The following is an original production of AZPM News.

Support comes from Pyramid Federal Credit Union, serving Southern Arizona for more than 96 years, offering personalized solutions to help members reach financial goals.

More information is available at pyramidfcu.com.

Juan Ciscomani represents Arizona's Sixth Congressional District and is on the ballot for election to his third term in the U.S.

House of Representatives.

If we elect it, how will he face the issue of affordability affecting families in the state?

What does he think about concerns over data centers and balancing technology with economic development in Arizona?

And what has he claimed he can do to help seal the partisan divide that keeps Congress from getting things done?

We'll ask those questions on The Press Room, starting now.

(upbeat music) (upbeat music) Back in 2022, when Juan Ciscomani was first chosen for a seat in Congress, he made Arizona history as the first naturalized citizen from Mexico to be elected to the U.S.

House.

Since then, he has drawn notice as being the most bipartisan member of the Arizona congressional delegation in Washington, but his critics cite his most recent record as being too closely aligned with the Trump administration.

Now he's running as the Republican incumbent against the Democratic Party challenger JoAnna Mendoza in the upcoming general election.

Congressman Juan Ciscomani, thanks for joining us on The Press Room.

Thank you for having me.

Well, we're a few weeks out from the November election and in those few weeks, a lot of Arizonans in the Sixth Congressional District are going to be making some trips to the gas pumps.

And they're going to be seeing higher prices at the pump, they'll be seeing higher prices at the supermarket and at the grocery store.

So affordability has turned into a big issue for anyone who's running for Congress or any elected office that has to do with spending or with finances or with money in general.

What can you do to help solve this immediate problem if you're reelected, these problems that people are facing with day-to-day affordability?

Well, thank you, Tony, for having me.

And yeah, so the issue of affordability and the conversations around affordability is what I hear the most about when I travel the district, whether it's here in Pima County or across the rural counties, this is the issue that comes up the most.

And I've been in office for four years now, and this isn't something new.

This has been the issue that people have been dealing with and really started right after or around the COVID era when the government pumped in money, was spending out of control.

And that's what the highest increase in the percentage-wise in the debt that we've had.

That obviously, government spending is directly correlated to the economy, cost of living, and how that goes.

We also saw over 30% inflation increase during the Biden administration, so that jacked up prices.

And prices haven't come down since then.

That's the reality for people.

There's more work to be done in this area, but it's important to get the historic context here that prices didn't just rise in the last 12 months or so.

Prices have been on the rise, and they've stayed up higher than what we wanted them to.

Of course, overseas conflicts, having help with that notion as well, and other aspects that have messed with the logistics of transportation and so on, these are all things that have added on to this, and that's why we need to continue to work on it.

Some of the things that we've done, though, is pass legislation last year that people are seeing now benefits of that, not taxing tips, not taxing overtime, not taxing Social Security, for example, the child tax credit being set at a highest level ever and being permanent now, these are all ways that people can keep more of their hard-earned money as prices will start dropping.

But some will also say the tariffs are to blame, and you voted in favor of those tariffs with a lot of most of your Republican colleagues in Congress, and by keeping those tariffs into place, what's your response to that issue and the question of whether or not it's been made worse in the past two years?

Well, first, let's clarify.

The tariffs, those were done by the president, there was Congress didn't directly vote on a specific tariff for a specific country.

The president has been given the authority to be able to negotiate these agreements and these deals with other countries.

No question that other countries were taking advantage of our deals and our agreements.

I've been a firm defender of, for example, what was once NAFTA and then USMCA, that President Trump renegotiated to what it is now, the agreement with Canada and Mexico.

For Arizona, Mexico is a number one trading partner, times four.

I spent the better part of eight years with the Ducey administration, managing the Arizona-Mexico Commission, mainly focused on the trade between Arizona and Mexico.

So it's highly important to us.

So as we continue to make sure that our trade agreements are fair and equitable around the globe, we also have to continue to work on things that drop prices.

I'm not a fan, particularly of tariffs across the board in an arbitrary way that just applies to everyone.

I do think that each country has to be dealt with individually and based on those agreements, we've had better deals with Vietnam, for example, with other countries that things have gotten in a better position.

And quite honestly, things with Canada are not going great in those agreements.

Things with Mexico are going a lot better than they are with even other countries, both on the security front, but also on the trade front.

So this is a work in progress that the president ran on.

I don't agree with everything that he's done in this area.

And this is one of the areas where I've been, actually pretty vocal if you look at my statements of how tariffs have impacted Arizona and how we could be doing things differently there.

Let's spend a few minutes talking about immigration and immigration policy enforcement.

You've called border security your top priority and your responsibility as the leader of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

Make sure that the security measures are being funded properly.

The question is, how do we know that the money that Congress is sending to the border for immigration enforcement is going to the right place and being used for the right reasons?

Well, we just got to look at the results.

Look at where we are.

We've had an 85% decrease in fentanyl deaths into this country, a 56% decrease in the crossing of these specific drugs.

We have had zero releases, and that's a number that we never thought we would see this quickly of people being released with criminal records into the nation.

The amount of people crossing illegally has tremendously decreased as well.

All this because of two main factors.

One, it's border agents being able to do their job and being released into their own duties and being able to apprehend people and stop them from coming in.

During the Biden administration, we had a wide open border policy with no enforcement.

That was demoralizing for the agents and that was tragic for the country.

And then the other part is the funding piece.

They needed new radios, they needed new vehicles, they needed retention bonuses.

They needed things that we needed to be done that were long overdue.

This is where Congress came in.

But it was really the administration that did a few executive orders that actually allowed our agents to be able to go back to their jobs.

Now it's in Congress's side, besides the funding, which we've done, is to actually do the policy as well.

Now on the funding side, though, let's not forget that for the longest shutdown in history, Democrats held back funding and all based on the Homeland Security funding aspect of this.

So we have worked on funding this area as well as veterans and Department of Defense as well, increasing the funding there, reducing it everywhere else because this is important.

But Democrats shut down the government just based on this issue.

Now there's another part of this issue that has to do with detention centers and the spending that's put toward that.

There's a report by the General Accountability Office about Homeland Security spending.

It was critical of the Immigrati and Customs Enforcement spending and its Detention Center expansion plan.

It said that it's wasting money.

As being somebody who is in charge or partly in charge of what gets spent where, what do you think about that report and what it had to say?

Well, I don't know exactly that.

I haven't read the full report that you're discussing, but I'll tell you this though.

When it comes down to detention centers, that is a necessary step into being able to house people before they get sent back to their home countries.

If you look at over 10 million people, the rough numbers, the rough estimates that are pretty conservative, how many people came into this country in the four years of the Biden administration that deportations were gonna happen.

That's what people wanted.

That's why they elected President Trump in an overwhelming fashion the way they did and why they reelected us when it was clear that this was a top issue for us.

People needed to be apprehended, especially those with criminal records and sent back home.

And there are facilities that are necessary for that.

And not all the money is going there.

Like I said, a lot of the money is also going towards the agents, towards their families, towards benefits, towards building the barrier and finishing the wall that needed to be done.

These are all things that are important.

Also more money going to hiring judges so that they can adjudicate the cases quicker is not just the border enforceme side of it, it's the immigration side as well.

I'm an immigrant.

This year marks my 20th anniversary as a US citizen.

I got elected to Congress 16 years after being sworn in as a US citizen.

So this is a welcoming country.

This is a great country that welcomes people.

I go to the naturalization ceremonies every time that I'm in town that they have one.

About a million people a year become US citizens every single year.

The process is not easy.

I went through it.

I can attest to it.

Very few people that are in office today can say that.

A lot of people can talk about immigration because they read it in the book or maybe they worked around it.

I lived it.

I went through the exact process with my family to do this.

So I know it firsthand.

And I can tell you that there's more work to be done there so that we can also speed up the legal way of coming into this country, make it better and make it fit the demand that we have for the workforce, for example, and for our DACA students and our Dreamers.

I mean, we have work to do here, but it all starts with the security side.

If we don't have a secure border and we don't know who's coming in, then the rest of the steps cannot be taken.

Now on the issue of water in Arizona and the state received the federal government's decision on how much Arizona will have to reduce its reliance on the Colorado River.

All the lower basin states, in fact, are gonna have to be, and they're told they're gonna have to cut back.

What can the Arizona congression delegation do to minimize the problems that this is destined to cause?

We gotta work together on this.

Listen, water has been an issue that generations before us, and we just had the passing of Senator Jon Kyl, right?

That's someone that worked across the aisle.

And at the time of also Mo Udall, you have a Democrat and a Republican that worked across the aisle to get things done around water.

This has historically been an issue in Arizona where, listen, we can fight about other things, the approach in some things, tax levels, even the things that we've been talking about about enforcement of the border and all this.

When they came down to water, that's a survival issue for Arizona.

That's how we've been able to build the fifth largest city in the country, in Phoenix, in the middle of the desert.

Why?

Because Arizona has been great on this issue, has been the leader on this issue, has been very, very pragmatic on how to handle this.

So I'm proud of the work that we've done.

So how do we do this?

With a delegation that is divided on this, we have two US senators that are obviously Democrats, and then the majority of the House members, six, three count, are Republican.

So we have some work to do.

Five members of the delegation on the Democrat side, six in the Republican side, we have to work together on this, along with the governor as well, to make sure that we are prioritized.

So let's talk about the solution here for a little bit though, because you're right, the lower basin states have been asked to take cuts on the underwater usage that the upper basin states are not being asked to take.

That is completely unfair and that is not equitable.

We know that cuts are gonna have to be done.

We are on a drought in spite of the rainy day today and yesterday, we are far behind where we need to be on the water levels and the lakes around Arizona and also the Colorado River.

So I am the co-chair of the bipartisan Colorado River Caucus in Congress.

The other co-chair is a Democrat from Colorado.

So the discussions that we've had is that we can't allow Arizona to take, or the lower basin states, to take the only cuts and then have Arizona take the majority of those cuts.

The proposals that were offered, none of them were satisfactory to us.

So we had our own proposals where we propose how much water to cut ourselves from our deal.

That was initially rejected after multiple conversations with the White House and with Secretary Burgum, who I have a good relationship with.

That proposal from Arizona was accepted for the next two years.

But here it is, Tony, this only for two years.

Come two years after this, nothing's final yet, but things are looking dangerous for Arizona.

So we have to get our act together and both senators have to stop playing politics with this and be able to talk to the White House in the way that is benefactory to Arizona and we all need to do the same.

Let's switch over to technology.

Sure.

Just a couple of minutes.

An issue that seems to be an easy bipartisan reach, especially in the last few months where a lot of concern is being brought to Arizona regarding data centers.

Nobody wants one of these things in their backyard.

However, Arizona's in this dilemma where the state needs economic development and it's take a lot of future on data centers, on high technology coming to the state and bringing economic development.

What's your position on that?

So I don't think it's complicated.

I think you're right.

I think you prefaced it the right way.

There's a balance here between what people want to need on this issue and also what our technology use is and the necessary growth economically as well.

When you look at data centers or AI overall and the storage of this, there's several factors.

A very local factor of it that I wanna discuss and also the international competition with China, for example, and storage of our data.

So you have to be able to balance these things.

But the way you approach it here locally, which is what touches people the most, you immediately have to go to a decision and say, people have to have the right local communities to decide what to do with these data centers.

Do they want them in their backyard or not?

And if so, how?

So local communities have to have the final say on this and the full blown seat at the table on it.

We also have to make sure that these data centers that are coming in, they're bringing in their own power.

They're bringing in their own water usage, which is a big topic for Arizona.

It may not be for other areas, but for us on the water issue side, we just finished talking about that.

It's a big, big deal.

So these companies have to bring their own resources as well.

You said in a recent debate that you opposed parts of the big, beautiful bill that passed Congress last year that included some cuts to healthcare services.

But your opponent in the congressional race says it did not stop you from voting for that bill after all.

And now the healthcare safety net's at risk.

How do you address this concern regarding healthcare, especially for people who live in the rural parts of congressional district six?

So the Working Families Tax Cuts Act was one of the largest pieces of legislation that we've seen.

It had generational changes and had a lot of tax cuts and ways that people could be helped with this.

It also strengthened the safety net that we have for social programs.

What I mean by that is when you have programs that right now, for example, Kris Mayes, who is a Democrat, AG, right here in the Attorney General in Arizona, she is in the process of prosecuting tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid fraud.

This is happening in Arizona.

She is the one prosecuting them.

This is not a talking point from us or us claiming or me claiming that there's fraud going on.

This is the AG, a Democrat going after individuals, clinics, and organizations that are committing Medicaid fraud.

Every time you commit fraud, that's a dollar stolen from the single mom, from the person with a disability, from the person that is going through a rough time that needs Medicaid benefits.

What we want to do is make sure that we protect these programs with the people that need it the most.

And when you have people committing fraud off that, that's a bad thing.

When you also have people that shouldn't be on these programs, that are on these programs, that is also not a good thing.

When you have people that are not being verified to be able to be on these programs, or you've got someone that could and should be working, 34-year-old with no dependents, perfectly healthy, and they're on these programs, they're taking away from the people that need it the most.

So what this bill did is it added work requirements, it added a way to clean up the rules, to make sure that people are no longer alive, that name shouldn't be claiming the benefits.

That's what it did.

It also created a fund for rural healthcare, $167 million coming into rural healthcare for that purpose.

On top of that, I am working through the Appropriations Committee, and we've secured funds for the Willcox Hospital, for Benson Hospital as well, for an ER there, for Mount Graham Regional Health Center, mammography machine there, that we're working on getting that funding.

So I'm working at different fronts, not only through the big piece of legislation, but also through the Appropriati Committee, to bring in these resources.

Rural healthcare is very important, because when people get their healthcare reduced in these far areas in the state, it's hard to go to any other area, so we need to continue to strengthen rural healthcare.

Our state's veterans have some concern about healthcare too.

And every year you've been in office, you've been in effect of increasing funding for, to help veterans.

But when the Trump administratio came up with this government efficiency plan, those Doge cuts, you voted in favor of those cuts that reduced services.

And that prompted an Army Colonel this past, during this past month, to announce his retirement from your Veterans Advisory Council.

Are these cuts doing what they're supposed to do, these efficiency cuts to make government spending on veterans more efficient, or are they causing more pain?

If you look at the VA here in town, the vast majority of veterans that I talked to, they're very happy with their care at the VA.

The issue is wait times, and actually being able to get into this care.

So what we've done is we've increased spending, as you mentioned, for the areas that matter the most.

What we had also in the federal VA system, when we came in under the Biden administration, there were millions of dollars given to bonuses for top administrators and executives in the VA.

That's completely unacceptable.

That money and the increase for the VA was not meant for that.

The VA had a system of just receiving more money and trying to throw money at a problem.

Over $3 billion, now a heavy increase, for veteran homelessness.

And I don't see that issue getting better either.

So the issue wasn't always just throwing more money at this.

The issue was putting money at the right place at the right time, and being able to shave off the top executive bonuses, being able to add accountability to these systems.

And that's what we brought to the table.

So when we have increased the funding, it's a matter of where it goes as well.

And people may take the opportunity for score political points here.

And that's what they will try to do, whether it's somebody that you mentioned or other people.

It's easy to find people that may disagree with this, but the vast majority of veterans, especially in this area, in spite of my opponent having that background, are supporting us for this because they know the work that we've done on the policy side of being in the VA committee, and on the appropriations side by being on that committee for funding.

Not to mention the constituent services side of it, over $9 million, Tony, that we've been able to return and benefits to our veterans through either VA disability claims or even IRS issues that they've had.

We have taken care of our veterans.

They are the number one priority, over 80,000 of them in our district, and I'll continue to do that.

There are some veterans in Tucson who disagree.

They've gone to your office, specifically to talk to you about this.

However, they're sort of reachin some roadblocks and trying to get in touch with you.

And that brings a question about accessibility and how you're able to respond to the issues that they have.

For these veterans?

Yes.

I'll be happy to work with any veteran that has an issue.

I, you know, it seems that you like quoting people that are critical of my office.

You should try to go talk to all the people that are supportive of our office.

There's a reason why I won this district twice in the toughest district in the country and why we won the vast majority of veterans.

Are you gonna be able to find a few veterans that when they get political in this issue?

Sure.

Are you even gonna find veterans that may have not had the everything we saw from our office?

We wanna take care of every veteran out there.

We wanna make sure that we give them the right service and our doors are always open and accessible.

I have a full-time person hired in my office just to take care of our veterans.

We have veteran events.

I go to the veteran fairs.

My office is always at them.

I personally go to many of these events.

We are very accessible to our veterans and maybe you should go try to talk to the veterans that have been served.

Maybe some of the ones will be happy to give you some references for the veterans that have received over $9 million in return.

I think you'll be able to balance your view there, Tony.

All right.

Congress is being asked a lot of questions regarding the war in Iran.

And anybody who's running for office in your position is having to make some statement regarding that.

Now, you voted against the War Powers Resolution earlier this month.

And the question is, shouldn't Congress have more of a say as to what's happening in that conflict?

Yes, we do.

Congress should have a strong say in this.

We have the first point of the mission, the first effective point of why the mission even started has been completed, to make sure that Iran does not have the immediate capability of creating not only nuclear weapons, but it was about of dismantling their capabilities of having drone capacity and also small rockets to protect their nuclear program.

That was a big risk.

Now, this that we've seen here with Iran, every president in my lifetime and possibly in your lifetime as well, has talked about the threat that Iran poses to the rest of the world.

Iran has been killing our troops for the better part of 40 to 50 years.

They've been attacking us.

They've been claiming out of their own government buildings and sessions as if it was in the House floor, death to America.

They've been funding terrorist groups like the Houthis, like Hamas, like Hezbollah, that not only destabilize the Middle East, but also launch attacks against our troops.

This has been an enemy of the free world for decades.

And every president has talked about them to have nuclear weapons.

When you get to the point that that is about to happen, the president acted on that information and dismantled their program.

We are now into another phase of the conflict that we need to wrap up immediately.

This is a phase of what's gonna happen after Iran did not have that capability, which they shouldn't have had.

And the world is a better place for those actions.

And with the Ayatollah not being in power anymore, that is a good thing for the world as well.

So the president had that authority to act that way.

Congress needs to be absolutely involved in this.

And part of our involvement, and many of my colleagues and myself have been calling for, is a conclusion to this program, to this conflict and to this mission as soon as possible.

And for those who are critical of Congress on this issue and other issues, especially this Congress, the one where you currently serve, they say it needs to be stronger.

And if you don't use your voice, those who represent feel voiceless and sort of helpless.

You've said you've been trying to fight the partisanship in Congress.

In the recent debate, you said you wanna put labels aside and keep fighting for the American dream.

If you're reelected, what can you do to achieve that goal of connecting this bipartisan divide?

We need to lead by example, and I have done that.

This is exactly what we need to do.

It's results.

When people look at me and look at my record, they may not agree with everything that we've done.

And when you have a district that is one third Republican, one third Democrat and one third Independent, no, you're not gonna agree with everything.

Not everyone's gonna agree with everyone, but it's the ability to still work together and be able to get results.

That's what I've offered this district, and that's what we've been able to do the last four years, whether it is for veterans, as we talked about, or for water or for rural healthcare, or for lowering people's taxes.

These are all things that we have done and that we will continue to do.

And the only way to do those things is to act in a bipartisan fashion.

And when my opponent goes up on the stage and says that if she gets ever called or she says that she's the most bipartisan member of Congress, somebody to slap her.

That's what she said, right?

She said, "Slap me if I ever call myself that."

That tells you that she's not willing to be bipartisan.

She's not aiming for that.

This district requires that.

And that's what I have brought to the table.

And that's why I'm the far better option for this November, for this district.

It's been a fast half hour.

Congressman Juan Ciscomani, thank you very much for joining us on The Press Room.

Thank you.

And that'll do it for the Press Room.

Thanks for being with us.

We'll see you next week.

(upbeat music) (dramatic music) Support comes from Pyramid Federal Credit Union, serving Southern Arizona for more than 96 years, offering personalized solutions to help members reach financial goals.

More information is available at pyramidfcu.com.

This has been an original production of AZPM News.