ELECTIONS : CONGRESS : A Guide to Issues in District 35 Race

Overview

Embroiled in his first primary race in a decade, incumbent Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) is taking a low-key approach to the election in the staunchly Republican 35th Congressional District, depending on his long-standing tenure and name recognition to win him votes. Challenger Mark Blankenship, on the other hand, is waging an aggressive, high-profile campaign, spending money on mailers and radio and television advertisements to get across his message that the district, which just lost two major military installations, needs a fresh outlook in Congress. Lewis declined to answer The Times’ questionnaire.

Contenders

Mark Blankenship, 29, is a land developer and lawyer who ironically served as a college intern in Lewis’ Washington office. Interested in politics from an early age, Blankenship received a bachelor of arts degree in political science from Yale University and a law degree from Tulane University School of Law. He has been an instructor in the Redlands public schools and visiting professor at the University of Redlands. He was the developer of Lakeside Place of Redlands and Hidden River Country Club Estates. Blankenship’s wife, Priscilla, is a venture capitalist. They live in Redlands.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, 55, of Redlands, is serving his sixth term in the House of Representatives, where he is chairman of the House Republican Conference and a member of the House Appropriations Committee. Prior to his election to Congress in 1978, Lewis served 10 years in the California Legislature. He has proposed selling bonds to combat drug trafficking, and sponsored legislation to authorize production of American Eagle gold coins. Lewis graduated from UCLA with a bachelor’s degree in government. He owns a life insurance business. He and his wife, Arlene, his administrative assistant, have seven grown children.

Democrat Barry Norton and Libertarian Jerry Johnson are running unopposed in their primaries. Their names will appear on the general election ballot in November.

Questionnaire

Questionnaires were distributed to candidates in contested primary races. Answers have been edited to fit the available space.

Q. Do you believe that there will be a “peace dividend” as a result of reduced tension with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations?

If yes, would you generally be most inclined to use the dividend to: a) spend more on domestic needs, b) reduce the deficit, c) cut taxes?

Blankenship: Yes. On domestic needs, reducing the deficit and cutting taxes, in that order.

Q. Do you believe our present system of criminal prosecution, interdiction of supplies and imprisonment of dealers and users will ever significantly reduce the level of drug use in the United States?

If no, what should be done?

Blankenship: No. We need to establish a comprehensive program that provides capital punishment for drug dealers and suppliers, and that provides humane punishment and sophisticated rehabilitation for drug users. We need education programs about the hazards of drugs for our children in schools.

Q. Would you consider the possibility of decriminalizing drugs?

Blankenship: No. However, the pros and cons should have more discussion.

Q. Under the Gramm-Rudman law, the federal government is supposed to cut the budget deficit to zero by 1993. Is that a realistic goal?

Briefly explain your answer.

Blankenship: No. Draconian measures like Gramm-Rudman precipitate “off-budget” allocations (note the recent off-budget allocations to bolster the savings and loan bailout laws). Also, Congress will devise “tricks” to circumvent Gramm-Rudman targets.

Q. Rising property values in the Santa Monica Mountains have made it more difficult for state and federal parks agencies to buy land for public use. Land prices have escalated in part because local officials have allowed developers to build more houses than provided for under zoning laws. To keep property prices more affordable to parks agencies, should governments in Los Angeles and Ventura counties refuse such so-called “upzoning”?

Blankenship: No. I disagree totally that upzoning precipitates higher prices.

Q. Do you support President Bush’s call for a capital gains tax cut to stimulate economic growth?

Blankenship: Yes.

Q. Do you support capital punishment?

Blankenship: Yes. Only for extremely heinous crimes.

Q. Do you support a woman’s unrestricted right to an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy?

Blankenship: No.

Q. Do you support President Bush’s policy of seeking to maintain good relations with China’s current regime despite its violent suppression of the pro-democracy movement last year?

If no, what specific measures should the United States take against China?

Blankenship: Yes. Even though I disagree with China’s actions, it is essential that we communicate and understand China in order to prevent similar actions in the future. It makes sense to communicate with our philosophical adversaries.

Q. Do you support removing China’s most-favored nation trading status because of the regime’s repressive policies?

Blankenship: No.

Q. Do you support Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole’s proposal to shift foreign aid from traditional allies, including Israel, to newly emerging democracies in Eastern Europe and drug-fighting nations in Latin America?

Blankenship: No. We should eliminate all pork-barrel foreign aid, but should provide sensible foreign aid to traditional foreign allies, drug-fighting nations and emerging democracies.

Q. Do you favor opening up additional parts of the California coastline to oil exploration under any circumstances other than a national emergency?

Blankenship: Yes. Environmentally sound oil exploration benefits society as a whole.

Q. Congress has passed legislation that would expand tax credits for low-income parents with children in day care and create school-based day-care programs for “latchkey” children of middle-income families. President Bush has threatened to veto the legislation, which will cost $27 billion, unless its cost is dramatically reduced. Do you support the President?

If no, briefly explain your answer.

Blankenship: Yes. But I sense that this program needs to be refined so that proponents and opponents are comfortable with the costs and benefits of a program.

Q. Would you support a national gasoline tax increase if the proceeds were dedicated to improving transportation?

Blankenship: I have a philosophical problem with “flat” user taxes because they are not progressive and thus tax the poor and rich equally. I would, however, possibly support a gas tax of a reasonable amount if the proceeds were specifically dedicated to transportation programs.

Q. Would you support a national gasoline tax increase to reduce the deficit?

Blankenship: No.

Q. Do you support limiting the amount of money a candidate for national office can spend on the campaign?

Blankenship: Yes.

Q. Would you support at least a partial taxpayer-financed campaign funding as part of a reform package that limited spending?

Blankenship: Yes. However, this would depend on the program.

Q. Do you support limiting the number of terms that U.S. senators and representatives can serve?

If yes, what should the limit be?

Blankenship: Yes. Six or eight years.

Q. Do you favor more control over the availability of handguns to the general public?

If yes, what specific controls?

Blankenship: No.

Q. Do you support the current program to build a “Star Wars” anti-missile system?

If yes, do you think the program is adequately funded?

Blankenship: Yes. We need a lean, efficient defense, eliminating obsolete and redundant weaponry and pork-barrel foreign aid. We should reduce forces in Europe, curtail production of the B-2 (but continue research of producing cost-effective weaponry at the same facilities). Strategic missiles need to be upgraded and maintained for deterrence. Submarine force is potentially vulnerable to “quiet” Soviet submarines; if our submarines were destroyed, our land-based missiles would be forced to shoulder a major part of defense responsibility.