Q&A: Congresswoman Grisham talks healthcare, Comey

CLOVIS — Michelle Lujan Grisham represents New Mexico's 1st Congressional District, and was in Clovis Friday night to be commencement speaker for Clovis Community College's ceremonies.

Lujan Grisham, 57, is in her third term in Congress. She served as the New Mexico secretary of health under Gov. Bill Richardson and director of the state's agency on aging under three administrations.

The Los Alamos native announced in December plans to run for governor in 2018. We spoke with her following her talk with the Young Professionals of Clovis Friday, and limited questions to her work in Congress.

Q: Where is an area you believe you can work with President Donald Trump?

A: Definitely infrastructure for me, and some defense spending. I do a lot of healthcare work. His early statements that we need to do something with prescription drug companies, I thought, was right on the money. It's an area for cost we have really not been able to address since Congress doesn't really regulate insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies. So I was very encouraged by that, and he's got one of the most robust, at least advances, on what he's talking about for infrastructure. He wants a trillion dollars invested across the country. This would be great for New Mexico. Now I don't know the details yet, and there's some consternation that would include a new private funding mechanism. I need to understand what that proposal really is, and how it works, but I'm encouraged.

Q: The American Health Care Act, the Republican-sponsored replacement for the Affordable Care Act, narrowly passed a House vote (no Democrats voted for its passage). If the bill passes through the Senate, what would you want to do to make the legislation better for New Mexicans and Americans in general?

A: I would actually prefer this: I would prefer they don't entertain a repeal and don't take up this bill at all. The reason is this bill is very expensive to keep messing around with healthcare in the way we are. To the president's credit, it is so complicated that you squeeze it a little here and it will bulge some place else. For states like ours, it's a huge problem. I think what they should do now is, the Affordable Care Act was an insurance industry reform, but Congress does not regulate insurance companies. We want to do something about cost. I want my premium to be less, I want my deductible to be less, I want my out-of-pocket cost to be less and I want a sense there's going to be some stability in my network choices. There are not, because the marketplace shrinks and the network shrinks. But I also know if you repeal it and you aren't careful, every rural hospital in New Mexico goes belly-up, which is why every single healthcare group - every single one - is against repealing the Affordable Care Act. They're pretty clear about that. What I would like them to do is not take up repeal and then be serious about addressing stability and cost and choice. That gets you quality. There's a multitude of ideas to do that; I have several bills, of which I would love to talk to you any time.

Q: Our coverage area is not in your district, but we do have readers in both Steve Pearce and Ben Ray Lujan's districts. What is something you've worked with each of them on for the betterment of the state?

A: The one example I gave that I think is really powerful is we all worked together on behavioral health investments and accountability, which I really appreciate. We've also been completely together on no wall and looking at immigration reform that would be meaningful to the state. We've been together on those bills. Ben Ray and I have actually worked on conservation ideas that put New Mexico in a much better situation to manage its own conservation instead of being told what to do by EPA, USDA, anybody else who sometimes has a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach. That's a bad approach for New Mexico.

Q: During your prepared remarks, you spoke on the need for rural broadband. How do we do it, and why do we need it?

A: We want to make sure high-speed Internet is available because we don't operate any business platforms without them. You can really be in business without making sure whatever it is you're using is readily available. Without broadband, we aren't doing that.

We've got some places that don't even have dialup. They don't have any way to reach the Internet in any parts of New Mexico. All states, including ours, have invested toward laying that fiber and making sure you do it. It's never enough. There's one provider it won't work at, or it's underfunded and we get stalled out. The federal government, I think, could provide an impetus for stability to give you the kind of access to funding that focuses on rural and frontier areas so you connect it from that area to the urban areas instead of reverse. We invest in the urban centers and make incremental efforts and we stop funding it and we're done.

Q: You said following the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey that there is a need for an independent investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Would you take part in a discharge petition (when a bill the majority won't bring to the floor reaches the floor via a committee)? And do you think it will come to that?

A: I hate to guess, because sometimes you guess wrong. I think that more Republicans, which is what we need because it has to be a bipartisan movement, are certainly beginning to look for strategies to make this a more independent, cohesive investigation. How do you defend that we really are being objective unless you do that? I was a critic of Comey's, and I had him before my committee in government oversight. But he has, I think, engaged in ways that create credibility problems. I understand the White House's inclination, but you cannot interfere with the FBI while it's investigating this issue and a multitude of others. If this isn't enough to demand an independent investigation, which is not politicized, then (we need to find the) way to do that and to stop having people politicize this. Whether it's a discharge petition or one of the committees, whether it's the intelligence committee in the House or it's a select committee in the Senate ... I do not know what the vehicle is going to be. But I am seeing what looks like clear momentum toward an independent investigation. Let's see if I'm right.

Q: So, for clarity, you would be part of a discharge petition?

A: Yes. I'd be on any vehicle that demands a vote for an independent investigation.

— Compiled by Kevin Wilson