Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You >> Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus behind the redactions an Albuquerque Journal reporter tells us how he learned troubling details about the proposed sale of New Mexico Gas Company.

>> Horwath: These two sales could be one of the biggest blows to transparency that the state has seen in recent memory.

>> Nash: Plus, what's with all the hand-wringing over raising Albuquerque's minimum wage?

A labor economist helps us wade through the issue.

New Mexico in Focus starts now Thanks for joining us this week I'm Nash Jones.

So earlier this month, Albuquerque city councilors voted to increase the city's minimum wage by $1 each year over the next three.

And in doing so, Albuquerque joined Las Cruces and Santa Fe in giving their lowest wage employees a raise.

Well, tonight we hear from a labor economist and retired UNM economics professor about how these three cities have set their minimum wage and what that means for their local workers.

Also we revisit a few previous conversations that, due to some recent developments, are newly timely.

Back in April, as the war in Iran was about to hit the 60 day limit, on military operations not authorized by Congress, we got curious about who has the power to declare war.

We sat down with a local expert on the matter, Joshua Kastenberg, a professor at UNM, to learn about the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Well, now, more than 100 days into Trump's unilateral war, for the first time since that resolution was enacted, both chambers of Congress have voted to demand the president halt the war or seek their approval.

So what better time to remind ourselves about the War Powers Resolution, what it says, and how this war and this president have flouted it?

We're going to do that a little later in the show.

We'll also bring you a conversation tonight that you may not have seen before.

If you watch [in Focus] on TV, a web exclusive with Santa Fe Archbishop John C. Wester about Sister Blandina Segale, a New Mexico nun who may soon become a saint.

We have an update for you on her progress, but we begin tonight with New Mexico's little watched but vitally important Public Regulation Commission.

It has a pair of questions in front of it this summer.

Should private equity firms be allowed to buy up the state's largest electric and gas utilities?

The commission's three members are, of course, considering the sales of PNM and New Mexico Gas Company.

What the commission decides in these two cases has become one of the year's biggest stories.

The proposed PNM sale to New York based private equity giant, Blackstone, even surfaced as a key issue in the race for New Mexico's next governor.

The proposed $1.25 billion sale of New Mexico Gas Company to Louisiana based private equity firm Bernhardt Capital Partners has garnered less attention until recently, that is.

That changed this last weekend, when Albuquerque Journal reporter Justin Horwath, dropped a bombshell of the story that raises thorny, weighty questions about the sale.

Horwath stopped by the studio this week to break them down with Executive Producer Jeff Proctor.

Here's that conversation.

>> Jeff: Justin, thanks for taking the time to come down and welcome back to New Mexico in Focus.

>> Horwath: Thanks for having me, Jeff.

>> Jeff: So back about a month ago, I read stories in the Journal and elsewhere reporting that a couple of hearing examiners were recommending that a sale of New Mexico Gas Company to a private equity firm go through.

What were those stories I read, based on?

>> Horwath: They█re based on a hearing examiner report that recommended the $1.25 billion acquisition of New Mexico Gas Company by a Louisiana private equity firm, and the hearing examiners are administrative law judges in within the PUC who analyzed the record, the legal issues, and whether these transactions satisfy a certain set of criteria.

And these hearing examiners came out and said that there was enough evidence to say that this transaction, the sale cleared that criteria.

>> Jeff: and what they were doing was advising the Public Regulation Commission that they should approve the sale.

>> Horwath: Correct.

>> Jeff: Gotcha.

You published a story this past weekend that raised an awful lot of questions about that recommendation to the PRC.

What was that story based on?

>> Horwath: That was based on the hearing examiner's report included redacted passages.

And as I was >> Jeff: Blacked out.

>> Horwath: Public can█t see it Nobody can really see it except for whoever blocked it out.

And maybe some of the parties to the case.

But yeah, the hearing examiner's report had a bunch of blacked out passages.

And one night I was doing some journalism work and then copied and pasted these passages and the redactions just disappeared.

And so I read the the redacted language, and it turned out that the hearing examiners weren't as confident in the recommendation for the sale as they had expressed in the public version of the report and the unredacted passages.

>> Jeff: Gotcha, I want to pause, just for a moment on how this all came to be.

Often when I see stories like that in the newspaper, they're based on a leaked document or some sort of a confidential source.

None of that took place here, right?

>> Horwath: No.

This hearing examiner's report was posted on the online public docket on the PUC█s website.

The anybody could go and register.

And any member of the public can get that document.

They posted it and then they posted another version soon thereafter whose redactions were actually secure.

>> Jeff: Gotcha.

By then, the acts of journalism that you had committed had already come to pass.

>> Horwath: Yeah.

It was a little too late.

Yeah.

Yeah.

>> Jeff: Gotcha, so I would like to read the lead of your story that published on Sunday, and then ask you a question or two about it.

The lead says hearing examiners for the state Public Regulation Commission recommended approval of the $1.25 billion dollar acquisition of New Mexico Gas Company by a private equity firm.

Here's the key passage.

Even as redacted portions of their report reflected uncertainty about how effectively regulators could oversee the utilities future owners.

What were some of the specifics behind the redactions you found that showed you that there was uncertainty?

>> Horwath: They asked to the PRC hearing examiners behind these redactions.

Asked Bernard Capital Partners to disclose whether their investors, the investors and their private equity funds had committed money to the funds.

And so for two years, it appeared.

You know, it's it's the state regulators don't really know who's ponying up the cash.

And these investors, they're going to provide cash for the sale.

And in return, they get equity in New Mexico gas companies.

So so they get a share of the profits or losses of the gas company.

But the hearing examiners wanted to know who these investors are.

And they asked Bernard to disclose in a filing.

Any entities or individuals associated with a chain of companies in this private equity transaction that they hadn't previously disclosed.

Did that happen?

As far as I know, not yet.

I haven't seen the filing on the PRC█s online docket system, but maybe, you know, kind of behind the scenes maybe.

But I haven't seen a public filing yet.

>> Jeff: It's what's so interesting about your having been able to see behind those redactions, what we all knew and saw in news reports and in the redacted report was go ahead and let the sale go through.

The wink, wink, nod nod behind the redactions was even though we don't really know who's buying the company.

>> Horwath: Yeah, I mean, they had asked the hearing examiners had said specifically that jurisdiction, in order for us to have jurisdiction over this company, we need to know who the investors are.

>> Jeff: So let's talk about the notion of jurisdiction.

As I understand it, six prongs of a legal test must be satisfied for these sorts of acquisitions.

To go through.

One of those kind of refers to jurisdiction and oversight, essentially regulation.

Tell me what that test means and why it's important in a transaction like this.

>> Horwath: The hearing examiners, the commission wants to make sure that its jurisdiction would be preserved in these sorts of sales and transactions of public utilities.

They want to make sure that they have jurisdiction over the owners and the investors in case of defaults, in case of lawsuits, if something goes wrong with the company.

The PRC wants to know who is responsible, who, who's holding the money.

And jurisdiction just means that you have regulatory oversight over over a company.

And it doesn't appear just from the redacted passages that regulators are certain that they have it right now.

>> Jeff: And it's an accountability mechanism, really.

Let's just spend a quick second on what New Mexico Gas Company is.

It's a series of underground pipes, essentially, that transfer natural gas that ultimately ends up in our homes.

If something really goes wrong, as you would just mention, they need to be able to hold accountable whoever owns the company.

>> Horwath: Exactly.

Yeah.

And I mean, you think about Burner Capital Partners is looking at New Mexico Gas Company as an asset, that they want to improve the value of that asset over a certain amount of time.

But often with private equity firms, a lot of times they cut costs.

And, you know, these types of transactions raises the question of whether these firms are going to cut costs to key services.

And maybe we see some degrading pipelines or what have you.

But this but yeah, there is some tension there between just the profit motives of the private equity firm and the ratepayers interest in maintaining safe infrastructure.

>> Jeff: I want to get to that point in just a second, but I want to pause for just one more minute on those redactions.

Do we know who dragged out the proverbial digital black Sharpie and made those redactions in the document?

And do we know why the PRC didn't want any of us to see that stuff?

>> Horwath: No and no.

The the PRC declined to identify the specific individual who made the redactions, but instead pointed to a protective order in the docket issue last year.

The hearing examiners, although the ones whose report was redacted, it doesn't appear.

I don't I don't know if this was their idea because they had pushed for some of the same information to be public last year, and the commission overruled them.

All three public regulation commissioners voted to seal a lot of these records, having to do with communication between Bernard Capital Partners and their potential investors, limited partnership agreements, and a lot of important information that could shed light on just how management is going to interact with Bernard Capital Partners, etc.. >> Jeff: So we may have a hint of who dragged out the Sharpie, but the bottom line at the end of the day, they declined to identify who or the why question.

Gotcha.

That's a bummer.

Let's start with that.

But very well.

Let's move on to some of the larger questions underlying your excellent reporting.

What would this private equity firm owning New Mexico Gas Company actually look like?

And how would that differ from what we've got now?

>> Horwath: Right now, New Mexico Gas Company, its ultimate parent company is Amara, which is a Canadian energy firm, multinational energy firm in Canada that's traded in Canadian stock Exchange.

And also, I think the New York Stock Exchange.

So with those public securities, it has to file a bunch of documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission revealing pretty much everything about their finances.

Now Bernard Capital partners in this leveraged buyout, they are going to take New Mexico Gas Company.

They're proposing to take it private, which means that all of that public information is going to disappear.

All of those financial records, unless the PRC requires them to supply those records to the PRC.

So, I mean, on one level we're going to lose a lot of transparency about our gas company.

And then on another level, I think the structure of management might change a little bit just because Bernhard has a couple of board seats.

So they're going to have some Bernhard Capital Partners, partners on the New Mexico Gas Company board.

So that kind of enables them to do some decision making.

And so that's a little bit different from how a publicly traded company, you know, if the kind of classic investment advice that Warren Buffett will give for trading in securities is buy and hold, you know, look for a really good asset, buy it, hold it, private equity there in there to buy and sell.

This is this is the big difference.

And these investment funds will buy assets.

Try to make those assets in some way more valuable for them to sell and burn her capital.

Partners, in this case has said that it's committed to not selling its interest in New Mexico Gas Company for at least ten years.

You know, maybe to a private equity firm.

That's a long time.

But I think that in terms of ownership of just utilities in general, that's not a long time, because these utilities have ten year planning horizons where they're planning out their infrastructure and getting ready for more ratepayer demand.

And it's just in the scheme of things, the timelines kind of are a little mismatch there.

>> Jeff: It sounds like a riskier sort of version of an ownership structure.

I wonder how might consumers feel that or see that?

What are some of the risks, not just to the financial health of the company, but to the consumer, the ratepayer, those of us who get a bill every month from New Mexico Gas Company.

>> Horwath: Yeah, I mean, I always in these cases, the biggest concern is that rates will go up because, you know, you're buying a new asset, your private equity firm, you're going to want to squeeze as much revenue out of it as you can.

So, you know, Bernard Capital Partners is committed not to raise rates until I think September.

But they'll have another rate case in December.

So we have the rates.

I mean that's what everybody sees every month, their bills.

And also as we talked about before, just how they treat the assets themselves and the infrastructure.

And, you know, they say they are committed to having a safe and reliable utility.

And I you know, I haven't seen anywhere where they said they're going to come in and cut costs or anything like that, but that's always possible with with a private equity transaction.

>> Jeff: Gotcha, so I want to return again to that notion of jurisdiction, this very different type of ownership structure that you're describing, the kind of churn and burn of private equity versus the Warren Buffett buy and hold that the current ownership structure at New Mexico Gas Company has.

How might that factor into the way the Public Regulation Commission could or could not regulate this thing?

>> Horwath: Well, I mean, the attorney general, Raul Torres, had brought up a pretty serious issue in a filing recently where he said that there is that Bernard Capital Partners is using $250 million in debt from eight different creditors to buy equity in the holding company of New Mexico Gas Company, and the attorney general found that that debt commitment letter, those debt commitment letters with those creditors are under New York's jurisdiction.

And he expressed concern about not only whether the PRC, you know, if creditors executed, leans on this parent company, New Mexico Gas Company, could be exposed and that could all be outside the jurisdiction of not only the PRC, but New Mexico's legal system altogether.

I mean, this might be something that's, you know, if something goes bad, this could be fought in courts in New York while we're just kind of sitting here in New Mexico and watching it.

>> Jeff: Yeesh.

One thing I want to point out is that the hearing examiner's recommendation is not the final word on this.

The PRC still has to vote on whether the sale goes through.

Has a vote been scheduled?

Do we know when that's coming?

>> Horwath: No vote hasn't been scheduled as far as a couple of days ago.

I'm aware that no vote has been scheduled yet, but I'm assuming, you know, usually in these cases, a vote will follow a hearing examiner's report pretty soon after the report is issued.

>> Jeff: Gotcha, and just out of curiosity, do we know how often the PRC goes against the recommendation of these hearing examiners?

>> Horwath: I don't have I don't have data on that, but it's not uncommon.

I mean, I can tell you that it happens.

Yeah.

>> Jeff: Gotcha.

Really quick.

This isn't the only private equity sale of a New Mexico utility that's sitting in front of the PRC at the moment.

Obviously, Blackstone is proposing to buy PNM.

I'm curious about what you see as the key differences between those two proposals and really kind of Bernard versus Blackstone.

>> Horwath: Well, I mean, I'd say one of the key differences, Blackstone is a publicly traded company on the stock market.

So there's a little bit more transparency into their operations than there is with Bernhard Capital Partners.

And Blackstone is a huge, very well capitalized company that seemed to have come in here for a reason.

And you know, PNM wants they want money to build that renewable energy and kind of turn to the big players.

This seems like something different with Mexico Gas Company where it's you know, Burner Capital Partners isn't a small firm.

I think it's listed in there is a private equity trade publication that listed in the top 300 private equity firms.

But it's now Blackstone.

And so, you know, there could be liquidity, cash flow capital problems with a smaller private equity firm versus a Blackstone where they just kind of have all the money in the world.

And, you know, I think that gives PNM a little bit more confidence about about, you know, where it will be financially after after a sale.

>> Jeff: kind of a say what you will about Blackstone.

But everybody knows who they are and nobody doubts whether they've got the cash.

The Bernhard situation feels a little bit more of like sort of a Russian nesting doll of a bunch of different kinds of firms that are committed to ponying up the cash to buy this thing.

>> Horwath: Yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

And the private these private equity transactions, this one specifically, we can refer to it as a leveraged buyout because they're using $450 million in equity from their investment funds for the purchase.

But they're also using they're taking on $550 million of New Mexico Gas Company debt, and also an additional 250 million in debt.

So this is a very leveraged buyout here.

And, you know, I don't I can't recite the exact debt to equity ratio on the Blackstone sale, but this one is pretty leveraged.

>> Jeff: You know this stuff better than I do when I hear leveraged buyout.

That makes me think risk.

Am I thinking about that in the right way?

>> Horwath: Yeah.

I mean, whenever you take on debt, there's risk.

And.

Like $800 million in debt, you know, and if you're only going to be in this for for ten years, how responsible do you feel if you're the private equity firm in terms of repaying that debt?

If you're not if you're not here for a long time, that's one risk is the commitment to the debt payments and maintaining the bond ratings and everything.

And I'm sure Bernhard Capital Partners will come back and say, no, we want we want to come in here and make this a stronger, more valuable company.

You know, so I kind of want to give them that.

But also, I mean, there's just so much debt in this deal and there's not a lot of time.

And I think that kind of creates a potential structural problem.

>> Jeff: Justin, I'll get you out of here on this question.

Knowing you as I do, this is not going to be the last bite at the apple that I read in the journal under your byline about this proposed sale.

What are some of the other potential long term ramifications of this proposed deal?

You mentioned transparency.

What else are you going to be keeping your eye on going forward?

>> Horwath: Well, I actually want to see if the PRC might be asked to.

Unredacted hearing examiner's report.

There have already been some motions filed by intervened in the case, kind of questioning why they made those redactions.

So that might be an issue that comes up.

And I you know, as a reporter, I kind of feel like I got to defend my beats a little bit.

I cover energy and, you know, with this, this Blackstone thing and the New Mexico Gas Company sale, I'm seeing just thousands of pages of records, just public records disappear.

I mean, this is these two sales could be one of the biggest blows to transparency that the state has seen in recent memory.

So that's got me a little worried.

But obviously, you know, I'm going to be also tracking what the commission is going to be doing with these votes.

And it'll be interesting to see, just because there's been so much public pressure on the commission with both of these private equity sales, I don't usually see this level of interest in just more kind of mundane commission manners.

You know, commissioners might feel a little pressure about this.

So >> Jeff: Despite your concerns about lack of transparency and losing transparency going forward in your story, you struck a blow for transparency.

Thank you for doing that.

And thanks for coming to talk about your reporting with me.

>> Horwath: Thanks for having me, Jeff.

Appreciate it.

>> Kastenberg: To me, we ended up in this war in full disregard of constitutional norms.

And what I mean by that is, the framers of the Constitution have a very explicit role for Congress, and that is to declare war.

And since World War Two, that hasn't happened.

But in almost every prior conflict that had some longevity to it, there was a congressional approval of that warfare.

>> Nash: Catch Jeff's interview with UNM constitutional law professor Joshua Kastenberg about the war in Iran, in about 25 minutes, and thanks to Justin Horwath of the of the Albuquerque Journal for walking us through that excellent reporting of his.

This month, Albuquerque City Councilors considered an ordanince that would have increased the city█s minimum wage from $12 to $15 by the start of next year, in addition to the $3 bump.

Future rates would be set and adjusted by two factors the consumer price index and the price of rent for a two bedroom.

But that version didn't pass.

Instead, minimum wage workers will see an increase to $15 by 2029, spread out over the course of three years.

Also, the plan -- to annually adjust that minimum was completely stripped out.

It's a small step forward for the city's lowest paid workers.

Progress made in inches at a time when that same workforce in Santa Fe is expected to make a more significant leap in pay next year.

Richard Santos, a labor economist and professor emeritus with the University of New Mexico, has been researching and talking about low wage workers in the state's minimum wage for years.

So this week, I sat down with Santos to talk more about who these workers are, and how city officials across the state are setting their economic floors in different ways.

>> Nash: Professor Santos, welcome to New Mexico in Focus.

Thanks for being here.

>> Santos: Glad to be here.

>> Nash: So we're going to talk about the minimum wage.

And I think a lot of people probably think they know what we're talking about.

But let's just set the stage.

What is a minimum wage?

>> Santos: A minimum wage is basically saying that it's illegal for anyone to pay below a specific minimum wage, a certain wage rate, and it has the police power of the state.

So basically, the law, federal law, federal standards, federal standard Laborers Act of 1938 established a minimum wage of $0.25 an hour.

In 1938, it was signed by President Roosevelt.

And it's a federal law, and it covered basically about 40% of workers at that time.

And it said that basically anyone it's illegal for anyone to be employed at a wage rate below that minimum wage, and it has enforcement activities in there.

And it said certain provisions.

And so it's the law that's been there since 1938.

And it's been it was the last time the minimum wage was set was 2009, which is like 17 years.

>> Nash: And we're talking the federal minimum wage.

>> Santos: Federal minimum wage was set at $7.25.

>> Nash: And we're going to get into not only the federal minimum wage, but what states and even municipalities have had to do.

But before we do that, when we're talking about who earns the minimum wage, who are these workers?

>> Santos: They█re the individuals who are basically working primarily in the food hospitality industry, the service occupations.

It could be somebody who is basically taking care of mom and dad in assisted living, or coming by the house to do basically housekeeping services.

And it ranges from people who are working in your lawn.

So these are the individuals that we meet every day could be your bank teller.

It could be an individual who is greeting you at who is giving you your coffee at Starbucks.

>> Nash: Thanks for setting that stage.

>> Nash: So these are the everyday individuals we run into in our lives.

>> Nash: And you mentioned that the federal minimum wage hasn't been raised in a long time.

Why is it that raising the minimum wage and having it keep up with the economy has fallen to local governments rather than the federal government?

>> Santos: I think it's well, the first reason is to look at is it's we're talking about a federal national minimum wage.

And the problem has been that there's been gridlock at in Washington, D.C.

we got close at one time for more four votes of raising the minimum wage.

I believe President Biden tried to pass the minimum wage it did not go through, but he was able to do through executive orders to increase it for federal contractors.

So the main reason is lack of political support.

It's been gridlock in D.C.

and has been a reluctance to to raise the minimum wage.

The other item of that is that the market itself, I mean, when you think about the seven and a quarter is the reality is that it's very difficult to find, I think it's less than 1% of workers in this country are earning basically the minimum wage.

The seven and 25 employers are, if they're going to hire workers, are going to have to pay higher than the minimum wage.

>> Nash: Well, and here in New Mexico, the minimum wage is $12 an hour though some cities and we'll get into this have have raised it even higher.

But at the state level, despite having a minimum wage, the state does not require meal breaks, you know, rest breaks, paid family and medical leave.

So what protections do exist at the state level for minimum wage workers?

>> Santos: Very few, very few in the sense that you're not entitled to a paid vacation.

So we just celebrated Juneteenth.

If you're a minimum wage worker and that establishment was closed, you did not get paid that day.

We're going to be celebrating 4th of July, our country's anniversary.

And in fact, if 4th of July closes down and you're working a small business that pays the minimum wage, hourly wage rate, you're not going to get paid that day.

And so there's no entitlement to vacation holidays, Easter, Christmas.

None of that says you have to to be paid for those holidays.

In addition, there's no guarantee to full employment.

So many of these workers are working part time.

There's no nothing says you have to have a fixed schedule.

And so what happens in many of these industries right now is workers are don't know when the schedule is going to be, what am I going to work?

Well, you may go to work that day and but if business is slow in the restaurant or there's not a lot of business hotel.

You may be sent home and so you're not going to get paid.

You'll miss out even though there is a minimum wage.

>> Nash: So we've talked about the federal minimum wage now the state minimum wage.

And as I've mentioned already, there are also city minimum wage in Albuquerque, for instance, just recently, earlier this month, the city councilors narrowly voted to increase the minimum wage.

But they're going to do it $1 at a time over the next three years, up to $15 by 2029.

The original the first version of that ordinance that was proposed had it go to 15 right at the beginning of of the new year in 2027.

Why might the council have wanted to slow the roll on that a little bit?

>> Santos: Well, first of all, you got to remember the vote was very close.

It was 5 to 4, so it was a very narrow vote there when you think about that.

>> Nash: And that's when it passed on.

But I mean, these were amendments that were kind of hacking away.

>> Santos: These were amendments that were going through that fail.

And I think part of that may be very well, just more politically acceptable.

It gives I guess the positive side on that is it gives employers times to adjust so they can do some planning.

The on the one hand, the advantage of this, of having it tied into inflation, for example, of the CPI, which is the market basket of goods and services, how much they've changed over time, the price level, if you tie it to that, you know it, and that is the case which we deal with, by the way, with Social Security.

We do that with pension plans.

We basically see our, income going up as a result of CPI.

However, in this case here, it may be that, while that would be a benefit for workers, it just gives employers a little chance to make the adjustments that >> Nash: The consumer price index and the original proposal again at the Albuquerque City Council not only tied it to the CPI, the consumer price index, but also rent that, those indexes got tossed out.

Why would it have, what's behind the idea of tying it to both local housing costs and the price index?

>> Santos: Well, first of all, it's innovative.

We have one of your fellow guests here, a fellow colleague at the University of Mexico, Riley White, which has been one of the individuals, has done background work on this is really where Santa Fe is the first is the first city in this country to tie it into housing.

And so the idea of affordability, the issue of homelessness, the issue of providing individuals to take care of their families to make a wage, it makes sense to tie it to to the housing.

>> Nash: Why didn't Albuquerque do it?

>> Santos: Well, part of that, again, it goes back to the the political aspects.

It's novel, it's new.

It's I think the the best thing that I can say of that is it's a time to celebrate and I think is, yeah, we could have had I guess the question is, yeah do you want the, the full enchilada with all the trimmings out there, or do you want to get the start of the principle?

And the principle of establishing is that in this city workers are going to get a wage increase, and we're setting up a wage that at least is going to be allowing these low wage workers to be able to spend more money, and it gives them money to take care of their basic housing needs, childcare needs, etc.. So yeah, it would be great the city had done this, but at the end of the day we're moving in the right direction.

>> Nash: Who sees it as unfriendly?

Is it seen as unfriendly to the business community or where's the sticking point on that politically?

>> Santos: I think it's well, there's two issues.

One is is it's got to be acceptable to the business community, among other things.

>> Nash: And is it not?

>> Santos: And I think right now tying it to the CPI probably puts a the shock of the initial wage increase going from 12 to 15 is a shock to employers.

They have to make adjustments.

And then the next question is the uncertainty of the CPI.

So I think that's at least from an employer perspective.

You could see why they would be support for that from the from and I guess I'm less of a political scientist, but I think from the city's point of view it's you want to get this through and how can you get enough votes to get it through there?

And there may be a reluctance is how much, especially in a time right now when the city is is facing some budget crisis, when there's cutbacks going in there.

This uncertainty probably this may be a little bit more, should we say more of a conservative approach than rather than just kind of going the full, route.

>> Nash: A safer approach sticking with kind of the volatility or what might be unknown in Las Cruces, They raised the minimum wage in 2020 and set it to the consumer price index or indexed it to it.

You know, the economy has has been unique lately.

Does that create volatility with the consumer price index.

And what might that mean for workers whose wages are tied to it.

>> Santos: Yeah, I mean you can see the volatility in the sense of the Iran war right now.

Energy prices are going up.

We've had basically grocery prices are going up, rents going up.

So the CPI has been going up.

It's been about 4% inflation rate right now.

And so the question is yeah, it is a shall we say we're kind of going into on unchartered waters here with the inflation rate.

But the good thing is that both the city of Santa Fe has put a 5% cap on it.

So let's say the CPI goes up by, you know, 3% and the the housing price goes up by two.

Then you take half of that in there would go up by 2.5 and cannot go over 5%.

So there are some breaks there to to address this issue of uncertainty in the market.

>> Nash: Okay and speaking of Santa Fe, they have both, as we mentioned earlier, tied it to the consumer price index as well as housing costs.

Santa Fe is an incredibly expensive place to live, is especially relative to the rest of New Mexico.

Is the minimum wage even indexed in that way going to be enough to keep minimum wage workers afloat and able to live in the city?

>> Santos: That's a tough question.

That's a tough question because I think it it's the question of basic economic necessity.

It's a step in the right direction, but it's not going to solve all the problems.

There are issues of of health care costs going up, the gasoline prices going up, rents can continue to go up.

I think the cities also put a tax on mansions.

And so I think that it's a step in the right direction.

At the end of the day, I think it's going to make it at least going to ameliorate the situation is going to make it better for workers.

It's a step in the right direction.

Will it solve all our problems?

No, I think that's that's probably if, you know, we spent like in the 1970s, spent close to $20 million, not in the minimum wage.

And an economist from the University of Michigan, basically, I think what it will and that is that the minimum wage is is overrated by its both its critics and its supporters.

And so in a sense, we're putting a lot on just the minimum wage to take care of those basic necessities.

>> Nash: So you say a step in the right direction.

But Santa Fe has increased from 15 to 7.50 an hour, falls far short of what a livable wage in the city of Santa Fe would be.

What would it take to actually have a minimum wage, get to that level to be a livable wage?

>> santos: Yeah, just to give you an example.

If you were making- >> Nash: I█m sorry, I said 7.50, I meant 17.50.

Santa Fe went from 15 to 17.50.

>> Santos: So, I looked at a calculation.

It said something like, if you were making $17,000, $17 an hour, okay, you're working full time.

All right.

And your rents a thousand.

All right.

Which is be very hard to find a rent in Santa Fe for a thousand.

All right.

It's going to eat up 40% of your income.

And the recommended is you should not spend more than 30% of your income on rent or housing.

So just to give you an idea, so to your question, the $17 is falling short of that.

It's still going to require 40.

But again that's just with one person working.

So you're hoping you've got two people working that might bring it down.

>> Nash: Is there any realm in which the minimum wage becomes a livable wage.

>> Santos: Yeah, it's going to be to set it higher up in there.

>> Nash: What does it take to get there?

>> Santos: Yeah, it's I think the the issue is at least again, what I would say is you're looking at the minimum wage as a solution for all these problems.

And in reality the minimum wage is one tool.

But I think the negative income tax credit, for example, the urn tile tax credit that we have in the state is going to help those workers.

And so it's going to help it at the federal level.

The idea that we now are going to have universal childcare for New Mexican workers is a step in the right direction.

So I think we're looking at it as, as solely as, as just as a one shot item to take care of all those things.

It would be it would be like saying, oh yeah, I'm just going to get my flu shot.

And that's going to take care of all my health problems for the rest of the year.

That would be great if the flu shot did that.

But this is a one shot is injected in there.

It's going to help tremendously.

The flu shot helps tremendously but is not going to solve all your health problems.

>> Nash: Richard Santos thank you so much.

>> Santos: Yeah, it's a pleasure being here with you today.

>> Wester: She built schools.

She built orphanages.

She built hospitals.

She built the first school in New Mexico.

She was just an amazing, amazing -- She wasn't even five feet tall.

She was a little dynamo.

And she had great faith in Jesus Christ.

She had faith that she was on the right mission to to to do all this.

And she really is a New Mexican pioneer worthy of imitating.

That's why the Catholic Church makes saints, because we're saying to people this person is worth imitating.

>> Nash: Stay with us for an update on a New Mexico nuns journey toward sainthood.

And thanks to Professor Santos for dropping by.

In a historic vote this week, the U.S.

Senate approved a War Powers Resolution directing President Trump to remove United States armed forces from hostilities with Iran.

It was the 10th such effort in the Senate since the war began in February, and the first to pass after four Republicans sided with all but one Democrat, Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, to approve it.

On this motion, the ye█s are 50, the nay█s are 48.

The concurrent motion is agreed to.

>> Nash: The vote is seen as mostly symbolic, since a concurrent resolution like this is not legally binding.

That said, this marks the first ever rebuke from both chambers of Congress since the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted.

The House passed that measure earlier this month.

Democratic Senator Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico took to social media to admonish Republicans and demand the president honor the resolution.

>> Lujan: Rather than Republicans in the Senate working to lower costs.

They're just letting this president do whatever he wants.

It's absolutely nonsense.

Mr.

president, you need to read this resolution and you need to put an end to this war.

>> Nash: The vote comes as the war Trump launched unilaterally has long passed the 60 day constitutional deadline to receive congressional authorization.

And as the Pentagon prepares to ask Congress for $80 billion to help fund the fighting.

In a social media post of his own.

The president called the Republicans who voted for the resolution “Losers,” saying they made his job more difficult.

But he will still, quote, “Get it done.” Back in April, as the president extended an already tenuous cease fire deal ahead of that 60 day threshold.

We invited a local expert on the War Powers Resolution in to help us understand how the U.S.

is supposed to to wage wars, and how this one was playing out instead.

Following this week's historic vote, we wanted to revisit part of that conversation with University of New Mexico law professor Joshua Kastenberg.

>> Jeff: Professor Kastenberg, thanks for being here and welcome to New Mexico in Focus.

>> Kastenberg: Thanks for having me, it's a real honor.

>> Jeff: I prefer not to waste your time or my viewers time debating whether we are at war with Iran.

We are.

I'd like to -- >> Kastenberg: Can I add to that?

>> Jeff: Sure.

Please.

>> Kastenberg: I agree with you.

So, there's no reason to debate that.

>> Jeff: Agreed.

>> Kastenberg: Okay.

>> Jeff: I would like to begin then by asking, how that happened?

I don't mean historically, I don't mean geopolitically, I mean by what mechanism did we end up at war with Iran?

>> Kastenberg: Well, by the act of the President with no congressional constraints whatsoever.

To me, we ended up in this war -- in full disregard of constitutional norms.

And what I mean by that is the framers of the Constitution have a very explicit role for Congress, and that is to declare war.

And since World War II, that hasn't happened.

But in almost every prior conflict that had some longevity to it, there was a congressional approval of that warfare.

>> Jeff: You skipped right past my next question, which is what does the Constitution say about war?

But I'd like to ask this, and I've just a little bit deeper there.

As we all know, the President very much set the chessboard in this particular instance before the first rocket was launched.

He populated the Gulf with warships.

How does the Constitution -- or how did the framers define war?

Is the President given the latitude to do what he did in advance of beginning military operations?

>> Kastenberg: That's a great question.

So, part of the constitutional construct, the philosophy, underlying it was based on the fear of standing armies.

And so the framers of the Constitution were well aware of what Oliver Cromwell had accomplished.

What British monarchs, after Cromwell had accomplished suppressing the liberties of the people.

And they understood that a President that sought military adventure from afar, you know, overseas, was more likely than not to use the military domestically they understood the relationship between that.

So what they wanted was a very small standing army on the periphery of the country to either subjugate Native American populations or prevent them from returning to their homes, and also have just enough there to convince the British in Canada, or the Spanish in Florida, or the French in Louisiana Territory to leave us alone.

And if there was an invasion, the President could go to Congress, seek a Declaration of War, and then call up the militia.

And the militia was supposed to be the backbone of the country's defense.

But the framers were very clear that they were against adventurism overseas.

And you see this with George Washington's Farewell address on entangling and alliances and not going to war.

The Navy's a different story.

There's no fear of a standing navy.

The Navy is supposed to protect American commerce wherever it goes.

If the President seeks to expand American territory, he must have or she must have Congress to do so.

That has to come through legislation.

So, questions like, can you go and seize an island in the Strait of Hormuz, can you seize Greenland?

The answer is pretty clear from Mitchell versus Harmony, which is, you know, 1850 or a case you cannot do that -- >> Jeff: The answer is no.

>> Kastenberg: The answer is no.

Exactly.

>> Jeff: I want to wind the clock a bit.

You mentioned since World War II -- Let's talk a little bit about the War of Powers Resolution, which, of course came -- right after the Paris Peace Accords as the Vietnam War was “officially” ending.

What is the War Powers Resolution and what was it meant to do?

>> Kastenberg: It was supposed to answer the question of who can stop a war, right?

That's what it was supposed to do.

It was supposed to be a reassertion of Congress's constitutional authority, but set in the modern the realities of the modern world.

So a President absent an invasion of the United States or a treaty provision like article five of NATO, had to consult with Congress within six days of a military action.

And if troops were to be kept in a foreign country beyond those normally appropriated for, like our basing in Europe and Japan, within 60 days there had to be a congressional vote or the troops had to come home.

And yet, every president, every single president since Nixon█s Veto has said that's unconstitutional, that law.

And it's never been tested in the courts.

>> Jeff: Got it.

That was going to be my next question.

So this is what the War Powers Resolution was supposed to do.

I was going to ask, how has that worked out for us so far, professor?

>> Kastenberg: Well, not particularly well and every president in theory, including one of the great humanitarians, Jimmy Carter, has been accused of violating it.

With Carter, it was using the Army Special Forces and Airlift Command to evacuate European Nationals from Central Africa.

And yet members in his own party insisted that was a war powers violation.

If it was, it was the least egregious one.

But the war powers violation you think of, you know, Reagan and Lebanon as an example.

And that's a classic case that studied -- Obama and Libya.

That's a classic case that study.

But in each of those, each of those events, there have been some wiggle room for congressional appropriations that have been passed to say, no, it's not quite a war powers violation.

We're not happy with it, but it's not quite there yet.

>> Jeff: That said, we're going to talk about the money, right?

>> Kastenberg: That's right, that's right.

And the appropriations for the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan, when students -- or my parents would say to me, those are unconstitutional conflicts, they're not they may be horrible policy, but they're not unconstitutional because Congress is funding them and authorizing them.

>> Jeff: So folks who are following the news these days are hearing it awful lot about the War Powers Resolution.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has promised weekly votes on the War Powers Resolution since the Iran conflict began.

Are those votes essentially perfunctory or performative at this time, or is there a deeper reason to continue pushing back that's more difficult to see?

>> Kastenberg: I think there's a deeper reason for pushing those votes.

There's a large constituency in the United States that knows no political party that is increasingly anti-war.

They may not be pacifistic, and they may not.

They may approach this from different angles.

War is bad for business, you've got business pacifism war is immoral, war is imperialistic.

There are different reasons for that.

But that constituency is is a large constituency.

And I think there's an appeal to that particular diverse constituency to push these votes forward.

Plus, and I think this is the biggest issue of all, what does Congress exist for?

When the framers of the Constitution set up Congress, they set up Congress to be the voice of the people and to check against presidential tyranny.

And if Congress sits on the sidelines and doesn't bother to take a vote, they're doing the very thing, the very thing that Cromwell was emboldened to do with Parliament relegate it to a nullity.

>> Jeff: There's also the historical piece to getting folks on the record in a roll call vote seems to matter to you.

One more question before we take a break and pivot.

I'm interested in what war powers mean for a President domestically while the nation is at war, which we are right now.

What does that mean constitutionally and otherwise, for what a President can do at home that's different from what we can do during peacetime?

>> Kastenberg: Absent a civil war and absent a massive insurrection against the government, the war power should mean nothing domestically.

Absolutely nothing.

The Civil -- >> Jeff: And yet, we█re hearing about elections and nationalizing and that sort of thing.

But at least according to the Constitution -- >> kastenberg: You cannot, as a President, use the military or your Commander and Chief authority to usurp the rights of the states under the 10th Amendment to govern elections and time, place and manner.

You cannot use war powers to corral the citizenry of the United States.

In theory, you can't use your war powers to even use the military to patrol the streets of Los Angeles or Chicago.

And I know we could do the Posse Comitatus Act analogy, all of it flies in the face of what Jefferson and Adams and Madison and those who voted to ratify the document, believed in.

And if the Constitution stands for two things, one is some sense of unity before the states, and usually that's commercial or economic unity.

But the other thing is, a protection of the people of the country through the diffusion of power and significant checks on the President from exercising their military power over the people of the country.

>> Jeff: I really appreciate you helping us to kind of wade through all of this.

I'm going to ask you to stick around for just a moment and wade into, perhaps the more troubling aspects of what we're seeing in the Middle East.

>> Kastenberg: Absolutely.

>> Nash: Big thanks to Professor Kastenberg for helping us understand the War Powers Resolution.

Back in 1877, Sister Blandina Segale moved to Santa Fe, arriving by Stagecoach.

She worked to establish public and Catholic schools across the state and set up hospitals in both Santa Fe and Albuquerque.

You may have heard of the famous nun, since Alan Sanchez, President of the nonprofit Catholic Health Organization Common Spirit Saint Joseph's Children, has been petitioning to the Holy See to make her a saint for more than a decade now.

Well, last August, not long after Sister Blandina█s case for Sainthood had cleared a significant hurdle.

Santa Fe Archbishop John C. Wester, dropped by the studio for a chat about the fastest nun in the West, with Vatican theologians voting unanimously just last month to advance her case for beatification and canonization.

We thought we'd revisit her story that never before aired.

Here's correspondent Russell Contreras with the archbishop.

>> Russell: Archbishop, who was Sister Blandina, and why should people be interested in her story in 2025?

>> Wester: Well, Russell, Sister Blandina was a wonderful person.

She's was -- I wish I knew her.

[laughs] I wish I could have been with her but -- she came over in the 1800s to the United States from Italy.

Sister of Charity of Cincinnati.

And they signed her to come down here to New Mexico by herself, which wasn't done in those days.

Nuns always -- to this day, usually traveled in pairs in the wild, wild West.

And they told her all these stories, you know, of what it was like in the Wild West.

And she came to -- to bring the gospel to people, to help people, to serve them.

She built schools.

She built orphanages, she built hospitals.

She built the first school in New Mexico.

She was just an amazing, amazing person -- she wasn't even five feet tall.

She was a little dynamo.

And she had great faith in Jesus Christ.

She had faith that she was on the right mission -- to do all this.

And she really is a New Mexican pioneer worthy of imitating.

That's why the Catholic Church makes saints because we're saying to people this person is worth imitating.

Read about her, learn about her, and follow what she did.

And you'll get to heaven too.

So, that's the whole point of it.

So, she was just a wonderful, wonderful -- she even knew Billy the Kid.

She got Billy the Kid to pull back and not shoot up a town.

Because he was taught by her order and he knew those Sisters and so -- “Oh, okay, Sister, I wont --” One time he came upon her and he was going to rob a stagecoach, and she was in it, and he saw her.

“Is that you Sister?” “Okay, goodbye,” and he just rode away, you know, So, it's kind of interesting when you think about it.

>> Russell: And what's the latest on her journey to become a possible saint?

>> Wester: She's coming very close to -- there are stages, as you know, to get there.

And she's had quite a few miracles -- you need miracles for each stage.

You have to the miracle that someone's prayed for her intercession and has to be verified by a doctor, etc, etc, so, she has many miracles, but you can't use past miracles for the next stage.

So, once she gets to this next stage, She needs new miracles.

But -- the Catholic Church -- we believe in our faith that the Communion of Saints includes all those who are baptized, and that Christ conquered sin and death so that they live now in heaven.

And so they're part of our church still, they█re in heaven.

And that they pray for us.

We ask them to please pray for us.

And they do.

So, the next steps should be venerable.

And it looks like she's getting very close.

Pope Francis of Happy Memory had an interest in her.

He was very captivated by her story.

And so we were hoping that'll kind of push the process along a bit.

And it looks like it's coming close, so we'll see.

>> Russell: I know you have to be very careful on this, but what can you tell us about any possible miracles that have happened?

>> Wester: Yeah, we can't talk too much about them only because of confidentiality and medical -- you know, confidentiality.

But the miracles -- we've had miracles where persons -- condition was just -- the doctors have no other explanation than -- It was a miracle.

So -- and she's -- people have prayed to her and -- their testimony is quite moving.

They can talk about it.

So it's good to interview them because they can talk about it, but it's really quite moving.

We have in my office I've got one of the copies they've got.

It's about 800 pages, I'm guessing huge, big thick book, red binding of the testimony of the miracles, the doctor's testimony.

It's really quite impressive.

I mean, it's -- this is not an easy process.

It takes a long time and the doctors have to -- everyone has to give witness, and they go over every single thing about her life.

And so they really know her and they say, no, this person is worthy of invitation.

She really is a wonderful person.

>> Russell: Archbishop, thank you for joining us here on New Mexico in Focus.

>> Wester: You're most welcome.

Thank you, Russell, for having me.

>> Nash: Thanks to Archbishop Wester and Russell Contreras for that conversation.

As for Sister Blandina█s journey toward sainthood, the Vatican's Dicastery for the Causes of Saints has until summer█s end to vote on whether they believe Segale is venerable.

A recommendation that would be given to the Pope.

A few more steps would come after that.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the show.

Join us next week for our annual look at the state of the local news media, for New Mexico PBS, I'm Nash Jones, until then, stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You