>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO FOCUS PROVIDED BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

>> Gene: THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO FOCUS, HOME STRETCH AT THE ROUNDHOUSE.

A RECORD 9.6 BILLION-DOLLAR STATE BUDGET HEADED TO THE  GOVERNOR'S DESK AFTER SOME LAST MINUTE NEGOTIATIONS.

>> EVERYBODY COMES HERE WITH PRIORITIES.

WE ALL LIVE IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.

WE ALL THINK DIFFERENTLY ON WHAT WE THINK NEEDS TO BE  APPROPRIATED.

>> Gene: AND ALCOHOL TAX  INCREASE APPROVED.

THE SENATE IS UPPING A  PROPOSED TAX ON BOOZE BUT WE'LL EXPLAIN WHY IT IS SO  MUCH LOWER THAN ORIGINALLY PLANNED.

NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS STARTS NOW.

THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS WEEK.

I AM YOUR HOST, GENE GRANT.

THE 2223 60-DAY LEGISLATIVE  SESSION IS SET TO END SATURDAY AND LAWMAKERS ARE PUTTING  FINISHING TOUCHES ON SEVERAL KEY PIECES OF LEGISLATION.

WE ARE RECORDING THIS EPISODE LESS THAN 48 HOURS BEFORE THE  STATE LEGISLATURE ADJOURNS AT NOON ON MARCH 18.

SO KEEP IN MIND THERE COULD BE ACTION BETWEEN THE TIME WE  TAPED THIS AND THE TIME YOU'RE SEEING IT.

ONE THING THAT WON'T CHANGE IS A BILL ENSURING ACCESS TO  REPRODUCTION AND GENDER AFFIRMING CARE WILL HEAD TO  THE GOVERNOR'S DESK.

GOVERNOR MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM IS  EXPECTED TO SIGN HOUSE BILL 7, BUT SOME ANTIABORTION  ADVOCATES ARE PROMISING LEGAL ACTION.

IN ABOUT 25 MINUTES I'LL ASK THE LINE OPINION PANEL IF  THOSE THREATS SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

BUT FIRST, A RECORD SETTING STATE BUDGET THAT PASSED OUT  OF THE LEGISLATURE WEDNESDAY NIGHT IS CATCHING SOME EYES  AROUND THE STATE.

LET'S GET TO THE LINE.

TIME TO WELCOME OUR LINE OPINION PANELISTS FOR THE WEEK.

HAPPY TO BE JOINED, IN STUDIO, BY THE WAY, FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL FOLEY.

RIGHT TO HIS LEFT OUR REGULAR  ATTORNEY SOPHIE MARTIN IS WITH US AND CEO OF THE GIRL SCOUTS  OF AMERICA AND FORMER NEW MEXICO CABINET SECRETARY REBECCA LATHAM.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

NOW, UNSUSTAINABLE.

THAT IS THE WORD USED BY  SENATOR GEORGE MUNOZ, STATE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE  CHAIR, TALKING TO THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN ABOUT A PROPOSED  9.6 BILLION DOLLAR SPENDING BILL.

STATE SENATE APPROVED IT SUNDAY WITH A MORE THAN  ONE BILLION INCREASE IN SPENDING.

THE HOUSE PASSAGE WEDNESDAY NIGHTS MEANS A 30% INCREASE IN  RECURRING EXPENSES.

IT IS HEADED TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK.

DANIEL, BIG MONEY HERE.

YOU SAT THROUGH BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS DURING YOUR TIME  IN THE HOUSE, NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE SAYING, HEY GUYS,  WE NEED TO STOP HERE.

>> Dan: WHERE DO YOU THINK I  WOULD HAVE BEEN.

>> Gene: I KNOW WHERE YOU  WOULD HAVE BEEN.

>> Dan: YEAH, SO,   I THINK IT IS INSANE.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ALL THE TIME BUT  HERE IS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE.

WHEN GARY JOHNSON WAS GOVERNOR, NOT DISCUSSING HIS  TIME, THERE WAS A BIG FIGHT WHERE HE TRIED TO CUT BACK  SOME PROGRAMS AND HE GOT SUED AND IT WENT TO THE STATE  SUPREME COURT AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAID ONCE YOU  CREATE AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM YOU CAN STOP THE ENTITLEMENT  PROGRAM, BUT YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYBODY THAT  JOINED WHEN IT WAS ON.

YOU CAN'T KICK THEM OFF.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS I ALWAYS HAVE, I AM LIKE, HOW  MANY OF THESE PROGRAMS ARE WE STARTING THAT ARE ENTITLEMENT  PROGRAMS.

IF YOU DO AND YOU GROW THEM  AND FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, YOU  CAN'T GO BACK TO TODAY AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO KICK ALL THESE  PEOPLE OFF THAT ARE ON THERE.

YOU HAVE TO NOW FIGURE OUT HOW  TO ABSORB THAT GROWTH OVER THE FOUR OR FIVE YEARS OF THE  PROGRAMS YOU PUT ON THERE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE IS  NOT A LOT OF GUMPTION BY ANYBODY IN THE LEGISLATURE,  NOT JUST A PARTY ISSUE, I MEAN, REPUBLICANS CAN'T SPEND  ENOUGH MONEY.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU  KNOW, I'LL FINISH BY TELLING YOU KIND OF A FUNNY SIDE NOTE.

I WROTE OP ED YEARS AGO ABOUT THIS AND I SAID WE SHOULD BE  EMBARRASSED.

WE ARE SPENDING MONEY LIKE  DRUNKEN SAILORS.

I GOT A LETTER FROM A GUY THAT  SAID, MY NAME IS JOE, AND I AM A DRUNKEN SAILOR, AND I AM  INSULTED BY YOUR COMMENTS, AND SKIPPED A FEW LINES AND SAID,  BECAUSE WHEN I AM DRUNK I SPEND MY MONEY, I DON'T SPEND  YOUR MONEY.

SO DON'T BESMIRCH THE NAME OF  DRUNKEN SAILORS BY SAYING THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE LIKE US.

SO AT SOME POINT I WOULD SAY THIS, I WILL SAY THIS.

I APPRECIATE SENATOR MUNOZ OTHERS COMING UP AND SAYING  THINGS, BUT IT IS ONE THING TO SAY SOMETHING.

YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIX IT.

YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

SO, WE ARE IN A POSITION NOW, I THINK WHEN I WAS IN THE  LEGISLATURE WE GOT TO A BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE FIRST  TIME IN THE BUDGET AND BECAUSE I WAS IN IN THE 90'S, I AM OLD.

I THINK WE GOT TO A BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE FIRST TIME.

>> Sophie: THAT IS BACK WHEN MY RENT WAS ABOUT $300.

>> Dan: WE GOT TO A BILLION DOLLARS AND I THOUGHT WE WERE ALL LIKE, OH MY GOSH, AND NOW WE ARE TALKING ALMOST 10 BILLION DOLLARS FOR A BUDGET.

JUST PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE.

THERE IS, WHAT, 1.3 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO?

THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY.

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT WE'RE AT THE BOTTOM OF A LOT OF GOOD POLLS AND ON THE TOP OF A LOT OF BAD POLLS.

SO AT SOME POINT YOU GOT TO SAY TO YOURSELF, WHAT ARE WE DOING?

WHERE IS OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM?

WHERE IS OUR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE?

WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THE CRIME AND DRUG EPIDEMIC IN THE STATE THAT IS GOING ON?

HOW ARE WE FIXING THESE PROBLEMS?

THE ANSWER SEEMS TO BE WE ARE GOING TO TAX MORE, COME UP  WITH ANOTHER TAX.

>> Sophie: I JUST WANT TO SAY,  THOUGH, I THINK NOBODY SHOULD BE SURPRISED.

I PROBABLY WILL GET THE DRUNKEN SAILOR EMAILS NOW BUT  NOT THAT I AM GOING TO CALL ANYBODY THAT, BUT HERE IS WHAT  WE KNOW ABOUT THE TWO PARTIES, RIGHT.

YOU HAVE ONE PARTY THAT IS PROFOUNDLY INTERESTED IN  CUTTING TAXES AND SPENDING AND ANOTHER PARTY THAT IS  PROFOUNDLY INTERESTED IN PROVIDING SERVICES WHICH DO  COST MONEY.

BOTH PARTIES, EACH PARTY --  >> Dan: THAT IS A REALLY NICE WAY OF PUTTING IT.

>> Sophie: NOT THE ONLY THING THEY ARE INTERESTED IN.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS LATER TODAY, BUT  EACH PARTY WHEN THEY ARE IN POWER WITHIN STATE GOVERNMENT,  FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ET CETERA, LOOKS TO LOCK IN WHAT THEY CAN  LOCK IN THAT MEETS THEIR GOALS AND THEIR PERSPECTIVE OF  GOVERNANCE.

SO, DO REPUBLICANS ATTEMPT TO  MAKE TAX CUTS PERMANENT OR SO UNPALATABLE TO CHANGE THAT NO  ONE WOULD DREAM OF TOUCHING IT?

ABSOLUTELY.

DO DEMOCRATS ATTEMPT TO PUT  PROGRAMS IN PLACE THAT WILL BE TOO UNPOPULAR OR LEGALLY  DIFFICULT TO REMOVE THEM?

ABSOLUTELY.

THAT IS PART OF THE PUSH AND PULL OF GOVERNANCE.

I THINK, THOUGH, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THERE HAS ALSO  BEEN A LOT OF ANGST OVER, OH, THIS HAPPENED BEHIND CLOSED  DOORS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

YOU KNOW WHAT, EACH PARTY DOES  THAT WHEN THEY ARE IN POWER.

WHEN YOU GET DOWN -- I REALLY  BELIEVE, WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE  SAUSAGE WAS MADE, YOU HAVE LOST THE WAR ON WHAT IS  ACTUALLY, IN THIS CASE, IN THE BUDGET PACKAGE.

IF THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE LEFT, THAT MONEY IS GOING THROUGH  AND IT IS GOING TO BE SPENT.

>> Gene: THAT IS AN  INTERESTING POINT THERE.

I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO  SOMETHING ON THAT POINT.

I WANT TO GET REBECCA IN ON  THIS POINT.

ACCORDING TO SOURCE NEW MEXICO, A LOT OF AGENCIES ARE RECEIVING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BEYOND EVEN THEIR OWN ASK.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MEDICAID, STATE'S NATURAL RESOURCES  AGENCY, PUBLIC ED, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT, HIGHER ED, EARLY  CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.

FOUR MILLION MORE SET ASIDE  FOR TOURISM.

TWO MILLION FOR ECONOMIC  DEVELOPMENT.

I AM NOT USING A TONE HERE  LIKE IT IS WRONG.

MY TONE IS ABOUT, WAIT A  MINUTE IS ANYONE REALLY WATCHING HOW WE ARE DOLLING  OUT THERE KIND OF MONEY?

I AM ASKING IN YOUR FORMER  POSITION, YOU HAVE A BIT OF A DIFFERENT FEEL IN YOUR GUT.

DO YOU LIKE HOW YOU'RE SEEING THIS COME AROUND?

>> Rebecca: I DON'T THINK ANYBODY LIKES SHENANIGANS,  BACK ROOM DEALS.

I THINK SOMEONE CALLED IT  POPPYCOCK.

BUT ALSO THIS IS NOT NEW.

THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE DOES THIS EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

IT IS INTERESTING THAT MUNOZ IS SAYING, THIS IS THE LAST  YEAR WE ARE DOING THIS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE ATTENTION  GIVEN TO IT NOW BUT I DISTINCTLY REMEMBER GOING  THROUGH THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE LOBBYING FOR THE  PRIORITIES THAT THE EXECUTIVE OUTLINED AND THERE BEING SOME  PUSH AND PULL THERE, BUT ALSO KNOWING, IT AIN'T OVER YET.

THERE IS STILL GOING TO BE SOME THINGS ADDED IN.

AND THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE IS KNOWN FOR ADDING  THINGS IN AT THE LAST MINUTE.

THE ONLY THING THAT MADE IT  MORE NOTICEABLE THIS TIME IS THAT THEY PASSED IT BEFORE  THEY PUT THEIR STUFF IN AND THEN THEY BROUGHT IT BACK AND  SAID WE ARE GOING TO PUT MORE STUFF IN AND THEN PASSED IT.

IT IS JUST -- THEY JUST DID THE SAME THING THAT THEY  ALWAYS DO.

THEY JUST GOT CAUGHT BECAUSE  THEY HAD A MISSTEP.

BUT I THINK THE OTHER THING TO  KEEP IN MIND IS I DON'T KNOW -- I HAVE NOT READ HOUSE  BILL 2.

I DON'T KNOW HOW EACH OF THE  REQUESTS STAND, BUT I KNOW THAT WHEN YOU'RE GIVING  AGENCIES MORE MONEY THAN THEY ARE ASKING FOR, THOSE ARE PET  PROJECTS.

I MEAN, WHETHER THEY CAME IN  AT THE BEGINNING OR CAME IN AT THE END, THOSE ARE EXACTLY  LIKE, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE PASS-THROUGHS AND IF THERE IS  A PROCESS FOR HAVING YOUR PROJECT FUNDED, THEN FOLLOW  THE PROCESS.

DON'T LOBBY FOR YOUR OWN  PROJECT, HAVE IT BE TURNED DOWN AND THEN SQUEEZE  SOMETHING IN AT THE BACK.

IT DOESN'T FEEL GOOD AND THE  UNSUSTAINABLE PART REALLY -- AS THE WIFE OF A STATE  EMPLOYEE, THE UNSUSTAINABILITY OF A BUDGET REALLY CONCERNS ME.

>> Gene: CONSIDERING THE LAST TWO YEARS, JUST THE INCREASE IN ONLY TWO YEARS JUST PHENOMENAL, BUT GUYS WE HAVE THIS.

WE HAVE A RELEASE FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FROM  MITCHELL LUJAN GRISHAM, HEADLINE, GOVERNOR URGES  FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ON TAX PACKAGE.

NOW, THIS IS AS WE TAPE THIS THURSDAY MIDDAY.

AND WE ARE BARRELING TOWARDS SATURDAY MIDDAY, SOPHIE, WHERE  THIS TAX PACKAGE, THE GOVERNOR'S QUOTE FROM THE  RELEASE, PUT SIMPLY, THIS TAX PACKAGE CUTS TOO DEEP TOO QUICKLY.

SHE IS NOT CRAZY ABOUT HOW THIS IS COMING DOWN.

WHAT ARE WE HEADED TOWARDS?

>> Sophie: YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS PUSH AND PULL AND WE  SEE THIS ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL AS WELL.

LIKE, OKAY, WE DIDN'T GET WHAT WE WANTED IN BUDGET BUT WE CAN  STARVE THE BEAST.

EXCUSE THE GEORGE WYCKOFF  TERM.

AND SO, THE BATTLE OVER BUDGET  DOESN'T END WHEN THE BUDGET PACKAGE IS PUT TOGETHER.

THERE IS ALSO, HOW ARE WE GOING TO FUND THIS?

YOU CAN PROBABLY CHARACTERIZE BETTER THAN I CAN.

>> Dan: I WOULD SAY PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THIS IS WHAT  HAPPENS WITH THE SECOND TERM OF A GOVERNOR RIGHT?

NOW LEGISLATORS START SAYING, LISTEN I HAVE GOT TO RUN THREE  MORE TIMES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO RUN AT ALL.

YOU'RE GOING TO START DOING THIS STUFF, I GET WHAT YOU  WANT TO DO, BUT IT IS NOT WHAT I WANT TO DO AND YOU DON'T  EVER HAVE TO STAND UP BEFORE THE VOTERS AGAIN AND I DO IN  12 MONTHS.

I HAVE GOT TO START RAISING  MONEY TODAY AND THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT IS GOING TO  MAKE SOMEBODY GO OUT AND BE ABLE TO DO THE THINGS THEY  NEED TO DO TO BE REELECTED.

WORSE PLACE TO BE IN SANTA FE  IS BETWEEN A LEGISLATOR AND A CAMERA.

THAT IS THE WORST.

>> Rebecca: THERE WAS SOME  LANGUAGE SAYING CAMPAIGNS ARE A TERRIBLE DRUG OR A DANGEROUS  DRUG.

BECAUSE, THEY DO LEAD YOU TO  MAKE REALLY POOR DECISIONS.

>> Gene: WE HAVE INTERESTING  QUOTES FROM SOME SENATORS SAYING WE NEED TO SLOW DOWN HERE.

THIS IS MADNESS.

LET ME THROW ANOTHER ONE ON THE TABLE HERE BECAUSE WE ARE  SHORT ON TIME.

>> Dan: HOLD ON.

WHAT IS INTERESTING, THOUGH, IS ALL THIS TALK JUST THINKING  BACK ABOUT SENATE FINANCE, ALL THESE QUOTES FROM SENATORS.

WHEN I WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE IT WASN'T THE SENATE THAT HAD  ANYTHING TO DO WITH FINANCE.

IT WAS MAX COLL AND HOUSE  APPROPRIATIONS.

AND THEN ONCE THINGS CHANGED  AND MANNY TOOK OVER, THE ROLES SWITCHED.

IT USED TO BE, BACK WHEN I WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE, THESE  CONVERSATIONS WOULD BE ABOUT WHAT THE SPEAKER WAS SAYING,  WHAT MAX COLL WAS SAYING, WHAT HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS WAS  SAYING AND THEY SEEM TO HAVE ABDICATED THAT AUTHORITY TO  THE SENATE NOW.

>> Gene: THAT IS ACTUALLY AN  INTERESTING POINT THERE.

YOU'RE RIGHT, SOMETHING SEEMS  TO HAVE SWITCHED.

TAX REBATES.

SOPHIE, START WITH YOU.

WE ARE BACK TO 500 FOR SINGLE  PEOPLE, 1000 FOR COUPLES.

THE GOVERNOR WANTED MORE.

THE LEGISLATURE WANTED LESS AT SOME POINT.

DO THESE THINGS MEAN ANYTHING AT THE END OF THE DAY AFTER  ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?

>> Sophie: I THINK FOR  INDIVIDUALS AND FOR COUPLES, SINCE YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, I  THINK IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

IN A STATE AS POOR AS NEW MEXICO, ANY SORT OF CASH INFUSION I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE MAJORITY NEW MEXICANS WILL  SPEND THAT MONEY QUICKLY.

>> Dan: IT MAKES GREAT MAILERS  AT ELECTION TIME.

>> Rebecca: AS A MOM, I USED  TO BE ABLE TO BUDGET 150-DOLLARS A WEEK TO GO GET  MY GROCERIES.

NOW WE ARE SPENDING  300-DOLLARS A WEEK FOR MY FAMILY OF FOUR.

A ONE-TIME TAX REBATE DOES NOTHING FOR ME.

A TAX REFORM, THAT IS MONUMENTAL CHANGE FOR NEW MEXICO FAMILIES.

DON'T JUST THROW A COUPLE BUCKS MY WAY.

I NEED HELP AT THE GROCERY  STORE LONG TERM.

>> Dan: AT THE   GUS PUMPS AND EVERYTHING.

HERE IS THE THING, GENE, I KNOW WE ARE RUNNING SHORT OF  TIME.

WE HAVE A PRESS RELEASE  TALKING ABOUT TAX CUTS ARE TOO DEEP, YET WE HAVE THE LARGEST  SURPLUS OF MONEY THE STATE HAS EVER HAD.

AT SOME POINT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CATCH ON AND SAY HOW CAN  YOU SAY IT IS NOT WORTH GIVING MONEY BACK OR CUTTING TAXES  FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO OR DOING MORE TO ATTRACT INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES WHEN YOU HAVE THE  MOST MONEY IN RESERVES, THE MOST MONEY COMING IN, A PROFIT  YEAR, RECORD YEAR.

>> Sophie: SOMEONE IN THE  REPUBLICAN PARTY SAID WE CAN'T SPEND ON THINGS LIKE EARLY  CHILDHOOD EDUCATION BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SAVE FOR THE RAINY DAY.

WE STILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RAINY DAY AND I FEEL LIKE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS DONE A  GOOD JOB OF POINTING OUT THAT COULD BE COMING.

YOU CAN'T REALLY HAVE IT -- I GUESS WE ALL TRY TO HAVE IT  BOTH WAYS.

>> Dan: I AM NOT SAYING WE  SHOULD SAVE THIS.

THERE SHOULD BE OPPORTUNITIES  TO GET THIS MONEY BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE  EARNING IT.

AND, SECONDLY, I'LL BE THE  LONE GUY SPEAKING OUT AGAINST EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.

WE ARE NOW 50TH, 51ST IN THE COUNTRY IN EDUCATING KIDS.

IT IS A GREAT IDEA TO GET A PROGRAM THAT PUTS KIDS IN OUR  EDUCATION SYSTEM EARLIER BECAUSE WE ARE SO BAD AT  EDUCATING KIDS THE SOONER WE GET STARTED, THE BETTER OFF  WE'LL BE IN THE END.

>> Gene: THANKS TO OUR LINE  OPINION PANEL ON THAT ONE.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK HERE AT  THE TABLE IN ABOUT 10 MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THE THREAT OF  LEGAL ACTION OVER THE PROPOSED ABORTION RIGHTS BILL.

BUT FIRST WE HEAD INSIDE THE ROUNDHOUSE WITH NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, GWYNETH DOLAND.

>> Gwyneth: IT IS THE LAST WEEK OF THE LEGISLATIVE  SESSION, WHICH THIS YEAR COINCIDES WITH SUNSHINE WEEK.

THAT IS A NATIONAL CELEBRATION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION,  INFORMATION WE AS REPORTERS NEED TO DO OUR JOBS.

I AM HERE WITH DAN BOYD OF THE ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL.

DAN, YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTING ON THE BUDGET.

THERE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINTS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AS THE  BUDGET HAS MOVED THROUGH AND WITH THE OMNIBUS TAX PACKAGE.

ARE THESE COMPLAINTS NEW?

>> Boyd: NO THEY ARE NOT NEW.

THESE ARE COMPLAINTS ON A YEARLY BASIS.

THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO KIND OF IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY  BUT A LOT OF TIMES WE STILL STRUGGLING TO TRY TO GET UP TO  DATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE BUDGET NUMBERS, WHAT IT REALLY  MEANS FOR NEW MEXICANS, AND, THEN, OBVIOUSLY TO TRY TO  PRESENT THAT INFORMATION TO READERS AND DO IT ON A DAILY  BASIS.

IT CAN BE A STRUGGLE TO FIND  OUT WHAT THE CHANGES ARE AND BE ABLE TO DIGEST THEM AND  CONVEY THAT INFORMATION.

>> Gwyneth: NOW WE ARE USED TO  THIS, BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS A STRUGGLE BUT COULD IT BE BETTER?

>> Boyd: I THINK IT COULD.

I THINK NOW ESPECIALLY WITH EVERYTHING DIGITAL,  INFORMATION COULD BE PRESENTED TO PEOPLE.

I THINK PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN REBATES THAT THEY MIGHT BE  GETTING THIS YEAR, ABOUT THEIR TAX RATES ABOUT SPENDING ON  DIFFERENT PROGRAMS AND SCHOOLS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

CERTAINLY THE FORMAT OF THE SESSION MAKES IT DIFFICULT  WHEN YOU'RE FACING A TIME CRUNCH BUT MORE EMPHASIS COULD  BE PLACED ON TRYING TO GET THAT INFORMATION OUT THERE  BEFORE THESE VOTES TAKE PLACE.

>> Gwyneth: WE STRUGGLED FOR  YEARS, OPEN GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES, JOURNALISTS  STRUGGLED FOR YEARS TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CAPITAL  OUTLAY, MONEY THAT GOES TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, EACH  LAWMAKER GETS THEIR OWN LITTLE POT.

IT USED TO BE SECRET.

NOW IT IS PUBLIC.

NOW THERE IS A PUSH TO GET EXTRA INFORMATION ABOUT THE  JUNIOR BILL.

WHAT IS THE JUNIOR BILL AND  WHY WOULD THAT INFORMATION BE HELPFUL?

>> Boyd: SO THE JUNIOR BILL IS ALSO A SPENDING BILL.

IT IS KIND OF SIMILAR TO CAPITAL OUTLAY BUT MORE FOR  STATE AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IS KIND OF LIKE CAPITAL OUTLAY A  BABY STEP TOWARDS TRANSPARENCY BUT REQUIRING, AFTER THE  SESSION ENDS, TO DISCLOSE WHICH LEGISLATOR FUNDED WHICH  PROJECT.

SO AT LEAST THE PUBLIC CAN SEE  THAT AND A GET A LITTLE MORE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HOW THAT  MONEY IS SPENT.

>> Gwyneth: OVERALL, SINCE YOU  HAVE BEEN REPORTING ON THE LEGISLATURE, HAS TRANSPARENCY  IMPROVED.

>> Boyd: I THINK IT HAS  IMPROVED.

I THINK THERE HAS BEEN SOME  EFFORT, CERTAINLY WITH THE WEB CASTING.

I THINK IN THE BUDGET PROCESS IT IS HARD TO BREAK THAT  CULTURE OF A LOT OF THIS HAPPENING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

THERE HAS BEEN TINY STEPS BUT THERE IS STILL A LOT OF ROOM  FOR IMPROVEMENT.

>> Gwyneth: ROB BLACK, THANK  YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.

YOU REPRESENT 1000 BUSINESSES  ALL OVER THE STATE MAYBE 50% OF THE WORKFORCE IN NEW MEXICO.

HOW IS TRANSPARENCY IMPORTANT TO BUSINESSES IN NEW MEXICO, BUSINESSES LARGE AND SMALL?

>> Black: UNDERSTANDING HOW DECISIONS GET MADE AND WHAT  MAKES UP THOSE DECISIONS IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR HOW  BUSINESSES DETERMINE WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO INVEST, WHO  THEY NEED TO HIRE TO DO THE WORK.

SO, HAVING A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE  DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE AND HOW IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR  THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO GROW AND THRIVE IN THE  STATE.

>> Gwyneth: OVER THE YEARS,  CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE IN NEW MEXICO HAVE ADVOCATED FOR MORE OPEN GOVERNMENT AND WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE.

WE HAVE SEEN MORE INFORMATION ON WEBCASTING, MORE  INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE.

WE HAVE NOW GOT INFORMATION  ABOUT CAPITAL OUTLAY AND THEY ARE PUSHING FOR MORE  INFORMATION ABOUT THE BUDGET AND SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING.

WHAT MORE TRANSPARENCY WOULD THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY LIKE TO  SEE UP HERE?

>> Black: I THINK ONE OF THE  THINGS, AND WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, IS GETTING MORE  STAFFING FOR THE LEGISLATURE.

BECAUSE, FRANKLY, WHENEVER  YOU'RE DOING COMMITTEE, NEW COMMITTEES AND AGENDA, THEY  ARE RUNNING LATE, YOU MAY NOT HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT IS ON THE  AGENDA THAT MAY BE HEARD THAT IS REALLY RELEVANT TO YOUR  BUSINESS UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE FOR YOU TO SHOW UP OR SIGN UP  TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT OR MAKE A COMMENT.

SO, I THINK THERE HAS TO BE MORE PROACTIVE EFFORTS TO GET  THAT INFORMATION OUT EARLY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ENGAGE.

I DO SALUTE THE LEGISLATURE FOR DOING THE HYBRID WORK THAT  ALLOWS FOR OUR MEMBERS WHO MAY BE IN GRANTS OR IN LAS CRUCES  TO ENGAGE WITH THE LEGISLATURE, WITHOUT DRIVING  ALL THE WAY UP HERE OR JUST RELYING ON US TO BE THEIR  VOICE AND THEY CAN BE THEIR VOICE DIRECTLY.

THOSE TECHNOLOGY PIECES ARE IMPORTANT BUT WE NEED TO  INVEST IN STAFF SO THEY CAN GET MORE PROACTIVE IN GETTING  THE INFORMATION OUT EFFECTIVELY TO THE PUBLIC.

>> Gwyneth: SENATOR MUNOZ, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING  TO US TODAY.

>> Munoz: THANK YOU FOR HAVING  ME.

I APPRECIATE IT.

>> Gwyneth: SO, YOU ARE THE CHAIR OF SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

PART OF YOUR JOB IS WRANGLING THE BUDGET.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST STATE  BUDGET WE HAVE EVER HAD BUT THERE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINTS  ABOUT BACK DOOR DEALS, SOME MACHINATIONS, FINAGLING WITH  THE BUDGET AT THE LAST MINUTE.

HOW HAS THIS PROCESS BEEN  TRANSPARENT?

>> Munoz: THIS IS THE MOST  TRANSPARENT BUDGET WE HAVE EVER SEEN.

WE HAVE NEVER DONE SENATE AMENDMENTS IN LANGUAGE, SENATE  AMENDMENTS OPEN IN THE PUBLIC BEFORE.

SO, PEOPLE COMPLAINED BUT IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT COMPLAINED  THAT AREN'T GETTING WHAT THEY WANT AND DO THEY REALLY NEED IT?

WITH FOUR MILLION DOLLARS IN CAPITAL, 900,000 IN JUNIOR MONEY, TRANSPARENCY IS SO CLEAR.

I MEAN, THE JUNIOR BILL WITH THE AMENDMENT WITH EVERYBODY'S NAME ON WHAT THEY  APPROPRIATED, THE CAPITAL BILL WITH EVERYBODY'S NAME ON WHAT  THEY APPROPRIATED AND SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE DOING  EVERYTHING IN THE OPEN.

>> Gwyneth: A FEW YEARS AGO  THE LEGISLATURE DECIDED TO MAKE PUBLIC THE INFORMATION  ABOUT CAPITAL OUTLAY, WHO IS FUNDING WHICH INFRASTRUCTURE  PROGRAMS AND FOR HOW MUCH.

AND SO NOW THERE IS THIS PUSH  TO DO THIS WITH THE JUNIOR BILL.

SHOULD WE EVEN HAVE THIS BILL THAT JUST HANDS OUT MONEY FOR  SPECIAL PROJECTS?

>> Munoz: THE JUNIOR BILL WAS  INTENDED REALLY TO HELP AGENCIES WITH BUDGET REQUESTS.

THAT WAS THE JUNIOR BILL TO OFFSET SENATE AMENDMENTS.

AND NOW THE JUNIOR BILL IS COMPLETELY TURNED DIFFERENT SO  I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE A JUNIOR BILL AGAIN, BUT THE  INTENTION WAS, INSTEAD OF DOING SENATE AMENDMENTS WE ARE  GOING TO DO IT THROUGH JUNIOR WITH LEGISLATORS SAYING, I  LOVE THE ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, OH, I LOVE  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

OH, I LOVE TOURISM.

AND THAT IS THE MONEY WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE WENT BUT THE  JUNIOR BILL HAS TURNED IT TOPSY-TURVY.

AND WITH THEIR NAME ON IT  YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE CLEARLY WHERE THEY ARE APPROPRIATING  MONEY.

>> Gwyneth: SO I AM HEARING  YOU CRITICIZE THE WAY THE JUNIOR BILL IS DONE NOW AND  THIS IS THE SAME CRITICISM THAT WE USED TO HEAR ABOUT  CAPITAL OUTLAY.

HOW COULD THIS WORK IN A MORE  PERFECT UNIVERSE?

>> Munoz: WE AMENDED THE  JUNIOR BILL SO LEGISLATORS -- EVERYBODY KNOWS WHOSE  LEGISLATOR IS SPONSORING WHAT.

THAT IS CLARITY, RIGHT?

>> Gwyneth: BUT COULD THERE BE A PROCESS WHERE PEOPLE PLAN  THIS STUFF MAYBE MORE AHEAD OF TIME OR IT GOES INTO THE  BUDGET TO BEGIN WITH?

>> Munoz: WELL, IT IS HARD TO  MANAGE THAT BECAUSE UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT OUR BUDGET LOOKS  LIKE, AND WHEN WE DID HAVE MONEY BEFORE IT WAS A BIGGER  FIGHT.

SO, EVERYBODY COMES HERE WITH  A PRIORITY.

WE ALL LIVE IN DIFFERENT  DISTRICTS.

WE ALL THINK DIFFERENTLY ON  WHAT WE THINK NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATED.

AND SO WHEN WE TRY TO DO THE JUNIOR BILL, THAT IS WHAT OUR  THOUGHT PROCESS WAS.

HELP THE AGENCIES, CYFD,  WHOEVER IT MAY BE, WHICHEVER AGENCY, TO GET THE FULL  FUNDING THAT THEY NEED AND THEN YOU HAVE SAY IN THE  BUDGET PROCESS.

>> Gwyneth: CAN YOU GIVE ME AN  EXAMPLE OF SOME MORE OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN  BECAUSE OF THE MONEY IN THE JUNIOR BILL?

>> Munoz: WELL, I CAN TELL YOU WHERE I APPROPRIATED MY MONEY,  RIGHT.

MY MONEY WENT TO THE JUDICIAL  COURTS AND WENT TO BUY POLICE VEHICLES.

IT WENT TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WHERE THE GREATEST NEEDS WERE.

SO, I KNOW THAT IN MY DISTRICT FOR THE COURTS THEY NEEDED  MONEY FOR SECURITY AND THAT IS WHERE I PUT MY MONEY.

>> Gwyneth: THERE WERE COMPLAINTS THAT THE GOVERNOR  PUSHED THE BUDGET AROUND, PUSHED THE TAX PACKAGE AROUND  A LITTLE BIT.

IS THIS NORMAL?

IS THIS THE WAY THAT BUSINESS IS DONE?

SHOULD THAT BE MORE PUBLIC?

>> Munoz: I DON'T THINK THE  GOVERNOR PUSHED, RIGHT.

WE COME UP HERE AND WE TRY TO  COME TO A CONSENSUS.

WE KNOW AND I KNOW THAT I LIKE  OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP.

I THINK THAT GIVING EVERY KID  A CHANCE TO GO TO SCHOOL IS A GOOD THING TO DO.

ANY EDUCATION WE CAN GET A KID IS A GOOD THING.

SO, WE REARRANGED THE WAY THE HOUSE SENT IT OVER.

THEY SENT IT OVER SHORT AND SO WE REARRANGED WHAT HAPPENED  AND PUT IT IN RECURRING DOLLARS.

I THINK THAT IS AN AGREEMENT NOT REALLY A BACK DOOR PUSH.

I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN AGREE ON.

RURAL HEALTH CARE, THERE IS ANOTHER THING THE EXEC REALLY  WANTED.

AND I THINK IT IS GOOD FOR ALL  NEW MEXICANS.

WELL, IT CAME OVER SHORT, SO  WHAT DO WE DO?

WE HAVE GOT TO REARRANGE THE  DECK CHAIRS AND PUT MONEY WHERE IT GOES TO WORK WITH A  MEDICAID MATCH AND WE GET TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WITH LESS  MONEY AND THE GOVERNOR IS IN AGREEMENT.

>> Gwyneth: IS THERE ANYTHING I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT YOU WANT  PEOPLE TO KNOW ABOUT HOW THINGS HAVE WORKED OUT THIS  SESSION OR THE BUDGET OR TRANSPARENCY?

>> Munoz: YOU KNOW, THE MEDIA IS EATING UP THIS, OH, IT IS  BEHIND THE DOOR DEALS AND IT IS REALLY NOT.

I MEAN, THE OLD DAYS YOU USED TO GO OVER TO LFC, THEY SIT  YOU IN A ROOM AND YOU GO THROUGH LANGUAGE AND GO  THROUGH MONEY AND THAT HAS ENDED.

SINCE I HAVE BEEN THE CHAIR OF SENATE FINANCE, THERE HAS BEEN  MORE OPENNESS ABOUT THE BUDGET PROCESS THAN THERE EVER WAS  BEFORE.

AND THE PROBLEM WITH OUR  BUDGET PROCESS IS LAST MINUTE DEALS THAT GO BEHIND THE BILL  THAT, ABSOLUTELY, SOMETIMES THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO  HAPPEN, I WILL GIVE A PERFECT EXAMPLE.

HOMELAND SECURITY WAS SHORT ON FEDERAL FUNDING TO GET FEDERAL  MATCHES AND SO THAT IS A PRIORITY FOR US TO DO AT THE  LAST MINUTE AND PUT THAT MONEY THROUGH BECAUSE WE HAVE  ANOTHER NATURAL DISASTER, THEY'LL HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO  GRAB THAT MONEY AND MATCH IT WITH FEDERAL MONEY TO DO WHAT  THEY NEED TO DO.

THERE IS SOME STUFF THAT HAS  TO BE DONE, ALTHOUGH THEY DON'T SEE THE AGENCIES COME IN  AND THEY DON'T PRESENT EVERY TIME THEY NEED 300,000 OR  200,000.

AND AS WE MAKE UP THE SHORTAGE  IN THE AGENCIES, SOME OF THAT PROCESS YOU DO ON YOUR OWN,  SAYING IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

I WAS ELECTED AND CHOSEN BY THE SENATE TO LEAD THE SENATE  FINANCE COMMITTEE AND MAKE THOSE DECISIONS THAT MATTER TO  AGENCIES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE OR AGENCIES WHEN THINGS  HAPPEN.

>> THESE HEARINGS HAVE BEEN  FULL OF VOICES OF BOTH SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS.

MY COLLEAGUES AT NEW MEXICO IN DEPTH HAVE DONE GREAT REPORTING TO SHOW, THOUGH,  THAT ONE OF THE FORCES BEHIND THE SCENES HERE ISN'T JUST THE  COMMENTS BEING MADE BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING IT  BECAUSE THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY HAS HIRED AMONG THE TOP  LOBBYISTS IN SANTA FE FOR -- TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS  THERE.

AND WE DID THE MATH ON THE  POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY HAS GIVEN  ABOUT 3/4 OF A MILLION DOLLARS TO NEW MEXICAN LEGISLATORS IN  THE LAST 10 YEARS.

>> Gene: OUR SECOND TOPIC ON  THE LINE CONCERNS ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE.

AS LAWMAKERS PREPARE TO PASS LEGISLATION PROTECTING THE  PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE AND GENDER  AFFIRMING CARE, AN ANTI-ABORTION ACTIVIST OF  TEXAS HAS CAUGHT THE ATTENTION OF INTERNATIONAL MEDIA.

MARK LEE DICKSON OF, QUOTE, RIGHT TO LIFE OF EAST TEXAS.

END QUOTE.

THAT IS THE COMPANY.

HE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A  FEATURE ARTICLE BY THE GUARDIAN LAST WEEK.

THE STORY HIGHLIGHTED DICKSON'S WORK PUSHING  ANTI-ABORTION ORDINANCES IN CITIES ACROSS THE U.S. AND  THAT INCLUDES SEVERAL NEW MEXICO MUNICIPALITIES INCLUDING LEA AND ROOSEVELT, HOBBS, CLOVIS AND EUNICE.

A LOT OF PLACES.

THESE ORDINANCES IN NEW MEXICO FOLLOW THE COMSTOCK ACT.

SOPHIE IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT  THAT.

A FEDERAL LAW THAT DATES BACK  TO 1873 AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS, UNDER THE COMSTOCK  ACT, MAILING, IMPORTING OR TRANSPORTING OBSCENE OR CRIME  INCITING MATERIALS IS ILLEGAL.

THAT INCLUDES ANY DRUG,  MEDICINE, ARTICLE OR THING DESIGNED, ADAPTED OR INTENDED  FOR PRODUCING ABORTION.

THAT IS THE POINT HERE.

MR. DICKSON SPOKE TO THE GUARDIAN ABOUT NEW MEXICO'S PROPOSED HOUSE BILL 7 WHICH WOULD OVERRIDE ANTI-ABORTION  ORDINANCES ENACTED BY MUNICIPALITIES IN THE LAST YEAR.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

>> Sophie: THERE IS A LOT GOING ON AND I WOULD START BY  SAYING, AND I THINK PEOPLE RECOGNIZED THIS WHILE IT WAS  HAPPENING, THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REALLY OPENED  THE FLOOD GATES IN ITS DOBBS RULING OVERTURNING ROE V WADE.

SO WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW IS WHAT THE JUDICIARY OR THE  CONGRESS, ET CETERA, WOULD CONSIDER SORT OF THE  EXPERIMENTATION THAT HAPPENS IN THE STATE TRYING TO FIGURE  OUT, ON ONE SIDE, HOW FAR WE CAN PUSH HERE, HOW FAR WE CAN  PUSH THERE, AND THIS OCCURS IN THE CONTEXT OF A HIGHLY  CONSERVATIVE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

AT ONE TIME WE WOULD HAVE SAID, CONSERVATIVE MEANT  HEWING TO PRECEDENT, STICKING WITH STARE DECISIS, WHICH THIS  HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED, WE CAN BUILD ON IT, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO TEAR IT AWAY.

THIS U.S. SUPREME COURT WOULD  ARGUE THAT THEY ARE NOT CHANGING THINGS, THEY ARE  CLARIFYING THEM.

WITHIN THAT CONTEXT SOMETHING  LIKE THE COMSTOCK ACT, I MEAN, 1873 AND WHICH WAS LARGELY  DESIGNED TO PREVENT, BY THIS COMSTOCK, GUY WHO WAS IN  CHARGE OF THE MAIL BACK THEN, PREVENT THE MAILING OF SMUT.

HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHATEVER THE 1873 VERSION OF  PLAYBOY WAS.

BUT THIS OTHER STUFF CAME IN  TOO.

OVER THE YEARS AND REALLY AS  LONG AGO AS EARLY 20TH CENTURY THE COUNTRY'S, THE JUDICIARY'S  UNDERSTANDING OF, THE CONGRESS' UNDERSTANDING OF  THIS LAW HAS CHANGED AND.

SO THERE IS THIS BOTH  LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL RECORD THAT HAS REALLY TORN  AWAY AT A LOT OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE COMSTOCK ACT SUCH THAT  TODAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WOULD SAY, LOOK,  MAILING MEDICAL ABORTION DRUGS IS NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM  UNDER THE COMSTOCK ACT.

WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW, I REALIZE  I AM LIKE SUCH A LECTURER NOW, BUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW IS  WHAT THIS SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE TO DO.

WILL THEY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE LIKE THE COMSTOCK ACT.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GETTING PLAYBOY THROUGH THE  MAIL ANYMORE.

NO MORE PLAYBOY THROUGH THE  MAIL.

AND NO MORE DRUGS THROUGH THE  MAIL AND THAT IS WHAT INITIATIVES LIKE THIS ARE  TRYING TO DO.

THEY ARE TRYING TO GET UP TO  THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

>> Gene: I AM WONDERING, I  HAVE GOT TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS, IS IT BETTER  STRATEGY FOR LOCAL PEOPLE TO WAIT FOR THAT CIRCUMSTANCE  BEFORE THEY START IN ON THIS, MEANING THE SUPREME COURT  COMES OUT WITH A RULING AND THEN LOCALS START TO THINK  ABOUT THIS.

>> Sophie: THE CURRENT RULING  IS ESSENTIALLY THIS IS A STATE'S ISSUE.

AND NEW MEXICO HAS BEEN A REAL LEADER AMONG THE STATE THAT SEEK TO PROTECT ABORTION RIGHTS, MEDICAL CARE FOR  TRANSITION, FOR TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS.

WE HAVE BEEN A LEADER IN THAT.

EVEN JUST IN THE PAST WEEK OR  SO, WE HAVE SEEN LEGISLATION COME THROUGH PROTECTING  DOCTORS, PROTECTING PATIENTS, PROTECTING RIGHTS.

AND SO IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN NOW, WILL THE COURT STICK WITH  IT, STATES RIGHTS APPROACH, OR WILL SOMEHOW THEY FIND A WAY  TO SAY, BUT NOT THOSE RULES, NOT IN NEW MEXICO.

>> Gene: IT IS SORT OF AN OVERRIDING NATIONAL ISSUE,  REBECCA, BUT IT IS ALSO LOCAL.

IT IS ONE OF THOSE WEIRD  SPONGY ISSUES THAT ARE IN PROCESS.

I GOT TO ASK YOU, THESE FOLKS AGAINST THIS, THEY HAVE  ALREADY BEEN QUOTED TO SAY IF NEW MEXICO TRIES TO OVERTURN THESE ORDINANCES, ANTI-ABORTION ADVOCATES WILL  TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE COURT.

WE KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE  HAPPENING HERE AND THEN ALSO THESE CENTURY CITIES FOR THE  UNBORN.

THAT IS AN INTERESTING THING  WE HAVE GOT GOING ON HERE.

HOW DID NEW MEXICO END UP TARGETED HERE OUT OF ALL OF THESE STATES THAT ARE OUT  THERE?

>> Rebecca: I DON'T THINK I  HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT ABOUT HOW NEW MEXICO FOUND OURSELVES IN THIS POSITION OTHER THAN THE FACT WE ARE JUST, I THINK,  FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY, WE ARE PERCEIVED TO BE SO PRO --  I HATE CALLING THEM -- I GUESS PRO-REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE  BECAUSE WE'RE SANDWICHED IN BETWEEN TWO REALLY  CONSERVATIVE STATES.

WHEN I WAS LOOKING INTO THIS I  JUST SAW MYSELF WITH MORE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD ABOUT THE  WHOLE THING ABOUT I THINK THERE WERE SOME QUOTES FROM  MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE REGARDING THE WHOLE IDEA THIS  IS A NATIONAL DIVORCE.

LIKE TEXAS HAS BEEN TRYING TO  DIVORCE THE U.S. FOR HOW MANY YEARS AND THEY ARE STILL HERE,  SINCE THE BEGINNING.

I THINK THERE IS JUST QUOTES  ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW.

THE WHOLE THING I THINK JUST  IS -- THIS IS NOT A MORAL ISSUE.

WOMEN NEED TO HAVE RIGHTS TO HEALTHCARE AND I HATE THAT IT  IS ALWAYS ABOUT ABORTION.

IT IS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT ABORTION.

IT IS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT ABORTION.

THERE IS SO MUCH AND I THINK IT IS DIFFICULT FOR WOMEN EVEN TO, LIKE, TO ARTICULATE.

BUT JUST BOTTOM LINE, LIKE, WOMEN NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE  ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE WITH THEIR REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS,  FULL STOP.

>> Gene: ENFORCEMENT, DAN.

FOR THE COUNTIES THAT HAVE ENACTED THESE ORDINANCES, WE  COME UP WITH THIS NEW STATE LAW.

WE HAVE SEEN THIS COME DOWN BEFORE, CERTAIN COUNTIES ARE  NOT GOING TO FOLLOW.

THEY WANT TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN  DEAL.

THAT WHY IS THEY PASSED IT IN  THESE AREAS.

>> Dan: THE BIGGER QUESTION IS  THE HYPOCRISY, RIGHT?

WE WENT THROUGH THIS WITH  SANCTUARY CITIES, RIGHT?

WE HAD CITIES THAT SAID WE ARE  NOT GOING TO ENFORCE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE STATE LAW.

WE ARE NOT GOING -- WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE LAW  LOCALLY AND WELCOME -- BECOME A SANCTUARY CITY.

IT IS OKAY TO DO THAT, BUT NOT OKAY TO DO THIS.

IT IS THE IDEA OF THE HYPOCRISY.

IT IS RAMPANT ON BOTH SIDES OBVIOUSLY.

THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

BUT THIS ISSUE ALONE, I THINK  IT IS INTERESTING I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SHOW FOR A LONG  TIME WITH SOPHIE AND I REALLY APPRECIATE AND SOPHIE AND I  DON'T AGREE ON A LOT OF THINGS, AND WE ARE NOT GOING  TO AGREE ON THIS THING.

SOPHIE SAYS HEY LISTEN THE  SUPREME COURT IS CONSERVATIVE.

THEY ARE KIND OF CONSERVATIVE  BUT INSTEAD OF SAYING, IS IT A BUNCH OF CONSERVATIVE JUDGES  TRYING TO DO SOMETHING, MAYBE IT IS A PUSH BACK TO A SWING  BY THE LEFT THAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, RIGHT.

YOU HAD ROE V WADE, IF WE LOOK BACK IT WAS ABOUT A WOMAN WHO CLAIMED TO NOT KNOW THE FATHER  OF THE CHILD, WANTED A FIRST TERM ABORTION.

TODAY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LATE TERM ABORTIONS AT A POINT  THAT IT IS OKAY FOR DINNER TOPICS NOW.

SO I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE POLLS THAT ARE GOING OUT  THERE, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF WOMEN'S  CHOICE, WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, UNBELIEVABLY HIGH.

WHEN YOU START GOING INTO LATE TERM ABORTIONS, THOSE NUMBERS  CHANGE DRASTICALLY.

MAYBE INSTEAD OF US SAYING IT  IS THE COURT'S PROBLEM, MAYBE SOME OF THESE ENTITIES OUT  THERE PUSHING THESE AGENDAS HAVE CREATED THIS BACKLASH BY  SAYING WE WANT TO LABEL IT REALLY NICE AND PRETTY AND PUT  IT IN BOX LIKE THIS, BUT WE REALLY HAVE THIS AGENDA.

PEOPLE ARE SAYING, IF YOU'RE GOING -- ONE OF THE THINGS I  THINK THAT IS INTERESTING TO WATCH IS A LOT OF CONSERVATIVE  ORGANIZATIONS, GROUPS, HAVE REALLY LEARNED FROM THE LEFT  ABOUT UTILIZING THE COURTS, RIGHT?

FOR YEARS THE LEFT DID A PHENOMENAL JOB OF LETTING  THINGS HAPPEN AND THEN GOING TO THE COURTS TO GET THE  COURTS TO IMPOSE WHAT THEY WANTED DONE AND THEY WERE ABLE  TO DO IT.

WE HAVE SEEN THE EFFECT OF  THAT AND IT IS MAYBE TOO LATE FOR THE PARTY BUT I THINK  CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS ARE SHOWING UP AND SAYING, HEY,  LISTEN, TWO CAN PLAY THIS GAME.

GO AHEAD AND PASS WHAT YOU WANT TO PASS, YOU GOT THE  VOTES, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET IN FRONT OF ONE PERSON AND  RUN THE RISK OF LOOKING AT -- I'LL DEFER TO SOPHIE.

HEY WE GOT FIVE JUDGES THAT CAN GET THIS CASE, WE LIKE OUR  CHANCES WITH THREE OF THE FIVE SO WE ARE GOING TO LET YOU DO  WHAT YOU WANT TO DO OVER HERE BUT WE'LL GET IN FRONT OF THAT  JUDGE.

>> Sophie: IF WE STILL DO HAVE  TIME, I DID WANT TO BRING UP FEDERAL JUDGE MATTHEW  KACSMARYK OUT OF TEXAS HAS JUST HEARD ARGUMENT ON A CASE  THAT IT SEEMS LIKELY COULD AFFECT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY  REGARDING MEDICAL ABORTION, SO USE OF ABORTION DRUGS, AND THE  ASSUMPTION AT THIS POINT, LOOKING AT HIS TRACK RECORD,  IS THAT HE'LL PUT A RULING IN PLACE THAT WILL BLOCK THE SALE  OF THESE DRUGS AND WILL ATTEMPT TO DO IT IN SUCH A WAY  THAT AFFECTS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

I AM VERY LIGHTLY SORT OF TOUCHING ON THAT, BUT I THINK  WE ARE GOING TO EXPECT TO SEE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE A  RULING WHERE THERE WILL BE AN IMPACT IN NEW MEXICO.

THIS MEDICATION-BASED ABORTION IS NOW THE MOST COMMON FORM OF  ABORTION IN THE U.S.

SORT OF BY DEFINITION IT IS  EARLY TERM.

IT IS NOT LATE TERM.

SO IT DOES NOT GET INTO, AT ALL, THE ISSUES THAT DAN WAS  BRINGING UP.

>> Gene: CAN I ASK YOU ONE  MORE THING.

I AM GOING TO ASK FOR ONE MORE  MINUTE OUT OF THE BOOTH HERE.

I THINK IT IS KIND OF IMPORTANT.

SOPHIE, I WANT TO ASK, HOUSE BILL 7 WOULD ALLOW THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR A DISTRICT  ATTORNEY, WHICH IS INTERESTING TO ME, THE RIGHT TO INITIATE A  CIVIL LAWSUIT IN DISTRICT COURT IF THEY FEEL A  GOVERNMENTAL BODY HAS ACTED TO DENY OR PREVENT A LEGAL RIGHT  TO OBTAIN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE SERVICES.

IT'S A 5,000 DOLLAR DING, I GUESS, FOR THE GOVERNING BODY  IF FOUND GUILTY.

>> Sophie: PLUS LEGAL COSTS.

>> Gene: HOW LOATHE OR ANXIOUS MIGHT AN AG OR FOR A DISTRICT ATTORNEY BE TO FILE CHARGES  HERE?

>> SOPHIE: IT IS 100% ABOUT  THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON THE LAW, PERHAPS THEIR PERSONAL APPROACH TO THE LAW, PERSONAL BELIEFS.

AND, AS CAME UP EARLIER, WHAT DO THEIR CONSTITUENTS,  WHAT DOES THEIR COMMUNITY EXPECT OF THEM.

SO, I MEAN, I WOULD EXPECT THERE TO SEE FOR THE MOST PART  THOSE ACTIONS COMING FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR WHOM  THEIR ELECTORATE IS IN SUPPORT.

>> Gene: IN ANOTHER WORDS, A LOCAL DA IS NOT GOING TO TOUCH  IT.

>> Dan: THAT BILL SPECIFICALLY  TALKS ABOUT GOING AFTER LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES WHEN IT DEALS  WITH ABORTION, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY JUST PASSING LAWS THAT ARE  CONTRARY TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

>> Sophie: I WANT TO SAY IT IS KANSAS, BUT IF IT IS NOT  KANSAS, I APOLOGIZE TO KANSAS WATCHING RIGHT NOW.

>> Dan: KANSONIANS.

>> Sophie: SEVERAL YEARS AGO  DURING THE BATTLE OVER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, THERE WAS  A STATE THAT PUT IN PLACE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT  GRANTING ITS CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY AND  MAKING THEIR OWN MEDICAL DECISIONS AND THAT  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS NOW BEING USE IN THE ABORTION  BATTLE.

THE STATE WAS, LIKE, YOU CAN'T  FORCE ME TO BUY ACA -- >> Dan: AND NOW YOU CAN'T STOP  ME -- >> Sophie: TOTALLY.

>> Gene: GLAD YOU GOT THAT IN.

THANKS AGAIN TO OUR LINE  OPINION PANEL.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK HERE TO  TALK ABOUT A REPORT SHOWING OUR STATE CORRECTIONS  DEPARTMENT, GET THIS, LOST TRACK OF NEARLY TWO DOZEN  PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AS  CHILDREN.

THAT IS IN ABOUT 10 MINUTES.

BUT FIRST, AN UPDATE ON A PROPOSED ALCOHOL TAX INCREASE  ROLLED INTO AN OMNIBUS TAX BILL.

WE'RE RECORDING THIS ON THURSDAY ONE DAY AFTER THE  SENATE APPROVED AN AMENDMENT TO THAT TAX PACKAGE INCREASING  THE PROPOSED ALCOHOL TAX FROM ABOUT A PENNY PER DRINK TO A  WHOPPING FIVE CENTS PER DRINK.

THAT NICKEL PER DRINK IS STILL  A FAR CRY FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WHICH WAS 25 CENTS  PER DRINK WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY TABLED IN HOUSE BILL 230.

IT HAS BEEN A ROLLERCOASTER FEW WEEKS FOR THIS ISSUE AND  INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST TED ALCORN HAS BEEN FOLLOWING ALL  OF IT CLOSELY.

I SPOKE TO TED AFTER THE HOUSE  PASSED THEIR VERSION OF THE TAX PACKAGE FOR SOME CONTEXT,  WHY MEANINGFUL INCREASES SEEM TO BE FALLING SHORT THIS YEAR,  AS LAST YEAR.

WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

HERE IS TED.

>> Gene: WE WANT TO CIRCLE  BACK WITH OUR GUY TED ALCORN.

TED SAT DOWN WITH US BACK IN  MID FEBRUARY WITH SOME OTHER EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF  DEALING WITH THE RESULTS OF ALCOHOL FRANKLY.

AND HE WROTE A SEVEN PART SERIES THAT I VERY MUCH WANT  YOU FOLKS TO GO OVER.

EVEN THOUGH WE ARE STILL IN  THE MIDDLE OF THIS FIGHT, IT IS IMPORTANT.

TED, WELCOME BACK TO NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.

>> Alcorn: ALWAYS HAPPY TO BE HERE.

>> Gene: I MENTIONED HOUSE BILL 230.

IT WAS TABLED IN COMMITTEE.

WHAT HAPPENED THERE?

YOU HAVE BEEN STREAMING FROM WHERE YOU ARE.

WERE YOU SURPRISED, AND, SECOND, WHAT WERE SOME OF THE  ARGUMENTS YOU HEARD THAT MADE IT GO DOWN AND BE TABLED IN  THAT ONE COMMITTEE.

>> Alcorn: AS YOU REMEMBER IN  2017 ADVOCATES BROUGHT A SIMILAR BILL SEEKING A QUARTER  DRINK TAX INCREASE AND THE MEASURE IS MEANT TO IMPACT NEW MEXICO'S ALCOHOL CRISIS IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.

IT IS SUPPOSED TO RAISE REVENUE, OBVIOUSLY, THAT CAN  BE SPENT AN ALCOHOL TREATMENT AND PREVENTION, BUT ALSO  SUPPOSED MARGINALLY INCREASE THE PRICE OF ALCOHOL TO  DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM DRINKING EXCESSIVELY.

THERE IS A LOT OF RESEARCH AROUND THE COUNTRY WHERE  STATES HAVE SHOWN TO HAVE THAT IMPACT.

IN 2017 ADVOCATES COULDN'T GET THE BILL THROUGH THE FIRST  COMMITTEE DESPITE A YEAR LONG EFFORT TO DO SO.

THIS YEAR WAS DIFFERENT.

THEY CAME IN, THERE IS A  NUMBER OF BILLS RELATED TO ALCOHOL THAT HAVE BEEN  PRODUCED AND THE TAX BILL THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO WAS THE  MOST AMBITIOUS, AGAIN, SEEKING A SIMILAR FLAT 25 CENTS A  DRINK TAX.

AND IT MADE IT OUT OF THE  HEALTH COMMITTEE AND THEN THE TAX COMMITTEES IN BOTH THE  SENATE AND THE HOUSE TABLED IT.

NOW THEY TABLED THOSE BILLS AS A MATTER OF COURSE SO THAT  THEY CAN CONSIDER ALL THE BILLS THAT HAVE A FISCAL  IMPACT AND PUT THEM INTO THEIR OMNIBUS TAX BILL AT THE END.

AND IN THIS CASE, THAT IS WHAT HAS OCCURRED SORT OF.

THE BILL THAT ENDED UP OR THE LANGUAGE THAT ENDED UP SHOWING  UP ON THE HOUSE SIDE IN THE OMNIBUS TAX BILL INCLUDES AN  ALCOHOL HARMS ALLEVIATION FUND.

IT INCLUDES AN INCREASE IN ALCOHOL TAX, BUT A GREAT DEAL  SMALLER THAN THE SPONSORS HAD ORIGINALLY SOUGHT.

INSTEAD OF ACHIEVING THAT 25-CENT ALCOHOL PER DRINK FLAT  TAX, THIS IS LOOKING AT ABOUT A ONE PENNY TO TWO PENNY  INCREASE.

SO, THE SPONSORS HAVE BEEN  TELLING ME THAT THEY ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE SENATE  VERSION WILL ESTABLISH A STRONGER INCREASE.

THEY ARE TALKING NOW ABOUT A COMPROMISE, MAYBE A 15-CENT  INCREASE IN ALCOHOL TAX ON THE SENATE SIDE, BUT IT REALLY  REMAINS TO BE SEEN AND THERE IS A LONG WAY TO GO FOR BOTH  OF THESE BILLS BEFORE THEY ARE RECONCILED AND TURNED INTO LAW.

>> Gene: THE LIQUOR LOBBY HAS COME OUT IN FORCE WHICH WAS NOT UNEXPECTED.

BUT I AM CURIOUS WHERE YOU SIT, WHAT YOU GLEANED FROM  WATCHING SOME OF THE OPPOSITION AND HEARING SOME OF  THE QUOTES FROM FOLKS IN THE LIQUOR LOBBY ABOUT WHAT THIS  EXCISE TAX WOULD POTENTIALLY DO TO BARS, RESTAURANTS.

A LOT OF STUFF FLOATING AROUND OUT THERE.

THAT IS FOR SURE.

>> Alcorn: YEAH, WELL THE  ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BILL WAS GOING TO APPLY THIS TAX  RATE TO ALL PRODUCERS AND FOR YEARS WE HAVE GIVEN  PREFERENTIAL TAX TREATMENT TO MICROBREWERS, SMALL WINE  GROWERS, LOCAL DISTILLERS AND THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE  BILL WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED THAT DISTINCTION.

SO, OF COURSE, YOU DEFINITELY SEE A LOT OF THE LOCAL AND  WELL-KNOWN POPULAR BREWERIES AND THE NEW MEXICO BREWERS GUILD, STILLERS GUILD COMING OUT IN OPPOSITION, BUT THE  REAL BIG GUNS HERE ARE THE NATIONAL OR EVEN GLOBAL  COMPANIES THAT SELL ALCOHOL IN NEW MEXICO.

AND WE KNOW NATIONWIDE THAT THE ALCOHOL BUSINESS IS REALLY  CONCENTRATED.

THE BUSINESSES THAT MAKE THE  MOST MONEY ON THIS ARE ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV, WHICH  SELLS 50 BILLION IN ALCOHOL AROUND THE WORLD, AND THEY  HAVE BEEN AMONG THE VOCAL OPPONENTS.

AND THEY ARE THERE AT HEARINGS AND MADE ARGUMENT THAT WOULD  BE FAMILIAR TO ANYBODY WHO WATCHED THIS BILL GO DOWN IN  FLAMES IN 2017, THAT IT WOULD HURT SMALL BUSINESSES.

THEY HAVE ALSO ARGUED THAT A CONSUMPTION TAX LIKE THIS IS  REGRESSIVE AND THEREFORE IT COULD HARM POORER PEOPLE.

ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE TAX COMMITTEE SAID THAT  SHE WAS HAPPY TO SEE BUSINESS GOING AFTER A BILL FOR BEING A  REGRESSIVE TAX AND SHE REALLY HOPED THAT INDUSTRY WOULD BE  THERE IN THE FUTURE TO ALSO SUPPORT OTHER KINDS OF  PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, I THINK, IN A TONGUE AND CHEEK REMARK.

BUT, INDEED THERE HAS BEEN -- THESE HEARINGS HAVE BEEN FULL  OF VOICES OF BOTH SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS.

MY COLLEAGUES AT NEW MEXICO IN DEPTH HAVE DONE GREAT REPORTING TO SHOW THAT ONE OF THE FORCES BEHIND THE SCENES  HERE ISN'T JUST THE COMMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE BUT THE  PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING IT, BECAUSE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY HAS  HIRED AMONG THE TOP LOBBYISTS IN SANTA FE TO REPRESENT THEIR  INTERESTS THERE.

AND WE DID THE MATH ON THE  POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY HAS GIVEN  ABOUT 3/4 OF A MILLION DOLLARS TO NEW MEXICAN LEGISLATORS IN  THE LAST 10 YEARS.

THAT IS A FIGURE THAT THE  PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCATES SUPPORTING THIS POLICY MEASURE  CANNOT MATCH.

>> Gene: IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT  THE GENERAL PUBLIC SOMETIMES FEELS AS WELL.

I DON'T THINK I HAVE SEEN POLLING OUT THERE OR ANYTHING.

IS THERE ANYTHING OUR THERE THAT YOU HAVE SEEN TO TAKE A  TEMPERATURE OF WHERE THE PUBLIC IS IN NEW MEXICO ON THIS ISSUE?

>> Alcorn: I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY  POLLING RECENTLY.

IN 2017 THE ADVOCATES  SUPPORTING AN ALCOHOL TAX INCREASE DID THEIR OWN POLLING  WHICH THEY RELEASED SHOWING THAT THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR AN  INCREASE ON THIS PARTICULARLY WHEN PEOPLE KNEW THAT THE  MEASURE WAS GOING TO BE RAISING REVENUE TO SUPPORT  ALCOHOL TREATMENT AND PREVENTION EFFORTS.

AND, INDEED, THIS BILL WOULD NOT ONLY INCREASE REVENUES  THAT WOULD BE USED FOR TREATMENT SERVICES, BUT NOW  THE LANGUAGE IS LOOKING LIKE WE'LL DIRECT MORE OF THE  EXISTING TAX REVENUES THAT WE ALREADY COLLECT TO THOSE KINDS  OF SERVICES.

BUT LEGISLATORS DON'T -- THEY  DEFINITELY DON'T GOVERN BY THE POLLS AND I AM NOT SURE WHAT  INFORMATION THAT THEY ARE GETTING OR FEELING FROM THEIR  CONSTITUENTS.

IN MY REPORTING IT IS  REMARKABLE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT YOU END UP  SPEAKING WITH ABOUT ALCOHOL ISSUES WHO IT HAS HAD A DEEP  IMPACT ON THEM PERSONALLY AND PROFOUNDLY, BUT PEOPLE ARE  SKEPTICAL, AS WELL, ABOUT WHETHER AN ALCOHOL TAX ALONE  CAN TAKE CARE OF THE STATE'S ALCOHOL PROBLEMS WHICH ARE  DEEP-SEEDED AND GENERATIONAL.

>> Gene: A FAIR POINT YOU JUST  MADE AT THE END THERE.

AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF  QUOTES FROM LEGISLATORS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS SAYING,  TYPICAL, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DRINK ANYWAY, NO MATTER WHAT  IT COSTS, ALL THAT KIND OF A THING.

BUT THE FACT REMAINS, TED, IN YOUR REPORTING AND YOUR LOCAL  PARTNERS HERE AS WELL, 1 IN 11 DEATHS IN NEW MEXICO 2021 WERE ALCOHOL RELATED.

AND THERE IS A FEELING OUT  THERE, THAT MIGHT EVEN BE A LOW PERCENTAGE WHEN YOU PARSE  OUT WHAT HAPPENS WITH ALCOHOL IN A HOME.

IS IT THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW BAD THE PROBLEM IS HERE IN  SOME REGARDS?

I WONDER IF THERE IS AN  EDUCATION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITH SOME OF OUR PART-TIME  LEGISLATORS ABOUT HOW BAD THIS PROBLEM IS FOR US.

>> Alcorn: THE STATS DON'T LIE AND ARE, INDEED, SHOCKING.

I MEAN, I THINK PART OF WHY WE DON'T ALWAYS OBSERVE THE HARMS  OF ALCOHOL WITH OUR OWN EYES IS BECAUSE IT IS A STIGMATIZED  CONDITION, ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE.

AND WHEN PEOPLE ARE REALLY  HARMED BY IT AND THEY ARE REALLY, YOU KNOW, PHYSICALLY  INJURED OR FALLING APART, THEY ARE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOMS,  THEY ARE IN THE INTENSIVE CARE UNITS.

OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND, IN A CERTAIN WAY.

BUT ALCOHOL KILLED MORE THAN 2,000 PEOPLE IN THE STATE THE  LAST YEAR OF DATA WE HAVE.

THE RATE OF ALCOHOL-RELATED  DEATHS IN THE STATE IS THREE TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

AND IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT FENTANYL, OPIOIDS,  METHAMPHETAMINE, COCAINE, AS WE SHOULD BE, THESE ARE  ANOTHER BIG PART OF THE DEPENDENCE PROBLEM IN NEW MEXICO, ALCOHOL KILLED MORE THAN ALL THOSE SUBSTANCES DID COMBINED.

SO THIS IS A HUGE CHALLENGE  AND THOSE MOMENTS DID GET AIRED IN THE HEARINGS, I WILL SAY.

A DOCTOR FROM THE INDIAN HEALTH, GALLUP INDIAN MEDICAL CENTER TALKED ABOUT WATCHING HER 30 YEAR OLD PATIENT DIE FROM LIVER FAILURE AND THE  REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BILL, JOANNE FERRARY SHARED THAT HER  NIECE HAD DIED A MONTH BEFORE IN AN ALCOHOL-RELATED FALL,  YIELDING, YOU KNOW, MESSAGES OF CONDOLENCE FROM ACROSS THE  ROOM.

SO, I THINK, LEGISLATORS TOO,  KNOW, AND ARE AFFECTED BY THIS ISSUE AND I THINK RIGHTLY THEY  ARE MAKING IT A BIG PART OF THE DISCUSSION UP IN SANTA FE  THIS YEAR.

>> Gene: THANKS AGAIN TO TED  ALCORN FOR THE INTERVIEW.

TO WATCH OUR ENTIRE  CONVERSATION HEAD TO OUR YOUTUBE PAGE OR LISTEN TO IT  ON THE NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS POD CAST, AVAILABLE ANYWHERE YOU FIND YOUR POD CASTS.

NOW LET'S RETURN ONE LAST TIME  TO THE LINE OPINION PANELISTS.

A CRIME BILL APPROACHING ITS  FINAL LEG AT THE ROUNDHOUSE IS PROVIDING HOPE FOR STATE-WIDE  INMATES WHO ARE CHARGED WITH LIFE SENTENCES AS CHILDREN.

SENATE BILL 64, WHICH WOULD END LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AS  SENTENCING OPTIONS FOR CHILDREN, IS ON ITS WAY TO THE  GOVERNOR'S DESK.

IT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE  ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE AFTER SOMEONE SERVES 15 YEARS IN  PRISON FOR A CRIME THEY COMMITTED WHEN UNDER THE AGE  OF 18.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT TOO.

WE HAVE SEEN SIMILAR ACTION IN OTHER STATES.

SOPHIE, IS IT TIME FOR US TO MAKE A CHANGE HERE IN NEW MEXICO EVEN THOUGH I KNOW WE HAVE GOT A LOT OF DEMAGOGUERY GOING ON OUT THERE ABOUT WHO SHOULD ROT IN PRISON,  BASICALLY, AND WHO SHOULDN'T, ALL THAT KIND OF THING AND TO  TRY TO PUNCH THROUGH THE RHETORIC IS DIFFICULT.

>> Sophie: WE DO NOT LEAD THE WAY IN THIS ONE.

THE SCIENCE REALLY DOES TELL US THAT CHILDREN'S BRAINS  DON'T REALLY REACH MATURE STATE UNTIL 25, 26.

AND THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS CUTS OBVIOUSLY JUVENILE OFFENSES AT  18 BUT THE IDEA OF SENTENCING A KID -- A KID TO LIFE IN  PRISON, I THINK, SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE.

I AM GRATEFUL TO THE ACLU AND CHAMPIONS WITHIN THE  LEGISLATURE AND TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS LIKE  THE EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE FOR REALLY PUTTING THIS FRONT  AND CENTER ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND IN NEW MEXICO.

IT IS SHOCKING.

AND ALSO SHOCKING IS THAT OUR  PRISON SYSTEM DOESN'T KNOW WHO ALL OF THESE KIDS ARE.

>> Gene: WE HAVE AN ISSUE THERE.

>> Sophie: I REALIZE THAT SORT OF THE STORAGE AND COLLECTION  OF DATA HAS CHANGED AN AWFUL LOT IN THE LAST HOWEVER MANY  YEARS AND THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE INVESTED IN UPGRADING THAT.

AND SOMETIMES WHEN YOU PUT A SYSTEM TOGETHER YOU DON'T KNOW  YOU ARE EVER GOING TO NEED THE DATA.

BUT KNOWING THAT THIS BILL WAS COMING, IT IS KIND OF SHOCKING  TO ME THAT THERE WAS THIS KIND OF LIKE, OH, WE HAVEN'T  FIGURED IT OUT.

>> Gene: THERE WILL BE PUSH  BACK ON THESE THINGS.

THERE WAS A BILL INTRODUCED  LAST YEAR, WE MIGHT FORGET, BUT SOURCE NEW MEXICO REPORTS THE BILL WAS CRITICIZED BY LOCAL PROSECUTORS AND SOME  VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIMES WHO RAISED CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE  WHO HARM THEM WILL BE PREMATURELY RELEASED.

THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE A LEGITIMATE CONCERN IF YOU HAVE  GONE THROUGH THE TRAUMA OF LOSING A LOVED ONE TO MURDER.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

I SAY AGAIN, IT IS HARD TO PUNCH THROUGH THE RHETORIC ON  SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

DO WE HAVE A CHANCE TO GET  CLARITY?

>> Rebecca: I HOPE SO AND I  HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE, LIKE MY OPINION FORMED ON THIS, I HAVE  NOT LOST A LOVED ONE TO A TERRIBLE HEINOUS CRIME.

AND SO IT IS REALLY HARD TO -- I CAN'T SPEAK FROM PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE, BUT WHAT I CAN DO IS ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH  SOPHIE'S POINT THAT SO MANY TIMES, LIKE WE SEE SOME  HEINOUS CRIMES BEING COMMITTED IN NEW MEXICO BY KIDS WHO ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 18, AND LIKE JUST TO PUT THEM AWAY, WRITE  THEM OFF, LIKE, IT FEELS LIKE THAT THEY REALLY SHOULD BE  GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SECOND CHANCE AND NOT JUST A  SECOND CHANCE LIKE  AUTOMATICALLY ONCE YOU SERVED YOUR 15 OR 20 YEARS, THEN  YOU'RE OUT.

NO, NO.

WE ARE TALKING WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AGAIN  AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO LIFE AND REEVALUATE,  USING -- TAKING ALL FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION.

KIDS IN NEW MEXICO HAVE IT SO HARD.

AND SO, TO MAKE A JUDGMENT, AGAIN, 15 TO 25 YEARS AGO OR  LONGER, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AND NOT BE ABLE TO  TAKE ALL OF THOSE FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN SENTENCING  A KID, IT FEELS LIKE IT IS A BIG PART THAT WE ARE MISSING.

CHILDHOOD TRAUMA IS SO IMPORTANT AND SO --  >> Gene: CAN CHILDREN CHANGE?

IF YOU COMMIT A DOUBLE MURDER  AS A 17 YEAR OLD, CAN YOU CHANGE?

CAN THAT TYPE OF PERSON BE DIFFERENT IN 10 YEARS, 15 YEARS?

>> Rebecca: I AM NOT AN EXPERT.

I KNOW THAT CHILDREN CAN CHANGE BUT I THINK THAT AGAIN THIS IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC IF YOU ARE SENTENCED TO LIFE THEN WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND  LET YOU OUT.

IT IS, WE'LL COME BACK AND LET'S REVIEW AGAIN AND DECIDE IF MAYBE WE SHOULD CHANGE THE  SENTENCE OR ADJUST THE SENTENCE BASED ON OTHER FACTORS.

>> Gene: WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT SENTENCING AND JUVENILES, THERE IS THIS OVERALL FEELING  OF HARSHNESS SOME MIGHT CONCLUDE, THAT THESE SENTENCES  ARE REALLY STIFF WHEN IT COMES TO KIDS.

AND WE HAVE HAD MURDERERS GET MUCH LESS SENTENCES AS 30 YEAR  OLDS, 40 YEAR OLDS.

WHAT IS THIS HAMMERING OF KIDS  THING?

WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?

>> Dan: I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT I BUY, GENE.

WE HAVE 13 YEAR OLDS GETTING GROSSLY HARSHER SENTENCES THAN  30 YEAR OLDS.

WHAT I DO THINK IS THAT KIDS  CAN CHANGE.

I AM A FATHER OF FOUR.

I CAN TELL YOU SOME FOR THE GOOD, SOME FOR THE BETTER,  KIDS CHANGE ALL THE TIME.

WHO CAN'T CHANGE IS THE VICTIM.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT, OUR ENTIRE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS FLAWED.

THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

THE WHOLE LOCK THEM UP, THROW  AWAY THE KEY, IN NEW MEXICO, NOT TO START A WHOLE NEW CONVERSATION, BUT WE DID AWAY WITH THE DEATH PENALTY IN A  STATE WHERE WE KILLED THREE PEOPLE IN THE LAST 75 YEARS.

ALL THREE WERE NO DOUBT THEY ADMITTED IT, GUILTY.

AND SO, AT SOME POINT THERE IS THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE GOT TO  FIGURE -- WE TALK ABOUT KIDS CHANGING.

I DO THINK KIDS CAN CHANGE AND SOPHIE KNOWS BETTER THAN I DO,  BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH A 14 YEAR OLD CHANGES OVER 15 YEARS  WHEN HE IS LOCKED UP WITH HARD CORE CRIMINALS.

>> Gene: THAT IS THE OTHER PART.

>> Sophie: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWICE THE LIFE, RIGHT?

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 14 AND THEN MAYBE GOING INTO 29.

I THINK, AS YOU SAID, TO OPEN ANOTHER CONVERSATION, WHAT  OBLIGATION DO WE HAVE TO THOSE CHILDREN TO ENSURE THERE ARE  OPPORTUNITIES WHEN THEY COME OUT IN TERMS OF EDUCATION,  PERSONAL GROWTH, ET CETERA.

>> Dan: NOT JUST THE CHILDREN,  ADULTS.

>> Sophie: TOTALLY.

>> Dan: WE SENTENCE MEN AND WOMEN AND THEY GET OUT IN  EIGHT YEARS AND YOU'RE LIKE HOW DO YOU GET A JOB, HOW DO  YOU GET A HOUSE?

>> Sophie: THAT IS A SHIFT IN  OUR PRIORITIES AND OUR PERCEPTION OF WHAT IS AND  ISN'T APPROPRIATE WITHIN OUR JAILS, WITHIN OUR PRISONS AND  THERE IS STILL QUITE A BIT OF TENSION THERE.

I DON'T WANT OUR MONEY SPENT, ISN'T ME, PEOPLE NOT WANTING  OUR MONEY SPENT ON ENSURING THAT WHEN FOLKS COME OUT OF  PRISON, THEY ARE EDUCATED, THEY HAVE HAD ACCESS TO  COUNSELING, THEY HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE  THEMSELVES.

15 YEARS, WHEN YOU FIGURE, YOU  KNOW, THAT'S THE DOUBLING OF THIS KID'S LIFE.

IT TOOK ONLY 14 YEARS TO GET THEM THERE.

>> Dan: WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AS A SOCIETY.

WE HAVE TO START BEING BETTER AT TRYING TO PUT A PROCESS IN  PLACE THAT SAYS, OKAY, THIS PERSON IS TRYING TO CHANGE.

HOW DO WE GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO CHANGE?

THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT CHANGING.

WE CAN'T HAVE THIS WHOLE SWATH  A LOT OF -- I'LL END MY COMMENTS -- THIS IS WHY I HAVE  ALWAYS BEEN OPPOSED TO MANDATORY SENTENCING.

THERE IS NO REASONS FOR MANDATORY SENTENCING.

WE HAVE JUDGES.

JUDGES ARE LOTS OF TIMES THEY  ARE ELECTED.

IF THEY ARE NOT ELECTED, THEY  ARE APPOINTED.

VERY FEW JUDGES ARE APPOINTED  FOR LIFE.

THEY CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

I THINK JUDGES SHOULD BE GIVEN A SWATH OF ABILITY TO LOOK AT  A CASE INDIVIDUALLY BECAUSE IT IS INTERESTING HOW IN MANY  CASES WE SAY EVERYTHING IS INDIVIDUAL UNTIL IT COMES TO  CRIME AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO PUT EVERYBODY IN THIS BOX WHEN  THERE IS REASONS BEHIND THINGS AND JUDGES SHOULD HAVE MORE  DISCRETION WHICH WOULD LEAD TO LESS OF THESE PROBLEMS.

>> Gene: I CAME ACROSS, SOPHIE CURIOUS IF YOU READ THIS.

SARAH LAWRENCE SITUATION WITH THAT AWFUL MAN WHO RECRUITED  ALL THOSE YOUNG KIDS.

HAVE YOU READ ABOUT THIS?

THERE WAS AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD SAID  THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR, THE YOUNG WOMAN, SARAH, WHO HELPED  THE OLDER MAN, SHE HAD CHOICES.

AND THE ARTICLE WENT ON TO SAY, I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING  CULTS FOR A LONG TIME AND SOMETIMES THESE PEOPLE DON'T  HAVE CHOICES IN THE WAY WE THINK THEY DO, WHEN YOU'RE  YOUNG AND UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

>> Sophie: I'LL SORT OF EXTEND  WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT  YOUNG PEOPLE, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN, WE  DON'T ALLOW THEM TO HAVE MANY CHOICES.

YOU MUST GO TO SCHOOL TO A CERTAIN AGE.

YOUR PARENTS HAVE AUTHORITY OVER YOU AND IF YOU WANT TO  SEVER THAT AUTHORITY, THE COURTS HAVE TO DO THAT WITH YOU.

THERE IS ALL OF THESE SORT OF LIMITS ON THE CHOICES OF CHILDREN.

AND THEN HERE IS A PLACE -- YOU HAD A CHOICE AND ONE OF  THE THINGS, JUST TO PICK UP A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT DAN WAS  SAYING, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THIS BILL WOULD  DO, THIS CHANGE WOULD MAKE, WOULD BE TO GIVE THE  POSSIBILITY, TO OPEN THE DOOR TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS  KID, NOW AN ADULT, IS MAKING DIFFERENT CHOICES, HAS GROWN,  HAS A MATURE BRAIN, MATURE PERSPECTIVE, ET CETERA,  INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING, WELL, WE CLOSED THAT DOOR 15 YEARS AGO.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK.

>> Gene: WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET IT TO, BUT THE NONPROFIT PUBLICATION PROPUBLICA PUBLISHED AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT, GUYS, THAT FOUND THE STATE'S  CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT HAS LOST TRACK OF NEARLY TWO DOZEN  PRISONERS.

DID YOU GO THROUGH THIS IN  COMMITTEE?

>> Dan: IT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME.

WE HAD THE CASE IN LAS CRUCES WITH THE GUY THAT GOT THE DWI.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN LOSE  A JUVENILE, EVEN THOUGH SENTENCED TO LIFE.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO PRISON FOR THAT LONG.

I HAVE BEEN TO JAIL.

NO NEED TO WRITE THE LETTERS.

WE ALL KNOW.

>> Sophie: LOOK   IT UP ONLINE.

>> Dan: YEAH, YOU CAN GOOGLE IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST ALL THE MOVIES I SEE, PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS YELLING THEIR INNOCENCE.

YOU THINK AT SOME POINT, SOMEBODY WOULD BE LIKE, HEY, DUDE, I AM STILL HERE, I CAME IN AT 16 AND I AM NOW 52, WHAT ARE WE DOING?

>> Sophie: THE GUARDIAN DID SORT OF ACTUALLY PUT OUT A  CALL THIS.

LIKE, ARE YOU AWARE OF SOMEONE  WHO FITS THIS DESCRIPTION?

SO, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR THAT  AND I SUSPECT -- >> Gene: GOT TO WRAP UP.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THANKS AGAIN TO OUR LINE  PANELISTS AS ALWAYS THIS WEEK.

BE SURE TO LET US KNOW WHAT  YOU THINK ABOUT ANY OF THE TOPICS OR OPINIONS THE LINE  COVERED THIS WEEK ON OUR FACEBOOK, TWITTER OR INSTAGRAM  PAGES AND CATCH ANY EPISODE YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED ON THE  PBS VIDEO APP OR ON YOUR ROKU OR SMART TV.

60 DAYS PASSES QUICKLY, NO.

HERE WE ARE APPROACHING THE  END OF ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND WHAT DO WE HAVE TO  SHOW FOR IT?

THE BUDGET IS MASSIVELY  BIGGER, AS YOU JUST HEARD, AND THERE IS CERTAINLY MOVEMENT ON  A NUMBER OF KEY ISSUES, BUT THERE IS ALSO SOMETHING ELSE  THAT SEEMS CLEAR HERE.

THE MORE MONEY WE ARE HAVING  TO DEAL WITH, THE MORE OUR 60 OR 30 DAY SESSIONS ARE NOT UP  TO MANAGING IT.

YOU HEARD THE PANEL DISCUSS  HOW THE BUDGET BILL SUDDENLY HEADED BACK TO THE SENATE FOR  LAST MINUTE ADS WITHOUT DEBATE.

IS THIS AN ACCEPTABLE WAY TO LEGISLATE?

HERE IS WHAT GOT EXPOSED THIS SESSION.

THE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BE LET OUT CROSSES A GENERATIONAL  THRESHOLD, LIKE WE ARE ENJOYING NOW, IT TAKES THE  SOBERIST OF MINDS TO MANAGE THE MORE IMPORTANTLY TIME WELL  SPENT WITH DISCUSSION, DEBATE AND DIALOGUE.

WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF TIME IN OUR SYSTEM AND THE  RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

WITH MILLIONS EARMARKED FOR  PROGRAMS ALREADY SWIMMING IN CASH, AS YOU HEARD EARLIER,  AND LOTS MORE WHO NEVER GOT A FAIR SHOT TO BE HEARD.

THERE WILL LOTS OF CROWING ABOUT HOW MUCH DID GET DONE,  BUT MY CONCERN IS WHAT DIDN'T.

THANKS AGAIN FOR JOINING US AND FOR STAYING INFORMED AND  ENGAGED.

SEE YOU AGAIN NEXT WEEK FOR A  FINAL LOOK AT THE LEGISLATURE, IN FOCUS.

>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO FOCUS PROVIDED BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.