THE NEXT QUESTION IS FOR YOU. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON ABORTION RIGHTS? SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION IF A WOMAN SAYS SHE HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF INCEST OR SEXUAL ASSAULT? FURTHER, DO YOU SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO ABORTION IF THERE IS A THREAT TO THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER? >> FRED, I'M EXTREMELY PRO-LIFE. I WILL TELL YOU THAT NO COUNTRY CAN STAND BY, AND NOT HEAR THE VOICES OF THE MOST STRATEGY I'LL IN ITS POPULATION. THE MOST FRAGILE VOICES OF THOSE THAT ARE COMPLETELY UNBORN. NOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT LIFE ENDS WHEN THE HEARTBEAT ENDS. YET SOMEHOW, WE HAVE A DIFFICULTY SAYING THAT LIFE BEGINS WHEN THE HEARTBEAT BEGINS. RECENT RESEARCH SAYS THAT IS AT THE 16th OR 19th DAY. SO ONCE LIFE IS ESTABLISHED THEN I BELIEVE IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STAND UP FOR THE FRAGILE. AT THAT POINT ABOUT LIFE, LIBERTY, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS THOSE ARE THE CORE VALUES LAID DOWN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SPEAK AT THAT POINT. I'M SYMPATHETIC AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATIONS THAT ARISE, RAPE AND INCEST. MANY TIMES THOSE ARE VIEWED AS OPEN DOORS. IF WE COULD FIND THE RIGHT MIX, THE RIGHT REGULATIONS THEN I'M OPEN TO THE SUGGESTION. BUT BASICALLY, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ALLOWING IN THIS STATE ABORTIONS UP TO THE DAY OF BIRTH. I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE WOULD SAY THAT THE FETUS IS NOT VIABLE AT THAT POINT. >> THANK YOU. MS. SOULES. >> Soules: I RESPECT WOMEN AS MORAL, RESPONSIBLE DECISION-MAKERS, MY OPPONENT APPARENTLY DOES NOT. AND TO SUGGEST THAT THIS QUESTION CAN BE BETTER DEALT WITH BY GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS NOT PARTY TO THAT VERY DIFFICULT DECISION, I THINK IS HUGELY DISRESPECTFUL. WOMEN ARE ENTIRELY CAPABLE OF MAKING THE DIFFICULT DECISION IN THIS AREA. WITH THE COUNSEL OF THEIR MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR FAITH, GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BELONG THIS THIS TERRITORY. >> OKAY. NEXT QUESTION WILL BE FOR MS. SOULES. BOTH CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD EXPAND MILITARY OPERATIONS IN SYRIA. DO YOU BELIEVE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 2001 AND 2002 ARE SUFFICIENT TO COVER FUTURE MILITARY OPERATIONS IN SYRIA AND ELSEWHERE, AND IF NOT, WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD CONGRESS TAKE IN REGARD TO ONGOING OPERATIONS AGAINST THE ISLAMIC STATE? >> Soules: I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATIONS ARE SUFFICIENT. IT WOULD REQUIRE REAUTHORIZATION BY CONGRESS TO SET US ON A PATH OF PUTTING OUR UNITED STATES PEOPLE IN HARM'S WAY ON THE GROUND. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO BE PART OF THE GLOBAL LEADERSHIP, IN CONTAINING THE THREAT THAT I.S.I.S. REPRESENTS TO THE ENTIRE WORLD. BUT I WOULD THINK THAT THE LAST STEP WE TAKE IS TO PUT AMERICAN LIVES IN HARM'S WAY AT RISK ON THE GROUND. THAT DEFINITELY REQUIRES CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR. >> MR. PEARCE. >> I DON'T BELIEVE CONGRESS CAME TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF MILITARY FORCE, I THINK HE WAS CORRECT IN THAT REQUEST. CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER SAID EXACTLY WHAT HE WOULD DO. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS AUTHORIZE A BLANK CHECK FOR THIS PRESIDENT OR FRANKLY, ANY OTHER PRESIDENT, TO GO IN MILITARILY. I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK TO OUR ARAB ALLIES IN THE REGION TO LEAD THAT FIGHT TO TRY TO STABILIZE THE AREA. THIS PRESIDENT HAS ELIMINATED ABOUT 100,000 OF THE SOLDIERS, THE MILITARY IS BEING DECIMATED RIGHT NOW THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET. WE'VE GOT TO REBUILD THE MILITARY. REBUILD AMERICAN STRENGTHS. BUT MOSTLY WE HAVE TO HAVE A VISION FOR HOW WE AS AMERICA ARE GOING TO LEAD THROUGH THE FUTURE. >> Ulloa: THIS QUESTION IS FOR MR. PEARCE. AMERICA IS CLEARLY A DIVIDED NATION POLITICALLY, AS HAS BEEN DRAMATICALLY EXPOSED BY NOT JUST THIS YEAR'S ELECTION CYCLE, BUT ALSO YEARS OF GRIDLOCK UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA. IF THE CURRENT POLLS ARE CORRECT, IT APPEARS THAT HILLARY CLINTON WILL LIKELY BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT. REGARDLESS OF WHO IS ELECTED, WHAT WILL YOU DO TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? >> Pearce: I THINK MOST IMPORTANT THING WE SHOULD DO AS A NATION IS TO LOOK AT ALL THE JERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, YOU CAN SAY AND DO ANYTHING IN THIS DISTRICT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, YOU PRETTY MUCH HAVE TO STAY OUT TO TALK TO BOTH PARTIES. THAT'S BEEN EVIDENT IN MY SERVICE. WE WORKED WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO GET THE ARIZONA WATER SETTLEMENT. WE WALKED WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO GET THE SETTLEMENT ON THE GRASS PROJECT. WE WORKED WITH CONGRESS TO GET THE WORK FUNDING. OUR ABILITY TO WORK ACROSS THE AISLES, MY MOTHER AND FATHER WORKED WITH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS MOST OF MY LIFE. IF WE DEAL WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND CONGRESS, IF WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE APPROACH THE QUESTIONS AND SITUATIONS FROM A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW, EACH SIDE IS JUSTIFIED FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE FOUND TO BE SUCCESSFUL. WE'LL CONTINUE THAT WORK WHOEVER IS IN THE PRESIDENCY BUT FRANKLY WE FOUGHT MR. BUSH AS HARD AS WE FOUGHT MR. OBAMA WHEN WE THOUGHT EITHER WAS WRONG. I'VE BEEN WILLING TO FIGHT MY PARTY CONSTANTLY WHEN I THOUGHT THEY WERE APPROACHING IT INCORRECTLY FOR NEW MEXICO AND FOR ARIZONA. WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. >> Ulloa: AS MS. SOULES. >> Soules: LAST YEAR I WENT TO WORK ON BEHALF OF MY COMMUNITY. WHEN EL PASO ELECTRIC MOVED FORWARD WITH AN UNJUSTIFIABLE INCREASE. AS A CITIZEN I TOOK ON WHAT I THOUGHT WAS AN UNJUSTIFIED RATE INCREASE. INSTEAD OF THE $8.6 MILLION THAT EL PASO ELECTRIC ASKED FOR, GRANTED $1.1 MILLION INCREASE. THAT'S $7.5 MILLION PER YEAR, $75 MILLION SAVINGS FOR MY COMMUNITY BECAUSE I WENT TO WORK ON BEHALF OF THIS COMMUNITY AND PULLED TOGETHER THE APPROPRIATE STAKEHOLDERS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. I THINK THIS IS ABOUT RESULTS, DELIVERED RESULTS RATHER THAN JUST STATEMENTS. >> MS. SOULES OUR NEXT QUESTION IS FOR YOU. RIGHT NOW, INCOME OVER $118,500 IS NOT TAXED FOR SOCIAL SECURITY. IF THE CAP WERE ELIMINATED, BUT BENEFITS WERE MAINTAINED IN THE CURRENT FORM, THE GOVERNMENT SAYS ABOUT 90 PERCENT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SHORTFALL WOULD BE SOLVED. HILLARY CLINTON HAS PROPOSED TAXING SOME ADDITIONAL INCOME. OTHERS HAVE PROPOSED FURTHER INCREASING THE RETIREMENT AGE AND CUTTING BENEFITS, SAYING TAX INCREASES ARE NOT WISE. HOW WOULD YOU SECURE THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY? >> Soules: THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. SOCIAL SECURITY IS ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL SAFETY NETS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER ENACTED. PROVIDING RETIREMENT SECURITY TO AMERICANS FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE CUTTING BENEFITS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE RAISING THE BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY DATE. I DO BELIEVE WE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THE CAP. WHAT HAPPENS TODAY IS, SOMEBODY WHO IS EARNING A GOOD LIVING, MORE THAN $118,500, ONCE THEY REACH THAT AMOUNT OF EARNINGS IN A YEAR, ESSENTIALLY STOP PAYING THE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX. THAT'S LIKE A WINDFALL FOR THE REMAINING MONTHS OF THAT PARTICULAR YEAR. IT'S NOT PART OF WHAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON. IT'S NOT PART OF THE BUDGETING. WE COULD REMOVE THE CAP, IMMEDIATELY, MAKE NO CHANGE TO BENEFITS, AND WE WOULD, AS YOU SAID, WE WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM IS SIGNIFICANTLY IN TERMS OF ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF OUR SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM. I WOULD TAKE THAT STEP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. >> MR. PEARCE. >> FRED, I'M SUSPICIOUS OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD CHANGE THE CORE PROMISE AND AGREEMENT WITH OUR WORKERS. WHAT I'VE SEEN IN THE PAST IS THAT BOTH PARTIES WOULD TAKE THE MONEY AND SPEND IT, ALMOST $3 TRILLION HAS BEEN REMOVED OUT OF THE LOCK BOX. THE LOCK BOX HAS NOTHING IN IT BUT IOU'S. ANY MONEY WE PAY BACK TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND IS PRINTED THROUGH QUANTITATIVE EASING. WHAT I WOULD FIND IS SOME NEW SOURCE OF REVENUE, EITHER OFF SHORE OIL AND GAS RESOURCES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED AT THIS POINT, AND ALLOW ALL OF THOSE FUNDS TO GO IN AND START REPLENISHING THE LOCK BOX. THE BIG PROBLEM WITH SOCIAL SECURITY IS THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH WORKERS. IT WAS BUILT ON A SMALLER PARA:00. YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT WITH SMALL CHANGES IN THE TAX CODE. >> THANK YOU. THE NEXT QUESTION IS FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEARCE. IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, THE SUN-NEWS RAN A GUEST COLUMN WRITTEN BY THE MAYORS OF LAS CRUCES, MESILLA, ANTHONY AND SUNLAND PARK, ALL IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION BY SENATORS UDALL AND HEINRICH TO CREATE PERMANENT WILDERNESS DESIGNATION WITHIN THE ORGAN MOUNTAINS DESERT-PEAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT. YOU OPPOSED THE GRANTING OF THE MONUMENT DESIGNATION BEFORE THE ACTION TAKEN BY PRESIDENT OBAMA TO CREATE THE MONUMENT, AND NOW OPPOSE THE WILDERNESS BILL BY UDALL AND HEINRICH. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THESE LOCAL MAYORS ARE WRONG ON THIS ISSUE, AND YOU ARE RIGHT? >> WALT, IF YOU JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THAT, I BEGAN TO STAND FOR A COMMON SENSE PROTECTION OF THE ORGAN MOUNTAINS, WE ALL WANT TO SEE, WE TOOK AN APPROACH THAT WOULD HAVE PROTECTED 60,000 ACRES. EVERY TIME YOU GET A MORE RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC LAND THEN YOU HAVE LESS ECONOMIC BENEFIT. YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE HILA WILDERNESS IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. LOOK AT THE WAY IT'S ERODED THE TAX BASE FOR THE LOCAL COUNTIES. NOW, LAS CRUCES, DONEA ANNA COUNTIES, ABOUT 50% IS PRIVATE. THAT MEANS EVERY TIME YOU WANT TO BUILD A NEW SUBDIVISION, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE FARMLAND OUT OF PRODUCTIVE USE. SO YOU'RE CANNIBALIZING YOUR ECONOMY AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU'RE TRYING GROW YOUR TAX BASE HERE IN THE REGION. NOW, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS HAD FULL CONTROL, IF YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS CORRECT, THE SENATE WITH THE FILIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY IN THE WHITE HOUSE, REID, PELOSI AND MR. OBAMA, THEY DIDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE IN OFFICE KNEW THEY WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AT THE NEXT ELECTION. WE FOUGHT MR. DIZZY MEDICI, EVERYBODY ELSE AT THERE POINT. TO SAY LET'S USE THE SMALLEST DESIGNATION, INSTEAD OF 60,000 ACRES, 600,000 ACRES WERE PUT FORWARD AND I DON'T THINK LOCAL POPULATIONS WERE IN SUPPORT OF THAT. >> THE MAYORS CERTAINLY -- >> YOU UNDERSTAND THE MAYORS BUT WHEN THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE -- >> I UNDERSTAND. >> THE ELECTED OFFICIALS CHOSE NOT TO PUSH THAT. AND THEY HAD EVERY MAJORITIES IN WASHINGTON. >> I UNDERSTAND. MS. SOULES. >> Soules: SO I FIND IT VERY INTERESTING, THAT MY OPPONENT REPRESENTS THIS AS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I ADMIT, RIGHT HERE, DURING THE PERIOD WHEN IT WAS BEING PROPOSED AS A NATIONAL MONUMENT AND NEEDED OVERWHELMING SUPPORT, SUPPORT BUILT THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNE HERE IN DONEA ANNA COUNTY IN THE AREAS THAT WERE AFFECTED. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME TO SUGGEST WE WERE LAND STARVED. I EXPERIENCE ANYTHING BUT. THIS IS NOT A LAND STARVED COMMUNITY. MY OPPONENT FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE VALUE OF PROTECTING THIS LEGACY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THE VALUE IN TERMS OF TOURISM THAT IS ALREADY PICKING UP THE VISITORS FROM NOT JUST THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT DID THE RIGHT THING IN THE DESIGNATION AS OF THE ORGANIZE BEGAN MOUNTAINS. >> Ulloa: MS. SOULES: AT A PREVIOUS DEBATE SPONSORED BY LULAC, YOU REFERRED TO THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION AS A MODEL FOR HEALTH CARE. YET, A REPORT LAST YEAR BY THE VA'S INSPECTOR GENERAL FOUND THAT MORE THAN 307,000 VETERANS MAY HAVE DIED WHILE AWAITING CARE IN THE VA SYSTEM. HOW CAN THAT BE A MODEL, AND WHAT SHOULD CONGRESS DO TO ENSURE THAT THOSE WHO WERE INJURED EITHER PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY WHILE SERVING OUR COUNTRY GET THE CARE THEY HAVE EARNED? >> Soules: WELL, LET'S BE CLEAR. THE 307,000 POSSIBLE DEATHS ARE JUST THAT. THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THOSE 307,000 POTENTIAL. THEY ARE FILES MARKED AS PENDING. IT HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE DATABASE THAN IT HAS TO DO WITH CONFIRMED DEATHS. THERE MAY BE A FEW. THERE CERTAINLY IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. BUT COMPARED TO WHAT OTHER DYNAMICS ARE GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY, REGARDING HEALTH CARE, IT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION HAS A BETTER HEALTH OUTCOME RECORD AT A LOWER COST THAN ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE'RE DOING. WE SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT MODEL, AS A POTENTIAL MODEL TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABLE ISSUES THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY FACING IN OUR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE INITIATIVE. I WOULD REJECT OUTRIGHT THAT THIS IS REASON TO TRASH IT. I WOULD REJECT THAT THIS IS A REASON TO VOUCHERIZE IT. WHICH TO ME IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF ALLOWING PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT ENTERPRISE TO GET THEIR HANDS INTO A BIG REVENUE STREAM FROM MY TAX DOLLARS AND YOUR TAX DOLLARS. THE VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION'S ABSOLUTELY WORTH STUDYING SAVING AND IMPROVING. >> Ulloa: MR. PEARCE WOULD YOU LIKE TO REBUT? >> Pearce: YES, I HAVE LISTENED WITH RESPECT, AS MY OPPONENT SAYS I AM OUT OF TOUCH. I WOULD INVITE HER TO COME TO ONE OF OUR VETERAN TOWN HALLS. IF SHE THINKS THINGS ARE SUCH AS THEY ARE, VETERANS DESERVE BETTER, DESERVE MORE, BIPARTISAN EFFORT, ALMOST UNANIMOUS VOTES IN THE PRESIDENT SIGNING THE CHOICE ACT WHICH WOULD ALLOW YOU TO TAKE THOSE VOUCHERS OFF CAMPUS, OFF OF THE VA, ALLOW YOU TO ACCESS CARE WHEN THE VA CAN'T GET TO YOU. WE ALSO ALLOWED THE VA TO FIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT DOING JOBS. ONE OF THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY REFORMS IN THE HISTORY, THE VA IS STILL REFUSING TO FIRE PEOPLE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS AND LIVE WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE CHOICE ACT. >> Ulloa: YOU SAY THERE'S MORE WORK TO BE DONE THERE? >> Pearce: ABSOLUTELY. VA CONTINUES TO MISMANAGE, TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO LANGUISH. THE COLON CANCER PROBLEM AT THE VA IN ALBUQUERQUE, THE PROBLEM IS JUST AS PRONOUNCED AS BEFORE THE REFORM WAS PASSED. >> EARLIER THIS MONTH, YOU SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE NONBINDING PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT. WHAT SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEING DOING, IF ANYTHING, TO ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING? >> Pearce: THE WHOLE QUESTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE ORIGINATES AT THE POINT OF, IS IT MAN MADE OR NOT? UNDERSTANDING THEN WHAT THE QUESTION IS, THEN YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PUBLIC UTILITY CONSEQUENCES DOWNSTREAM FROM MY ACTION THAT YOU TAKE. UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS BASICALLY GOING TO, IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEGINS OIMPLEMENT THINGS, IS GOING TO RESULT IN A TAX INCREASE TO THE PEOPLE IN THE SECOND DISTRICT AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY. NOW, THE ESTIMATES, THE LOWER SIDE ESTIMATE IS THAT YOUR TAXES WOULD DOUBLE UNDER A CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM SUGGESTED BY MRS. PELOSI, THE SPEAKER. THE HIGHEST YOUR TAXES WOULD TRIPLE. 5,000 NOW AND CAP AND TRADE IS PUT INTO EFFECT, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE 10,000 MAYBE 15,000 IN TAXES. AT THAT POINT I LOOK AT IF I'VE GOT TO RAISE TAXES FOR MY CONSTITUENTS, WHAT ARE THE SAVINGS, THE IPPC WAS PUT IN CHARGE OF -- THE INTERNATIONAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, THEY'RE THE ONES KEEPING SCORE AND TELLING THE SCIENTISTS NATIONWIDE, INDICATING THAT THEY ARE FALSIFYING, MANIPULATING THE SCIENCE. IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT OUR BOY'S PREDICTIONS, HE GAVE US TEN YEARS AND SAID WE ARE GOING TO BE IN CATACLYSMIC FAILURE. WE'RE NOT. SOCIETY STILL EXISTS. ALL THE EXAMPLES USED TO SAY WE HAVE GOT TO PASS THIS TAX INCREASE HAVEN'T PROVEN UP. I THINK FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD STANDSTILL. WE SHOULD DO WHAT WE CAN TO CLEAN UP THE ENVIRONMENT BUT I WOULD HESITATE TO PASS A CAP AND TRADE TAX SCHEME. >> MS. SOULES. >> MY OPPONENT CONTINUES TO DENY THE FACT OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. AS THE REST OF THE WORLD ARE STEPPING UP TO THE REAL CHALLENGES THAT CREATES FOR US. HE DENIES THAT TO SUCH A BE POINT THAT HE VOTES AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO SPEND ANY MONEY TO PREPARE FOR THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. FROM ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY WITH OUR NAVAL BASES BEING FLOODED, HOW IRRESPONSIBLE IS THAT? WE HAVE A BIG CHALLENGE IN FRONT OF US, WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO PREPARE FOR IT AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO TO SLOW IT, TO STOP IT AND TO REVERSE IT. ALL OF WHICH WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE ON. >> THAT'S PART OF MY NEXT QUESTION WHICH IS FOR MS. SOULES. BLOOMBERG HAS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS A RECORD $328.9 BILLION INVESTED IN CLEAN ENERGY LAST YEAR WORLDWIDE. CHINA LED THE WAY WITH $110.5 BILLION IN CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS, MORE THAN DOUBLE WHAT WAS INVESTED IN THE UNITED STATES. WHAT CAN CONGRESS DO TO SPUR GREATER INVESTMENT IN CLEAN ENERGY PRODUCTION HERE? >> Soules: THERE ARE A LOT OF BARRIERS TO CLEAN ENERGY RIGHT HERE IN NEW MEXICO. WHEN I TOOK ON EL PASO ELECTRIC A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THAT WAS RELATED TO THEIR CONTINUING TO CHOOSE NATURAL GAS FIRED GENERATION AT A COST OF $10.9 CENTS PER KILOWATT-HOUR, WHILE JUST RECENTLY, EXCEL ENERGY SIGNED AN AGREEMENT FOR 3.3 CENTS PER KILOWATT-HOUR. WE CAN BE CREATING THE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY OF THE FUTURE. WHETHER THAT IS THE ENERGY WE KNOW TODAY, WHETHER ENERGY STORAGE, WHETHER IT'S HOW TO CAPTURE AND CONTAIN THOSE CARBON ISSUES THAT ARE RELATED TO GLOBAL WARMING, WE HAVE IT RIGHT HERE. WE HAVE THE NATIONAL LAB. WE HAVE THE POTLATCH USE OF THE, WE HAVE THE EXPERIENCE WITH ENERGY PRODUCTION OF ALL KINDS. TO NOT STEP UP TO THAT, TO GET THE BARRIERS OUT OF THE WAY, TO GET THE SPECIAL INTERESTS OUT OF THE WAY, AND REALLY TAKE THAT ON, WE'RE DOING OUR ENTIRE STATE AND OUR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD A DISSERVICE. NOW IS THE TIME TO GET ON WITH IT. OPEN THE DOORS. MAKE THE INVESTMENTS, FIGURE OUT THE TECHNOLOGY AND EMBRACE US BECAUSE OUR ENTIRE WORLD DEPENDS ON IT. >> REPRESENTATIVE PEARCE YOUR THOUGHTS ON FURTHER CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENTS? >> Pearce: THE IDEA OF HAVING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS THE ONE THAT IS IMPORTANT BUT ALSO NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR THE LIMITATIONS, IT IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 3 AND 4% OF OUR NATIONAL POWER. IF WE CONVERT TOO QUICKLY WHICH IS WHAT EUROPE DID, YOU FIND YOUR COST OF POWER WOULD GO UP, MANUFACTURERS ARE SHUTTING DOWN EIGHT AND 12 HOUR SHIFTS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH COST OF ENERGY. SO I UNDERSTAND IF WE POUR OURSELVES HEADLONG INTO THIS AS MY OPPONENT SUGGESTS, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE JOBS AND THAT IS THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT. STORAGE IS THE KEY TO ANY ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. THE WIND DOESN'T BLOW EVERY DAY, THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE EVERY DAY EXCEPT HERE IN LAS CRUCES. STORAGE IS THE KEY, WE HAVE BEEN TO SCANDIA, ASK THEM, THEY SAY WE ARE 40 YEARS AWAY FROM ADEQUATE STORAGE. ON PUBLIC LANDS IN MASSIVE AMOUNTS, SO SUPPORT IT BUT THE IDEA THAT IT CAN REPLACE COAL AND OIL AND GAS IS ONE THAT'S WAY PREMATURE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> Ulloa: OKAY MR. PEARCE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU. IN 2015, A FEDERAL JUDGE OVERTURNED EFFORTS BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FROM DEPORTATION FOR CHILDREN WHO WERE BROUGHT HEREBY, ILLEGALLY, AND THEIR PARENTS. THAT RULING WAS ALLOWED TO STAND ON A 4-4 TIE BY THE CURRENT EIGHT-MEMBER U.S. SUPREME COURT. IF CONGRESS DOES TAKE ACTION ON IMMIGRATION REFORM IN THE UPCOMING SESSION, WHAT PROTECTIONS, IF ANY, SHOULD BE OFFERED TO THESE SO-CALLED DREAMERS AND THEIR PARENTS? >> Pearce: WHEN MY FAMILY MOVED TO THE PLACE WHERE I GREW UP, IT WAS FIVE MILES SOUTH OF HOBBS. I USED TO GO OUT, MOM WOULD TAKE ALL OF US SIX KIDS OUT TO THE BRACEROS, THE RASCONES WERE THE HOSTS FOR BRACEROS, WE WOULD PICK COTTON. LATER ON, I UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT WAS, PROVIDING FOR THE FAMILIES AND THE DREAMERS ARE AN OFFSHOOT OF THAT. FAMILIES COME HERE AND TRY TO FEED THEM. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY BUT THE KIDS THAT GET CAUGHT IN IT ARE ONE OF THE ONES -- ONE OF THE SITUATIONS THAT DRIVE YOUR SYMPATHIES TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL. I'VE MET WITH THE DREAMERS HERE IN CRUCES. WE TALK, I TELL THEM LOOK I DON'T MIND SOLVING THE PROBLEM BUT WHAT IN POLICY YOU HAVE TO DO IS GET TO WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO SOLVE IT EVERY SECOND OR THIRD YEAR. YOU'VE GOT TO FIX THE PROBLEM NOT JUST SOLVE IT CURRENTLY. BRING BACK YOUR IDEAS OF HOW WE COULD SOLVE THAT PERMANENTLY. WE'LL LOOK AT IT AND IF IT'S VALID WE'LL PUSH THAT FORWARD. THE PROBLEM OF FIXING IT NOW AND FIXING IT LATER RUNS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THAT'S THEN THE DE FACTO WAY THAT YOU GET INTO THE COUNTRY SO THAT'S THERE PIECE WE HAVE TO FIX. >> Ulloa: WHAT SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD DESERVE? YOU HAVE INVOLVED IN SOME ADMINISTRATION -- >> Pearce: THE PRESIDENT SAID WE ARE GOING TO DELAY ANY ACTION IN THE COURTS AND SAID HE DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT NOT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, HE HAD SAID THE SAME THING THE YEAR BEFORE. AGAIN I WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO DO HAS TO BE REPLICATED IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY. I'M NOT SURE AT THIS POINT WHAT WE WOULD DO. IT NEEDS SOLUTION BUT TO SIMPLY SAY IF YOU'RE BROUGHT HERE AND YOU STAY HERE IT'S GOING TO BE OKAY EVENTUALLY. THAT IS PRETTY LOOSE AS AN IMMIGRATION POLICY. SO IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS, I WOULD WELCOME THOSE TOO. BUT IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT ONE AND VERY FEW PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON COME UP WITH A SOLUTION EXCEPT JUST GO AHEAD AND GIVE THEM CITIZENSHIP TODAY. THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS HEDGING TOWARDS AND THE COURTS ARE SAYING THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. >> Ulloa: WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE DREAMERS ACT AND HOW WE MIGHT GO FORWARD ON IMMIGRATION FORM IN THIS COUNTRY? >> Soules: THANK YOU, I WOULD. AFTER A LIFETIME IN NEW MEXICO, CLAIMING HE'S THINKING ABOUT IT, AFTER 12 YEARS IN CONGRESS, CLAIMING HE'S THINKING ABOUT IT, AND HE STILL HAS NO IDEAS. I WOULD SAY, YOU NEED TO IMMEDIATELY GRANT LEGAL STATUS TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE WITHOUT DOCUMENTS LIVING IN THE SHADOWS. IT CHANGES NOTHING, IT HURTS NOTHING. WE SHOULD THEN FIX THE PROCESS. A PROCESS THAT TAKES 20 YEARS FOR SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY LEGALLY IS NOT A PROCESS. BACKGROUNDS SAYS THAT'S NOT A PROCESS THAT WORKS. LET'S MAKE THAT HAPPEN. AND FINALLY, WE'RE BETTER THAN THIS. WE CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. WE NEED TO STOP MAKE IT A MATTER OF POLITICAL SLOGANS AND SIMPLY GET ON WITH MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE HERE LEGALLY, THAT SHOULD BE THE EASY PART. IT SHOULD BE HARD TO LIVE HERE ILLEGALLY. >> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FOR YOU MS. SOULES. THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INCLUDES A MEDICARE SURTAX ON WAGES AND SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME ABOVE $200,000 FOR SINGLES, OR $250,000 FOR COUPLES. MANY REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING DONALD TRUMP, SAY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SHOULD BE REPEALED. PROPONENTS SAY IT'S ONLY FAIR THAT THE WEALTHY SHOULD HELP PAY FOR THE MEDICARE EXPANSION. THE DOUGHNUT HOLE BY 2020. HOW WOULD YOU SECURE THE FUTURE OF MEDICARE? >> Soules: I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND YOU TALKED ABOUT MEDICARE. COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL CARE FOR EVERYONE, 20 MILLION PEOPLE TODAY THAT HAVE HEALTH CARE THAT DIDN'T HAVE IT BEFORE. WE'VE GONE SUCH A LONG WAYS IN MAKING THAT POSSIBLE, WE SHOULD NOT GO BACKWARDS, I'M COMPLETELY AGAINST THE NOTION OF REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE WORK TO DO ON THE AFFORDABILITY PART. WE HAVEN'T STEPPED UP TO THE THINGS THAT MAKE HEALTH CARE IN THIS COUNTRY THE MOST EXPENSIVE HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD, WITH ONLY AVERAGE RESULTS IN TERMS OF HEALTH OUTCOMES. AGAIN, WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT. SO WE NEED TO TAKE ON THE ISSUE OF THE HIGH COST OF PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION. WE NEED TO TAKE ON THE ISSUE OF A SHORTAGE, LIMITED CAPACITY, OF TRAINED PHYSICIANS AND TRAINED, SKILLED, HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS WE SHOULD DO IN TERMS OF REALLY TAKING ON THE BE AFFORDABLE PART. THE NEXT IMPORTANT PART THAT MAKES THIS WORK FOR THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. HEALTH CARE AS A UNIVERSAL RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE IS SOMETHING I TOTALLY SUPPORT. LET'S CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH AND CONTINUE TO MAKE IT BETTER AND CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO. >> MR. PEARCE, WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE BE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND HAVE VOTED NUMEROUS SOMETIMES TO RE-- TIMES TO REPEAT IT. THIS QUESTION IS ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD SECURE THE FUTURE OF MEDICARE AND AS I MENTIONED PART OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EXPANDS THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT AND MANY OTHER THINGS. HOW WOULD YOU SECURE THE FUTURE OF MEDICARE? >> Pearce: UNDERSTANDING HOW THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS PAID FOR UP FRONT AND HOW THE COSTS WERE DELAYED INTO THE LATTER PART OF MR. OBAMA'S REGIME BEGINS TO REVEAL MANY OF THE WEAKNESSES THAT ARE NOW BEING EXPOSED. THE CO-OPS ARE BANKRUPT, 16 OF THE 20 CO-OPS ARE NOW BANKRUPT, THE EXCHANGES ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE, SKYROCKETING PREMIUMS ARE GOING ON. BUT THE INITIAL FUNDING FOR THIS BE $700 BILLION WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM MEDICARE TO MAKE THE BOOKS BALANCE. THEY NEVER DID BALANCE. >> HOW WOULD YOU BE CHANGE MEDICARE? >> I WOULD START TO DIVERT THE FUNDS BACK INTO MEDICARE THE WAY THEY WERE BEFORE. WE NEED DEEP REFORMS INTO THAT. BUT I WOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE MEDICARE-MEDICAID PIECES RATHER THAN HAVING THIS ONE WHOLE SYSTEM CALLED OBAMACARE. IT IS NOT WORKING, IT IS NOT GOING TO WORK. BUT RETURN THE RESOURCES BACK TO WHERE WE TOOK THEM. >> THANK YOU. OWNERS. >> Rubel: REPRESENTATIVE PEARCE, LAST YEAR, YOU CONFIRMED THAT YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS, WHICH HAS BEEN DEFINED BY PUNDITS IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE THE FREEDOM CAUCUS AND WHY DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR MEMBERSHIP IN IT BENEFITS THE RESIDENTS OF SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO? >> Pearce: THE HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS IS PROBABLY EMBELLISHED ALMOST MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN WASHINGTON. ALL WE ARE ARE A BACKBONE FOR THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP. WE ARE THERE TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE THINGS WE FEEL LIKE ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY. THE REAL DEBATE DOES NOT OCCUR ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. THAT IS USUALLY PRO FORMA DEBATE ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. THE FREEDOM CAUCUS IS A SPOT WHERE TREMENDOUS DEBATE BACK AND FORTH ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MATTER OCCURRED. BEFORE WE TAKE ANY ACTION WE VISIT WITH LEADERSHIP AND SAY LOOK WE'RE VERY NERVOUS WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH TPP FOR INSTANCE, LAME DUCK SESSION, THE IDEA IS THAT THAT MIGHT GET SLIPPED INTO A BILL AND WE'RE SAYING DON'T SLIP IT INTO A BILL. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IT, MAKE IT ONE OF THE ISSUES OF DEBATE. LET AMERICA WATCH WHAT'S GOING ON AND SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THE FREEDOM CAUCUS IS. NOW, THE BENEFIT FOR US HERE, NEW MEXICO IS A FAIRLY INDEPENDENT STATE. THEY BEGIN TO RECOGNIZE EARLY ON THAT MR. BOEHNER, YOU COULD LIKE OR DISLIKE THE OPERATOR. THAT WAS NEVER THE PARTY. THE QUESTION IS, IS HE DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE COUSIN. WHEN HE BROUGHT ME INTO HIS OFFICE AND SAID, STEVE YOU'RE NOT A VERY GOOD TEAM MEMBER. I WAS ABLE TO SAY SIR I DIDN'T COME HERE AS A TEAM, I RUN AS A REPUBLICAN. THIS FORCE PUT THE CONGRESS BACKEN THE TRACK WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ON IS BASICALLY ALL WE DO. >> OUTSIDER LOOKING IN WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE FREEDOM CAUCUS? >> Soules: I LISTEN TO MY OPPONENT AND HE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT SERVING THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. ONE MORE EXAMPLE HE'S GIVING UP ON US. HE IS WORRIED ABOUT THE BACK ROOM POLITICS AND HE'S NOT LOOK YOUING OUT FOR THE INTERESTS OF THOSE OF US WHO LIVE HERE IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO. SO I STILL DON'T KNOW ANYMORE ABOUT THE ACTUAL PRINCIPLES, THE FREEDOM CAUCUS REPRESENTS, I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HOW THAT FITS INTO SERVING THE PEOPLE IN THIS DISTRICT HERE IN NEW MEXICO. >> Ulloa: MS. SOULES: SUN-ZIA, A PRIVATE ENERGY COMPANY, HAS PROPOSED RUNNING A CLEAN-ENERGY TRANSMISSION LINE THROUGH THE NORTHERN EXTENSION OF WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE. CONGRESSMAN PEARCE HAS EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THE LINE COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE MISSION OF THE RANGE, AND HAS CALLED FOR THE ROUTE TO BE MOVE. DO YOU AGREE? >> Soules: THESE MAY BE ONE OF THE FEW ISSUES I DO AGREE WITH CONGRESSMAN PEARCE. DESIGNED TO TAKE WIND GENERATED ELECTRICITY FROM THE EASTERN SIDE OF NEW MEXICO AND TRANSMIT IT TO IRVINE IN CALIFORNIA. NOW AT THIS POINT IN NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE HAS NOT DETERMINED HOW TO BRING THE ENERGY STREAM OUT OF THE CONVERSATION, IT IS NOT COVERED, I BELIEVE WE NEED TO STEP UP TO THAT. THE SECOND PIECE OF THAT IT PROVIDES NO BENEFIT TO NEW MEXICO, IT'S NOT CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY TO BE USED IN OUR STATE. WITH REGARDS TO THE WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, I THINK NEW MEXICO, SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO, THIS DISTRICT, HAS A NATIONAL TREASURE IN THE WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE. AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT IT'S THE SO-CALLED EXTENSION AREA THAT THE LINE FOR TRANSVERSE, THAT IS STILL VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CAPABILITY THAT EXISTS NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD THAT WE HAVE RIGHT HERE TO CONDUCT TESTING. DO I NOT WANT TO COMPROMISE THAT CAPABILITY IN ANY WAY. THEREFORE, I CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE AND MAKE SURE THEY DO NOT FEEL THAT COMPROMISE. >> Ulloa: COULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT MR. PEARCE? >> Pearce: YOU KNOW WE HAVE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS ON THAT AND I BELIEVE WE ARE STILL EXACTLY RIGHT ON IT. THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD PUT A TALL TRANSMISSION LINE, IS SOMETHING I TOLD SUN-ZIA, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH YOUR MISSION JUST DON'T GET IN OR CLOSE TO THE RESTRICTED AREA. I HAVE ACCESS TO THE AVIATION CHARGE, I'VE FLOWN OVER NEW MEXICO ALL MY LIFE, DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S AN EXTENSION AREA OR NOT, PART RESTRICTED AREA. 30% AT WHITE SANDS, I CAN TELL YOU, AT THIS STAGE IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU SEE A 30% DECREASE IN THE MISSION, YOU WILL SEE ALL THOSE FUNDS LEAVE. YOU DON'T SEE 70% OF THE MISSION, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT, IT ALSO PROVIDES A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF JOBS FOR THIS AREA, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THAT FIGHT. >> MR. PEARCE, YOU RECENTLY VOTED FOR A HOUSE BILL TO STOP A LABOR DEPARTMENT RULE THAT WOULD EXPAND OVERTIME ELIGIBILITY BEYOND THE CURRENT LEVEL OF $455/WEEK TO $913/WEEK. SO, CURRENTLY, EXEMPT EMPLOYEES MAKING MORE THAN $23,660/YEAR CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM OVERTIME. IN YOUR VIEW, WHEN SHOULD WORKERS GAIN OVERTIME PROTECTIONS? >> Pearce: THIS IS AN ISSUE AT A WE HAD A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM LOCAL COUNTIES, CITIES, AND SMALL BUSINESSES. I THINK THAT THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SHOULD BE OVERTIME IS SIMPLY BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE. WHETHER IT IS THE COUNTY, STATE, OR SMALL BUSINESS. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT MANY OF YOUR SMALL BUSINESSES HERE IN LAS CRUCES ARE GOING TO FIND THEMSELVES LESS COMPETITIVE, THEY'RE GOING TO FIND THEMSELVES HARD PRESSED TO HIRE PEOPLE, AND THEY ARE GOING TO FIND OTHER WAYS AROUND IT. IF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE RULE WAS TO MAKE SMALLER MORE RURAL AREAS WEAKER, IT IS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. I BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT HAS VERY LITTLE STATUS IN DECIDING THE STATUS BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GETS US INTO BIG TROUBLE AS WE MAKE LAWS IN CONGRESS. KEEP THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS LANE, LET PEOPLE TRY TO DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO STAY IN BUSINESS AND PROVIDE JOBS. I THINK COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE BETTER SERVED. THERE ARE ALWAYS DOWNSTREAM UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WHEN SOMEONE SETS UP SOMETHING LIKE THIS, COMPANIES JUST STRUGGLE TO BE COMPETITIVE WORLDWIDE. IT'S -- WE DO NOT NEED TO BE DOING THINGS TO MAKE US LESS COMPETITIVE AGAINST THE PRESSURES FROM CHINA, INDIA AND THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. >> MS. SOULES. >> Soules: WELL, I WOULD HAVE THE BASIC PREMISE OF THIS COUNTRY OVER MANY, MANY DECADES HAS CONSISTENTLY STOOD UP TO PROTECT RECORDS FROM EXPLOITATION BY EMPLOYERS. WHETHER THAT'S A 40 HOUR WORK WEEK, PROHIBITIONS AGAINST CHILD LABOR, OVERTIME PROTECTIONS, THIS IS PART OF WHAT MAKES UNITED STATES GRIT. AND IT IS AN APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT. I REJECT THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A RACE TO THE BOTTOM BY EXPLOITING PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A VOICE STRONG ENOUGH IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS. SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT TAKING THE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO PROTECT WORKERS IN THEIR OVERTIME OPPORTUNITIES. IT'S THE RIGHT THING FOR US TO DO. >> OUR NEXT QUESTION IS FOR MS. SOULES. MINORITY COMMUNITIES IN THE WAKE OF RECENT POLICE SHOOTINGS, THE FEDERAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN A LARGER ROLE IN OVERSEEING LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING IN ALBUQUERQUE. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE ROLE, AND WHAT ELSE, IF ANYTHING, CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO TO IMPROVE THE TRUST BETWEEN POLICE AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE? >> Soules: I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF LOCAL POLICING, COMMUNITY POLICING. AND YET WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SO-CALLED IN TO ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IS FINDING THAT RIGHT BALANCE IN TERMS OF PROTECTING US, AND WORKING WITH US, VERSUS MILITARIZATION, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO FUND THE RIGHT BALANCE, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO CHALLENGE OUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT FORCE AND ITS USE AND HOW WE USE THAT IN A BALANCED MANNER, ONLY WHEN APPROPRIATE, WITHOUT TARGETING SPECIFIC POPULATIONS, SPECIFIC MINORITIES, OR ACTING IN INAPPROPRIATE WAYS. WE ALL HAVE A STAKE IN THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR COMMUNITIES. I WANT TO SEE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL ENFORCEMENT WORKING TOGETHER. >> REPRESENTATIVE PEARCE YOUR THOUGHTS OFTEN WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN HELP BRIDGE THAT GAP BETWEEN POLICE AND COMMUNITIES. >> Pearce: FIRST OF ALL, I BELIEVE THINK TIME A CIRCUMSTANCE ARISES BETWEEN THE POLICE AND ANYONE ELSE, THAT IT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. AND THE DOJ IS NOT A HARMFUL BODY TO DO THAT, TAKE ANNAL INDEPENDENT LOOK. I THINK WRONGDOING SHOULD BE PUNISHED. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE MUST RESPECT THE POLICE AND GET THAT RESPECT FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES. AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE CHALLENGED IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. IF WE DON'T HAVE POLICE PRESENCE, WE'RE SIMPLY GOING TO HAVE CHAOS AND A BREAKDOWN IN THE COMMUNITIES, WE'RE SEEING THAT IN SOME OF THE COMMUNITIES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT ABOUT THE LAST QUESTION. MY OPPONENT SAID SHE REJECTED THE PREMISE THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROTECT ITS WORKERS AGAINST EXPLOITATION. SHE WAS IN MANAGEMENT WHEN HER COMPANY SHIFTED WORKERS TO A DIFFERENT COUNTRY THEY EVENTUALLY FILED BANKRUPTCY. SHE HAS SEEN THE PROBLEMS OF RESTRICTIVE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND AGREEMENTS AND YESTERDAY SHE -- >> YOU'RE REFERRING TO GENERAL MOTORS? >> Pearce: YES. >> WE'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THAT. >> Soules: THANK YOU TO THAT. I WORKED FOR A DIVISION OF GENERAL MOTORS, MY TIME THERE AS AN EXECUTIVE WAS THROUGH THE GLOBALIZATION PROCESS. WE WENT FROM A LOCAL COMPANY TO A COMPANY DOING BUSINESS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. THROUGHOUT THAT I'M PROUD TO SAY WE DID THAT WITH THE LABOR UNION. IT PROTECTED THE JOBS OF THOSE UNION WORKERS IN NORTHEAST OHIO. I CAN TALK ABOUT MY EXPERIENCE WHEN I WAS PART OF A COMMITTEE THAT IS DETERMINING THEIR PLACEMENT OF THE NEXT MANUFACTURING FACILITY. VERY MUCH RELATED TO INFRASTRUCTURE, ELECTRICITY AND EDUCATION OF THE WORKFORCE. WHAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW IS GIVEN THE CHOICE OF PUTTING THAT FACILITY IN MEXICO OR MISSISSIPPI OR NORTHEAST OHIO THE DECISION WAS TO PUT IT IN NORTHEAST OHIO WITH A UNION WORKFORCE. >> Ulloa: OKAY, THIS QUESTION IS FOR MR. PEARCE. YOU HAVE FREQUENTLY OPPOSED VOTES BY CONGRESS TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING. TREASURY OFFICIALS HAVE WARNED THAT IF YOU HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL, IT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE NATION DEFAULTING ON ITS DEBT. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THE RAMIFICATIONS WOULD BE IF CONGRESS WERE TO REFUSE TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING? >> Pearce: YOU ARE CORRECT. GENERALLY I'M OPPOSED OF OPPOSED TO RAISING OF THE DEBT CEILING. WE DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY WITH NOT BORROWING ENOUGH MONEY. MANY EXPERTS HAVE SAID THAT THE DEBT CEILING AND THE DEBT ARE THE BIGGEST RISK TO THE COUNTRY THAT WE FACE. NOW, ONE POINT IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S TERM IF WE HAD JUST GONE AFTER AND ADDRESSED THE FRAUD, NOT THE WASTE IN SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, BUT THE FRAUD, PEOPLE SAYING THEY ARE SELLING THINGS AND THEY'RE NOT. A COMBINED $200 BILLION IN FRAUD THEY KNOW IT AND THE CBO KNOWS IT. WE COULD HAVE BALANCED THE BUDGET AT THAT POINT BUT NEITHER PARTY IS WILLING TO TAKE ON THE DIFFICULT TASK OF FINDING WHAT IS WORK AND WHAT IS NOT. MY BUSINESS BACKGROUND SAYS WE ARE NEVER GOING TO SUCCEED IF WE DO NOT DO THAT YET WASHINGTON SEEMS IMMUNE TO IT. WE CAN ALWAYS FIND THE SAVINGS. DUPLICATION IS ANOTHER SOURCE OF EXTRAORDINARY DEFICITS, $200 BILLION A YEAR IN DUPLICATION. CHILD NUTRITION, THERE ARE 123 PROGRAMS, IF WE WOULD BEGIN TO GET REITERATE OF THAT WE COULD BALANCE THE BUDGET AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE FAMILIES WOULD WANT US TO GO. >> Ulloa: HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THE IDEA OF DEFAULTING WOULD CREATE A BIG PROBLEM -- >> Pearce: ALWAYS ONE THAT IS PITCHED UP AND HAS NO VALIDITY AT ALL. THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED TO PAY ITS DEBTS FIRST SO THAT WAS SIMPLY PITCHED OUT AS A POLITICAL SLOGAN. THERE IS NOT A CHANCE THAT WE WOULD DEFAULT. HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PRIORITIZE OUR PAYMENTS. IF WE WOULD GIVEN TO SEGMENT THE BUDGET AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE COULD BALANCE A BUDGET WITHOUT HURTING PEOPLE WE DO NOT HAVE TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING. >> Ulloa: MS. SOULES HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE THE DEBT CEILING? >> Soules: I WOULD RAISE IT. IN 2013 I WAS EMPLOYED AT WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE WHEN MY OPPONENT WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF RAISING THE DEBT CEILING. IN ADDITION TO THE GOVERNMENT NOT DOING THE WORK WE EXPECT IT TO DO, HARDWORKING AMERICANS WERE ON THE STRING WITHOUT A PAYCHECK AND NO IDEA WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO WORK. THOSE WERE PEOPLE THAT HAD MORTGAGES TO PAY. THEY HAD FAMILIES TO FEED. THEY HAD RESPONSIBILITIES. MY OPPONENT SENT OUT A MEMO ENCOURAGING THEM TO GO DOWN TO THE LOCAL BANK, TO THE PAYDAY LOAN LENDER AND TAKE OUT A LOAN BEFORE THEY DEFAULTED ON THEIR OBLIGATIONS. TO ME, SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT CROSSES A LINE. WHEN PEOPLE IN CONGRESS FOUND A COMPROMISE TO MOVE FORWARD, HE VOTED AGAINST IT, AGAIN. SO HE'S NOT CONNECTED WITH THE PEOPLE HERE -- >> WE'RE OUT OF TIME ON THAT. MR. PEARCE I'LL LET YOU RESPOND BECAUSE OF THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATION TO A MEMO. >> Pearce: THE MEMO DID NOT COME FROM ME. IT WAS A FACEBOOK POST THAT A STAFFER PULLED DOWN THAT STAFFER IS NO LONGER WITH US. THE IDEA THAT I VOTED TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT IS ONE THAT IS SIMPLY POLITICAL TALK. WE VOTED THREE TIMES IN THE HOUSE. WE SENT THREE DIFFERENT FUNDING MECHANISMS TO THE SENATE AND IT WAS HARRY REID THAT TURNED THAT ONE DOWN. THE LAST ONE OFFENSIVE SAID MR. REID YOUR STAFF WROTE EXCLUSION TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. ALL STAFF SHOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHAT ALL AMERICANS, MR. REED BLOCKED THAT TOO SO THE SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE REALLY RESPONSIBLE. >> WE MOVE TO CLOSING STATEMENTS AND WE BEGIN WITH YOU AS A DRAW OF THE STRAWS. >> Pearce: THANKS AGAIN TO ALL OF OUR VIEWERS, THANKS TO WALT, LAS CRUCES SUN NEWS, SYLVIA, AND THANKS TO MY OPPONENT. I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO RUN. THIS IS A NOBLE JOB, YOUR WILLINGNESS TO RUN IS IMPORTANT. I'M HERE TRYING TO EARN YOUR VOTE. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT AS WE COME TO ELECTION DAY. MY BELIEF IS AT A WE CAN DO THINGS IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION AND I THINK I HAVE LEAD BY EXAMPLE. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE ARIZONA WATER SETTLEMENT, THAT IS THAT WAS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND MYSELF, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE FUNDING WE KEPT THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION RUNNING, THAT WAS REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE FINDING A SOLUTION TO THAT. WE ARE CLEANING IT UP, THAT MEANS JOBS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE. THE WATER PROBLEM, A 25 YEAR PROBLEM FOR THE FAMILY, IT SHOULDN'T TAKE INTERVENTION, TO BUT AFTER 12 YEARS WE GOT AN AGREEMENT JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ON THAT. WE LED THE BIPARTISAN EFFORTS TO FIX NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING. WE PASSED THE BILL A BIPARTISAN EFFORT TO GET SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL ITEMS BACK TO INDIAN RESERVATIONS. WE LED THE FIGHT ON HUD REFORMS. SO MY REQUEST IS THAT WE LOOK AT THE NEED TO FIND PEOPLE WHO WILL WORK ACROSS THE AISLE, WHO CAN FIND THE MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. THIS STATE, THIS DISTRICT, PUTS ME IN A PERFECT POSITION TO DO THAT. I THINK THAT I'VE HONORED THE PROMISES THAT WE HAVE MADE. I'VE HONORED THE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE HAVE. AND SO I SIMPLY REQUEST YOUR VOTE. NOW, ONE LAST CLOSING STATEMENT AND THAT IS, THAT PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THAT IF ONE PARTY CANDIDATE WINS THE ELECTION AS PRESIDENT OR THE OTHER WINS, WEAVER SUNK AS A COUNTRY. -- THAT WE'RE SUFFRAGE AS A COUNTRY. STRENGTH IN INDIVIDUALS AND NOT IN WASHINGTON, THANK YOU. >> MS. SOULES YOUR OPPORTUNITY CONCLUDE. >> Soules: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS A JOB INTERVIEW. I'M SEEKING TO SERVE AS YOUR NEXT CONGRESSWOMAN. MY OPPONENT IS SEEKING ANOTHER TERM. I'M A POLITICAL OUTSIDER. HE IS A LONG TIME POLITICAL OPERATOR. I SEE A FUTURE OF OPPORTUNITY. HE IS STILL DESPERATELY HOLDING ON TO THE PAST. I'M ASKING YOU TO FIRE HIM AND HIRE ME. PLEASE ASK YOURSELF: DO YOU NEED SOMEONE WHO IS JUST GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS? OR DO YOU NEED A REPRESENTATIVE WHO WILL DO THE HARD WORK OF TAKING ON THE CHALLENGES THAT FACE OUR STATE AND OUR INFLATION. ASK YOURSELF, DO WE NEED SOMEONE WHO TELLS, TALKS, CONSOLIDATES, OR DO WE NEED A REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT SHE CAN DELIVER $75 MILLION OF SAVINGS FOR HER COMMUNITY? ASK YOURSELF DO WE NEED SOMEONE WHO HAS GIVEN UP ON US AND WHO IS ONLY PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF THE WEALTHY AND THE SPECIAL INTERESTS? OR DO WE NEED SOMEONE WHO WILL FIGHT AGAINST THE SPECIAL INTERESTS AND FIGHT FOR A FUTURE THAT WORKS FOR ALL OF US? MY NAME IS MERRIE LEE SOULES. I WILL SHOW UP FOR YOU. I WILL STAND UP FOR YOU. I WILL FIGHT FOR YOU. AND TOGETHER WE WILL CREATE A FUTURE THAT WORKS FOR ALL OF US. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. I ASK THAT YOU PUT ME TO WORK AS YOUR NEXT CONGRESSWOMAN. THANK YOU, KRWG, LAS CRUCES SUN NEWS FOR HOSTING THIS EVENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN PEARCE. THAT IS NEW MEXICO'S SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE. I'M FRED MARTINO. THANKS TO OUR CANDIDATES, THE LAS CRUCES SUN NEWS, AND OBIG THANK YOU TO OUR SUPPORTERS FOR MAKE IN DEPTH BROADCAST JOURNAL POSSIBLE. HAVE A GREAT WEEK.

Contents

Historical boundaries

When it was first organized in the late 1780s the Maryland 2nd Congressional district consisted of the northern portion of the eastern shore of Maryland and the area where the Susquehanna River empties into the Chesapeake Bay. It had a population of 55,008 in 1790.[2]

After the 1790 census Maryland gained two seats in the house. The new 2nd district essentially consisted of Howard County, Prince George's County and Anne Arundel County. The boundary ran on a line heading north-east from the north-west corner of the District of Columbia so that a small portion of Montgomery County was also in the 2nd district.[3]

This remained the boundaries of the district until the post-1830 census redistricting. At this time the 2nd district was moved back to the eastern shore region where it had been at first. The only change between the district's boundaries in 1790 and those in 1834 was that in the latter year Caroline County was part of the 2nd district.[4]

In the 1842 redistricting, which involved a decrease in the total number of representatives, Maryland went back to having only six members of the house. The second district was moved again and now composed the Maryland Panhandle, that is all of Maryland starting with Frederick County and going west.[5]

The post-1850 census redistricting caused another drastic redrawing of Maryland's congressional districts. The second district was moved back to the East side of the state. However this time it only had the eastern shore as far south as Kent County. However going westward it had Harford County, northern and western Baltimore County and the western and most southerly portions of Baltimore. It also took in Carroll County.[6]

In the 1862 redistricting process Maryland was reduced to having only five congressional districts. The second was cut down in size though to only having Harford County, eastern and northern Baltimore County including some areas now within the city boundaries on Baltimore.[7]

In the 1872 redistricting Maryland rose to six districts. However the area of the 2nd district increased. This was partly because it lost some of its area on the east side of Baltimore to the third district. It now also consisted of virtually all of Baltimore county, and the northern reaches of Baltimore. Cecil County was returned to its area, but Kent County remained in the first district. Carroll County was also put back in the second district. Thus the second district in 1873 was closer to that of 1853 than of 1871 in terms of the area within its boundaries.[8]

In 1890 there was a small portion of the city of Baltimore that was moved from the 4th district and placed in the 7th district. It appears this was in the general area where Freemont meets Fulton and then a little further south along Freemont.[9] These boundaries remained until the 1898 elections. In that year a few more north-west Baltimore neighborhoods were transferred from the 4th to the 2nd district, as well as a few north-central Baltimore neighborhoods.[10]

In 1902 another change was done to congressional district boundaries in Maryland. With the northward growth of population in Baltimore the 4th and 3rd districts boundaries were moved into areas previously in the 2nd district. however areas in north-west Baltimore that were closer to down-town were shifted into the 2nd district. Cecil County was moved to the first district. The arm of Baltimore County around Arbutus had long been in the 5th District but at this point it was transferred into the 2nd district.[11] These remained the boundaries of the 2nd district for the next 50 years.

In 1952 Maryland redrew its congressional districts because it had gained another seat in Congress. The 2nd district lost all of its area within the city of Baltimore, so it now consisted of Baltimore, Carroll and Harford Counties.[12]

In 1966 Maryland redrew its congressional districts to follow the rule of "One man, one vote". This was especially necessary since the state had been electing one of its congressmen at large in the previous two elections. A portion of Baltimore County along Baltimore's north-east border was removed from the 2nd district. The Arbutus section of Baltimore county was also removed from the district along with a slightly further north portion of the county reaching to about Garrison. Most of Carroll County was moved to the Maryland panhandle based 6th district.[13]

In 1972 Harford County was moved to the First District. The remaining portion of Carroll County was moved to the 6th district. However the Garrison area of Baltimore County, all of Baltimore county east of Baltimore and even a very small part of Baltimore itself were moved back into the second district.[13]

In 1982 some of the areas that had been in the 2nd district just north and west of Baltimore were moved into the Maryland Congressional 3rd District. Also at this time a part of Harford County was moved back into the 2nd congressional district.[14]

In 2012 the district was found to be the eleventh least compact congressional district in the United States.[15]

Voting

Election results from presidential races
Year Office Results
2016 President Clinton 60.2%–35.6%
2012 President Obama 62.9%–35.1%
2008 President Obama 60%–38%
2004 President Kerry 54%–45%
2000 President Gore 57%–41%

Recent elections

List of representatives

Name Took office Left office Party Notes/Events
1
Joshua Seney.jpg
Joshua Seney
March 4, 1789 December 6, 1792 Anti-Administration resigned to become Chief Justice of Maryland's 3rd Judicial District
2
William Hindman.jpg
William Hindman
January 30, 1793 March 3, 1793 Pro-Administration Redistricted to the 7th district
3
John Francis Mercer.jpg
John Francis Mercer
March 4, 1793 April 13, 1794 Anti-Administration Redistricted from the 3rd district, resigned
4
GabrielDuvall.jpg
Gabriel Duvall
November 11, 1794 March 3, 1795 Anti-Administration
March 4, 1795 March 28, 1796 Democratic-Republican Resigned after being appointed Chief Justice of General Court of Maryland
5
No image.svg
Richard Sprigg, Jr.
May 5, 1796 March 3, 1799 Democratic-Republican
6
No image.svg
John Chew Thomas
March 4, 1799 March 3, 1801 Federalist
7
No image.svg
Richard Sprigg, Jr.
March 4, 1801 February 11, 1802 Democratic-Republican resigned
8
No image.svg
Walter Bowie
March 24, 1802 March 3, 1805 Democratic-Republican
9
No image.svg
Leonard Covington
March 4, 1805 March 3, 1807 Democratic-Republican
10
No image.svg
Archibald Van Horne
March 4, 1807 March 3, 1811 Democratic-Republican
11
Joseph Kent of Maryland.jpg
Joseph Kent
March 4, 1811 March 3, 1815 Democratic-Republican
12
No image.svg
John Carlyle Herbert
March 4, 1815 March 3, 1819 Federalist
13
Joseph Kent of Maryland.jpg
Joseph Kent
March 4, 1819 March 3, 1823 Democratic-Republican
March 4, 1823 March 3, 1825 Adams D-R
March 4, 1825 January 6, 1826 Adams resigned after being elected Governor
14
No image.svg
John Crompton Weems
February 1, 1826 March 3, 1829 Jackson
15
No image.svg
Benedict Joseph Semmes
March 4, 1829 March 3, 1833 Anti-Jackson
16
RichardBennettCarmichael.jpg
Richard Bennett Carmichael
March 4, 1833 March 3, 1835 Jackson
17
James Alfred Pearce, standing.jpg
James Alfred Pearce
March 4, 1835 March 3, 1839 Whig
18
Philip Francis Thomas, sitting.jpg
Philip Francis Thomas
March 4, 1839 March 3, 1841 Democratic
19
James Alfred Pearce, standing.jpg
James Alfred Pearce
March 4, 1841 March 3, 1843 Whig
20
No image.svg
Francis Brengle
March 4, 1843 March 3, 1845 Whig
21
No image.svg
Thomas Johns Perry
March 4, 1845 March 3, 1847 Democratic
22
JamesDixonRoman.jpg
James Dixon Roman
March 4, 1847 March 3, 1849 Whig
23
Williamthamilton.jpg
William Thomas Hamilton
March 4, 1849 March 3, 1853 Democratic Redistricted to the 5th district
24
No image.svg
Jacob Shower
March 4, 1853 March 3, 1855 Democratic
25
JamesBarrollRicaud.jpg
James Barroll Ricaud
March 4, 1855 March 3, 1859 Know-Nothing
26
Edwin Hanson Webster of Maryland - photo portrait seated.jpg
Edwin Hanson Webster
March 4, 1859 March 3, 1861 Know-Nothing
March 4, 1861 March 3, 1863 Unionist
March 4, 1863 July, 1865 Unconditional Unionist
27
JohnLewisThomas.jpg
John Lewis Thomas Jr.
December 4, 1865 March 3, 1867 Unconditional Unionist
28
StevensonArcherII.jpg
Stevenson Archer
March 4, 1867 March 3, 1875 Democratic
29
Charles Boyle Roberts of Maryland - Portrait seated circa 1865 to 1880.jpg
Charles Boyle Roberts
March 4, 1875 March 3, 1879 Democratic
30
Joshua Frederick Cockey Talbott, Bain photo portrait.jpg
Joshua Frederick Cockey Talbott
March 4, 1879 March 3, 1885 Democratic
31
No image.svg
Frank Thomas Shaw
March 4, 1885 March 3, 1889 Democratic
32
Herman Stump (Maryland Congressman).jpg
Herman Stump
March 4, 1889 March 3, 1893 Democratic
33
Joshua Frederick Cockey Talbott, Bain photo portrait.jpg
Joshua Frederick Cockey Talbott
March 4, 1893 March 3, 1895 Democratic
34
No image.svg
William Benjamin Baker
March 4, 1895 March 3, 1901 Republican
35
AlbertBlakeney.jpg
Albert Alexander Blakeney
March 4, 1901 March 3, 1903 Republican
36
Joshua Frederick Cockey Talbott, Bain photo portrait.jpg
Joshua Frederick Cockey Talbott
March 4, 1903 October 5, 1918 Democratic died
37
CarvilleBenson.jpg
Carville Dickinson Benson
November 5, 1918 March 3, 1921 Democratic
38
AlbertBlakeney.jpg
Albert Alexander Blakeney
March 4, 1921 March 3, 1923 Republican
39
Millardetydings.jpg
Millard Evelyn Tydings
March 4, 1923 March 3, 1927 Democratic
40
No image.svg
William Purington Cole, Jr.
March 4, 1927 March 3, 1929 Democratic
41
No image.svg
Linwood Leon Clark
March 4, 1929 March 3, 1931 Republican
42
No image.svg
William Purington Cole, Jr.
March 4, 1931 October 26, 1942 Democratic resigned to become judge of US Customs Court
43
No image.svg
Harry Streett Baldwin
January 3, 1943 January 3, 1947 Democratic
44
No image.svg
Hugh Allen Meade
January 3, 1947 January 3, 1949 Democratic
45
No image.svg
William P. Bolton
January 3, 1949 January 3, 1951 Democratic
46
James Patrick Sinnott Devereux.jpg
James Patrick Sinnott Devereux
January 3, 1951 January 3, 1959 Republican
47
Danielbrewster.jpg
Daniel Baugh Brewster
January 3, 1959 January 3, 1963 Democratic
48
Clarence Long.jpg
Clarence Dickinson Long
January 3, 1963 January 3, 1985 Democratic
49
HDBentley.jpg
Helen Delich Bentley
January 3, 1985 January 3, 1995 Republican
50
Robertehrlichrep.jpg
Robert Leroy Ehrlich
January 3, 1995 January 3, 2003 Republican
51
Dutchruppersberger.jpeg
Charles Albert "Dutch" Ruppersberger III
January 3, 2003 Present Democratic

Historical district boundaries

2003–2013
2003–2013

See also

References

  1. ^ "Partisan Voting Index – Districts of the 115th Congress" (PDF). The Cook Political Report. April 7, 2017. Retrieved April 7, 2017.
  2. ^ Parsons, Stanley B., William W. Beach and Dan Hermann. United States Congressional Districts 1788-1841 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1978) p. 9
  3. ^ Martis, Kenneth C. Historical Atlas of Political Parties in Congress. (New York: Macmillan, 1989) p. 76
  4. ^ Martis. Historical Atlas. p. 93
  5. ^ Martis. Historical Atlas. p. 97
  6. ^ Martis. Historical Atlas. p. 107
  7. ^ Martis. Historical Atlas. p. 117
  8. ^ Martis. Historical Atlas. p. 127.
  9. ^ Historical Maps of Maryland
  10. ^ Martis. Historical Atlas. p. 155
  11. ^ Martis. Historical Atlas, p. 157.
  12. ^ Martis. Historical Atlas. p. 215
  13. ^ a b Martis. Historical Atlas. p. 217.
  14. ^ Martis. Historical Atlas. p. 237
  15. ^ Lazarick, Len (3 October 2012). "Maryland has least compact congressional districts in nation". MarylandReporter.com. Retrieved 7 October 2012.

This page was last edited on 28 October 2018, at 19:52
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.