Congressional Candidate Interviews with Manuel Luján, Jr. and Eugene Gallegos

Tuesday, November 7, voters in New Mexico and in the nation go to the polls to elect either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. But along with those candidates go the election of senators and congressmen, men who will be important factors in the decisions of the coming years. Tonight KUNM presents the candidates for the House of Representative from New Mexico's Northern District, incumbent Manuel Lujan Jr., a Republican, and his Democratic challenger Eugene Gallegos. On Tuesday, October 24, the candidates for U.S. Senate from New Mexico will be aired here on KUNM. We'll have Democrat Jack Daniels, Republican Pete Diminici, and Brighton Democrat and Selmo Shabbat's. Republican Manuel Lujan was interviewed by members of KUNM News and the New Mexico. You're listening to... On Eugene Gallegos was interviewed on Tuesday, October 10. Following both candidates were Andy Garmaze, Kathy Siddlachik, and myself Lloyd Covins of KUNM News, and from the Lobo, Dan Kovak.

Lobo reporters Sandy McCraw and Mark Blum joined the questioning for Candidate Gallegos. First we'll present Manuel Lujan, followed in approximately 35 minutes with Candidate Gene Gallegos. A announcement, Lujan, four years ago today on October 9, 1968, Richard Nixon asserted that those had a chance for four years and could not produce peace of Vietnam should not be given another chance. Do you agree with that statement? Wow, that's a long memory isn't it, four years. That's just necessarily. There's two sides to every question. It's not up to one individual to produce peace. It takes the two sides. The president has given an alternative to Hanoi, specifically one, return the prisoners to, give us a ceasefire, three, let's get a settlement so that the war does not continue. If Hanoi were to respond to those three requests, the war would be over tomorrow.

Defense Department figures show that American warplanes have dropped 3.7 million tons of bombs into China since 1969, which is nearly twice the time it's dropped by the U.S. over Europe and Asia after in all of World War II. Critics of the war have said that despite President Nixon's de-escalation of troops strengthened Vietnam that his bombing is intensifying the war in India, China. You agree with that? You've got to have something to bargain with. If we did no bombing, if we didn't know mining, if we didn't keep the pressure on to the North Vietnamese, what is there incentive then for trying to bring it to an end if we're just going to let them have their way, don't imagine that we would ever have peace if you put the pressure on. After all, you know, if you want something that I have or that we can work out together,

you must have something in return for it. For example, if I want your watch right now, the only way that I'm going to be able to get it is for me to make some kind of a concession unless you're kindhearted and say I'm going to give you the watch. So the bombing and the mining are kind of that sort of thing. We will stop the bombing, we will stop them, we will take out the mines because it will be better for you. But in return for that, you've got to agree to a piece. Do you feel that the war itself is still a campaign issue this fall? Very definitely, I think that the fact that when we went into office four years ago, there was over half a million troops there, and the fact that there's only 10 percent of that number there, I think is something that we very much want to tell the American public.

I definitely think that it is an issue, but it's an issue that is in the favor of the Republicans this year. Do you in any way suspect that there might be a peace settlement prior to November 7th with the accelerated meetings Henry Kessinger is carrying on now? I would hope so, I don't have any inside information, but whether it comes before November 7th or after November 7th, obviously I would hope that it came November the 10th tomorrow, but not for any political advantage just so that it would be over with. The congressional quarterly reports that 36 percent of all congressional meetings were held in secret last year, even when a majority of those meetings did not constitute a national security or personal privacy of individuals being involved, do you think this practice should be continued? Certainly, I think 36 percent is too high if that's correct. I belong to two committees in the Congress.

One is the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and one is the Select Committee on Small Business. In those two committees we have not held a single closed meeting except what we call Markup Session, and that is after you've heard all testimony and you're ready to proceed with amendments on the bill or approving it as it is or whatever, then in that case closed sessions are held, but generally you will have had hours and hours and hours of open meetings in order to arrive at the decision. Well, isn't it true that the House Ways and Means Committee holds all of its initial sessions in secret, those sessions where they discuss and draft all legislation that will come before the Congress? I couldn't tell you that. I'm not a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. I was speaking about the two committees that I belong to and that I have experience in. The only time I've ever been to Ways and Means Committee meetings is when I go in to testify

on some particular bill, I couldn't tell you honestly whether they hold their meetings in closed session. I've been to many open meetings that they have, perhaps when they're marking up the bill at the very end, as in most committees, then you do hold a closed session. This is the only time you'd see that it would be necessary to hold a closed session. I don't even know that it would be necessary to hold a closed session during markup except that there's less confusion and so on if you're holding a closed meeting. Generally I would say that I don't think any meeting should be held in private with the exception of perhaps some meetings with the Committee on Armed Services were some particular type of testimony that's in the national interest of the country.

But other than that I would say that all meetings should be open. Have incidents such as the Watergate Affair, the Soviet Green Deal, and the ITT Affair seriously undercut American confidence in this administration? I think those affairs have been bad for the image generally of all public officials. Not necessarily for one administration or the other, I seriously doubt that President Nixon knew that there were guys breaking into the Watergate. So I don't know that it would particularly harm him, but generally they do harm all public officials because, as you know, people generally think, well, they're all a bunch of crooks anyway. And so an Affair like this comes up and they say, well, it's just that some of them got caught and that just goes to prove the general theory that anybody in public life has its hand in the public till.

So I think that generally they do harm to the whole representative form of government that they have rather than to any one particular administration. You see, they got started on this business of investigating the campaign activities of one party, of the Republican Party, the committee to re-elect the president, and they found some irregularities in it. Then, of course, the Republicans say, well, check the Democrats, and so then they find some there. And it's natural, my gosh, if you have thousands of contributions, I suppose there's going to be some irregularities, maybe through errors or whatever the case may be. So again, I say, you know, I think it hurts the whole representative form of government rather than one side or the other. Should the Watergate case be postponed until after the election? No, probably not. I don't think so. Not for political reasons, anyway. If they might get a little bit of fair trial after the election, then for that reason, perhaps.

But for political purposes, certainly not. On Congressman Luhan, you mentioned that lots of people do figure that Congressman Han by hands in the till, and certainly the Ralph Natives report last week certainly didn't do anything to squelch this image. It was rather damaging to Congress, to say the least. Do you see any type of legislation that Congress can put on itself rules about the business dealings of Congressman that might give, put more faith on the public's part in their Congressman, rules that might require Congressman to divulge all of their holdings with respect to financial institutions, banks, things like this, so that there is more faith in government. Native mention campaign contributions is being a underhanded way, to some extent, of getting support for big business and leaving the little man at a loss. We have those laws on the books now. It's a matter of observing them as far as campaign contributions, for example. We all have to list all of the contributions that come in.

You have to list what expenses, so it's a matter of public record. As far as what business interests we have, those laws are on the books. Every year I have to fill in a form that I file with the clerk at the house and any reporter or any person can go in and look and see what my interests might be. I tell you right now that basically my interests are the Manuel Lujan Agency. We're in the real estate insurance business. We own some buildings. I don't have a great deal amount of stock in anything, only because I don't have a lot of money. If I had a lot of money, I'd probably have a lot of stock, and I'd have no reluctance in saying what I invested in or what after all, you know, we've got to continue to have whatever business interests we have.

I think that gives me a great deal of independence, for example. There's no one that can come into me and say, well, we're not going to vote against you, and so you're going to lose your job as a congressman and this and that and the other. Because if I do lose my job as a congressman, I've got my interest in the Manuel Lujan Agency, where I've got a job. I'm in January the first, if I'm not in Congress. I think that gives me a sort of an independence that would not be there if I didn't have any business interests. Do you favor the placing of ceiling on government spending? I most certainly do, as a matter of fact, I'm going back tonight just so that I will vote on a $250 billion ceiling. I would like it to be less than that, let me tell you. I would like to have a law such as the state of New Mexico has that you cannot spend more than you take in. Well, how many billions of dollars do you feel can be cut from the yearly defense expenditures? The last vote that I took, or that I made, was to cut 5 percent at that time. The bill, if my recollection is correct, was $72 billion, the cut was down to $68 billion.

I think that a 5 percent cut, almost in anything is a practical one. You've got to tighten your belt a little bit, and yet would not be so drastic as to impair our military preparedness at any time. I would vote almost any time on any budget for a 5 percent cut feeling that there's that much fat in any budget. Where else can the government save money? Well one that I've been looking at is on advisory committees, I've had legislation in to cut down there. We spend some $75 million, let me give you an example on that. When a person is named to an advisory committee, he gets his transportation, he gets his per diem for his expenses while he's in Washington to attend the meeting, and then in addition

to that, these committees pay him anywhere from $50 a day to $300 a day for being there. Well first of all, the man that accepts an appointment like that enhances his own professional ability. So that would let us have individuals who are capable without having to pay him that extra $50 to $300 a day, and that would mean a cut of about $75 million per year. What is the point of having advisory committees selected by the president when, after they make their advice, down on research, the president doesn't listen to these. I can think of two in particular, the commission on pornography and the commission on marijuana and refunds, either one of these was regarded. Well he probably didn't agree, after all, he is the chief executive and he must make the final decision. But when you tell me that you remember two, and when the research shows that in HEW alone there's 1,500 committees, it shows that perhaps the other 1,498 did have some impact upon how

we run HEW or run the federal government. It's a pretty general statement that he doesn't listen to him anyway, and so long as same line as that last question, on a California ballot this November, it's going to be a referendum called Proposition 19, which allows the people of California to vote on whether they want to all criminal penalties for the simple use, possession and cultivation of marijuana removed. Would you favor this form of a referendum on the New Mexico ballot allowing the people to decide this question? Would I, you're saying, if I would favor the referendum, I have no objection to referendums per se, whatever the subject is, and letting the people express themselves, as to whether I favor the proposition of whether we remove all penalties for the use of marijuana. No I certainly don't, it's a crime, supposing we removed all kinds of penalties from other

crimes. That would tend to lower the crime rate, but not the happenings, not the incidents. Going back to the commission on marijuana and drug abuse, President ignored the findings of a comprehensive study, which entailed more than 50 independent studies and over a million dollars in research of the 13 commissioners, nine were appointed by President Nixon himself to look into the matter. Don't you think that it might be detrimental to people who are involved in this sort of thing? I certainly don't think so, my gosh, because you appoint a commission doesn't necessarily tie you to accepting their findings, he disagreed with them, just like I disagreed with them. I don't think that we ought to legalize marijuana. On Friday, October 6th, your opponent charged that you have missed 72% or 51% of 71 roll-called

votes since mid-August, is this true? I think it's since September 21st, is the figure that he used, yes, no, excuse me, I left, it's been 100% since September 21st, yes, that's true, I've got to come home and campaign, I'm no dummy, you know, what he really wants is for me to stay in Washington while he's out here campaigning, and I've got to come on out and do some campaigning myself. Well, the president in his campaign strategy has used in the, since September 3rd or Labor Day, rather, 6th, has made three appearances, whereas his 37 surrogate candidates as the White House calls them, has made some 450 in his behalf. And that way, and since it is generally believed you're leading quite substantially into Mexico, would you also buy the proposition that it's more important for you to stay in Washington

and legislate since you are ahead rather than campaigning here in the state? Well, first of all, I don't have the 37 surrogate candidates that you're talking about to come out and do my campaigning for me. No, I don't think so, I think that the Congress has stayed in session too long, and that the practicalities of the campaigning dictate that I be here. Also, you've got to realize that when the president just makes three campaign appearances, he's got command of the media, any time that he wants to, all he's got to say is, I want to make a speech, and all the media will be there to listen to what he says. I don't have that advantage. You're from Northern, the Congressional District of Representing, Northern New Mexico, is one of the state's loveliest areas, it's also one of the state's poorest areas.

And it comes down to legislation in which you have to weigh environmental concerns with economic concerns, where would you put your priority as, you know, considering jobs and money for the people in that area? Well, I don't think that it's as in any other question, it's not a black, white issue. You've got to kind of look at the whole thing, let me give you an example. For example, I was talking in Las Vegas at a dinner on Friday night, and I pointed out the fact that we can have both. We can have both jobs, and we can have the preservation of the environment, specifically is the bill on Vermeco that I have, that I have sponsored. I don't know if you've ever been up there, but there is mining activity there. There is timbering activity there. There are some 25,000 head of elk, 4,000, or rather 25,000 head of deer, 4,000 head of elk. There's grazing of some 15,000 head of cattle, and all of these things go in together,

and that's what we call the multiple-use concept, and that's what I believe in. I think we've got to have the jobs, we've got to take advantage of the natural resources that we have, while at the same time, we've got to keep in mind that we then don't just chop up the mountainside, and so I think we can accomplish both. That's not a question of saying, well, we're going to preserve the environment, or, on the other hand, we're going to have jobs. I think we can have both. For example, to what degree would you curtail the exporting of power and natural resources from New Mexico to other regions, which can pay more specifically the four-corner's plant area? In years ahead, with the energy crisis, we can expect this greater pressure from areas that have more money to offer for our natural resources. Should it be New Mexico citizens that can use these controlled prices, or should they be exported for purely economic reasons?

Well, again, I think you have to take kind of a middle road. You've got to remember that at that power plant, there's some 300 Navajos that work there, and that certainly is important to New Mexico. The point is not whether we shut off the power plant or not. The point is that we continue to produce power and continue to provide these 350 jobs, but at the same time that we put the pressure on the Arizona Public Service Company, which in this case is the operating company of that four-corner's power plant, but put the pressure on them so that there is no pollution. I think it would be counterproductive, just to say, let's go close the power plant. If we did that, and we followed that to its logical conclusion that we've closed all power plants, we couldn't be sitting here today, and operating this equipment and offering this public service to your students. My point wasn't specifically on the four-corner's plant and pollution as much as taking another

example. I'll pass on natural gas, which is curtailed service to southern New Mexico to send it to the West Coast. Well, I think that's wrong. Okay. What can be done to avoid this kind of priority base in natural resources in the years ahead? Well, that in our contracts with the Southern Union Gas Company that we say, in no way shall you curtail the use of gas to the residents of New Mexico. Now, if you have some excess, then you can export it. But your first responsibility is to New Mexico citizens. Congressman Lujan, why did you vote against a bill for protecting EGOLSA when I came before the House? Well, it had two provisions in it. One, the one that I objected to is that an informer could turn in his neighbor for killing an eagle and receive a bonus for it. I kind of thought that it was kind of like 1984 where your neighbor is spying on you and

just waiting to turn you into big brother to get $5,000 reward. I think that's wrong. I don't think we should encourage that sort of thing. You think that's the same issue at hand with programs such as TIPS where people are encouraged to turn in drug pushers for monetary return? I don't particularly care for that. No, I don't like the informer role in this society. From which segments of the minority groups in New Mexico do you expect to gain electricity through its support in November 7th? I would hope from all, from old and young and black and everybody. I would hope to get the proportion of amount from everyone. I would hope to get 100. No, I couldn't get 100 percent. No, what I care for 100 percent, really. Well, you believe about 90, maybe? One out of 100 percent. Oh, I don't know. It would probably destroy the two-party system, maybe 90 wouldn't destroy it quite as much.

Once you're a Spanish surname, Congressman, are you ever consulted in Washington on legislation concerning minority group manners? Yes, sir. I certainly am. Bilingual programs, for example, representation of the Congress in, well, for example, in a trade conference in Venezuela, represented, represented the views of the United States at inter-parliamentary conferences with Mexico, I get involved in a lot of those things. Is Mug governs five-point agenda, which contains 22 specific points to better be Dave or Spanish surname of Americans in this country, a good idea, do you feel? I don't know his 22-point agenda or five-point agenda. It's the one you made when he was in Espanol. I don't, do you have it there, let me know. Now, it contains improvements in health, education, government opportunities, employment. Beautiful.

If it'll accomplish those things. I don't know what they are specifically. I think we should be more specific as to what we do when we say we want to provide more jobs. Well, how are we going to provide more jobs when we say we've got to improve the health standards of people? Well, how, you know, just I think that these beautiful statements serve no useful purpose. I don't believe in just general statements like that. I like to see them backed up by the specific program that he has in mind. What is your attitude on quota systems for getting minorities into government and other fields? Because strict quota is a desirable thing because then you have a counter discrimination. But I do think that in areas where we have had neglect, such as in minority employment, that a greater emphasis be made in order to bring that segment of the population up to

par. But so far as saying there are 10 percent Spanish-speaking Americans in the United States. So therefore, 10 percent is the amount of jobs that should be set aside in the federal government for Spanish-speaking. If it's 8 or if it's 12, quite limited to 10. If we have enough capable people to take it beyond the 10. Do you have any native American Indians working on your stuff? No, I don't at the present time. I have a lesser sound of all work for me for a year, but I quit to go on to graduate school at the present time I don't. Have you issued a position paper concerning Native Americans problems? No. I don't normally issue position papers. Those are for guys that want to talk in generalities as we were talking about. My record is pretty well known. For example, I was the first New Mexico national representative that advocated returning

of Blue Lake to the Towns Pueblo. I have sponsored legislation to put $40 million into the expansion of businesses by American Indians on and on and on. I don't think that position papers necessarily accomplish much. Those are fine when you don't do things, but when you do things, then you talk about the things that you've done and what your record is as far as the citizens of the country are concerned. Do you think there should be federal legislation or federal land use legislation should deal with, or to help deal with situations like we have in Cologne as they sound a fay, where you have a housing development going up on an Indian reservation, which therefore creates a controversy as to who has control over this jurisdiction with regard to pollution. You've got to consider that as far as Indian reservations are concerned that the United

States government has treaties with them, just like we do with any other foreign nation or not any other. It's not a foreign nation, but we have binding treaties, and so that, therefore, the state of New Mexico doesn't really have the jurisdiction to go in there, nor do I think that we ought to infringe upon the right of an Indian tribal council to run its own affairs. I think, however, that we should have cooperation, that the state of New Mexico, or the federal government, or the county, whatever it may be, should cooperate and try to work together with the Indian Council so that we have a controlled sort of growth. So far as passing laws that say, as you cannot do this on an Indian reservation, I don't think we can.

I think we would be violating the treaties that we have with them. Recently in the press, you've charged that your opponent, Eugene Geigos, would add some $208 billion, is that correct, to the national spending? As specific areas, are you saying that he will advocate more spending? Well, I don't have with me the book that Gene brought out before the primary, but it took the different programs that he would like to see enacted everything, from guaranteeing everybody a job. If they didn't have a job, the federal government would give them one. What I felt was socialized medicine. So what I did, I took this book, and we estimated what each one of the various programs that he was advocating would cost, and that's how we arrived at the $208 billion. So you were saying with the socialized medicine you just referred to, you would be against

a national hospitalization program as advocated by Senator Kennedy? Absolutely. What do you feel is the fault of this? Well, in the first place, you're going to have to start up by a whole new department. The first thing you're going to have to do is add 60,000 employees of the federal government to administer this, and the cost has been estimated anywhere from $72 billion to $114 billion. Can be administered through ATW? Well, if you're going to have a program of national health care for 200 million Americans, the present staff of HEW would not be sufficient to do it. Senator Kennedy himself has indicated that you would have to set up a whole new bureaucracy in order to handle it. You've been talking about cutting budgets that there's been too much money spent.

How about, as far as higher education is concerned, specifically the universities and then going on down the line from there? Well, I think we ought to live within our income. I don't talk just about cutting down on spending. Let me give you an example, for example, on the HEW labor appropriation this year. I was criticized very much because I voted to uphold the president's veto. Well, what it really was was that in 1972, we spent $27 billion. The proposal for 1973 was $28 billion, but by the time it got through with the House and everything, it was $30 billion, and so I objected to going from 27 to 30. I had no objection to going from 27 to 28, but I thought that going up to 30 was excessive. So then you get branded while you're just for cutting programs.

That's not really the case at all what we were objecting to is making the increase four times what HEW actually asked for. Your sponsorship of the Birmingham Ranch bill has been opposed by the Nixon administration quite publicly. Are there any other points in which yourself, your feelings, your proposals come in conflict with the current administration? Quite a number, a welfare reform, for example, the proposal that's been put up by the administration, which is a guaranteed annual income proposal, really, disagree with that. I voted against it. Revenue sharing, as it was originally proposed, I was in favor of it. As a matter of fact, I was one of a task force that went out across the country to sell the concept of revenue sharing. But that was getting together all programs that we had in this area and combining them and

sending it to the state and saying, all right, Mr. State, City or County, whatever it is, you make your own decisions. You're in a much better position than we are in Washington and making the decision. But as it finally came out, it was just adding another $5 billion program. And so I voted against it. And so I'm in disagreement on that with the administration. Lastly, I guess, concerning the national campaign, do you feel that this has been an issues oriented or a personality oriented campaign? I think very much it's been a personality oriented campaign. I'm very disappointed, really, in the way that it's been conducted. I'm particularly critical of Senator McGovern for a man of that stature running for the presidency of the United States to lower himself to a little name calling, you know, the

other night he called the president Tricky Dickie. That's all right. You know, for a bunch of kids sitting around and kicking around political questions. But for a man running for the presidency of the United States, it's just unthinkable to me. And so I've been very disappointed in the way that the campaign has been conducted. Well, on the other hand, Secretary of Defense, Melvin Lair charged that McGovern, quote, was willing to act as an agent for Hanoi. Is this kind of name-coiling? Would you object to that kind of name calling also? Well, yes. I certainly would. Maybe we're going to talk about when Melvin Laird said that we ought to include in the budget a line item to buy a whole bunch of white flags because, in his opinion, cutting the budget to the extent that Senator McGovern was saying that we ought to cut the military budget meant surrender. It was a way of, it wasn't on the campaign trail, incidentally.

It was before a committee, and after all, you've taken debating and you stress your point in the best way that you possibly can. And that's how Secretary Laird felt would bring the point across, and it really did. Do you think George McGovern, when he calls President Tricky Dickie, is also bringing a point across? No, I'm talking about this is out on the campaign trail. What Melvin Laird was doing was making his point to a Senate investigating committee. And so it's a different situation completely. And I guess, what do you foresee now between now and November 7th, as far as your activities, you're going to be fully, all-heartedly campaigning? Well, I'm leaving at two o'clock in the morning to go back to Washington. I'll be there this week and then come next week, I'll just hit the campaign trail again. We've been talking with Representative Manuel Lohan, the incumbent for the Northern District

of New Mexico. We're speaking with Eugene Gallegos, candidate for the first congressional district of New Mexico for Congress. In a real hand, we'll be Andy Garmazzy and Kathy Zidlachik, along with myself, Lloyd Covens of KUNM News, from the New Mexico Lobo, Mark Blum, Sandy McCraw, and Dan Callback. For the first question, we'll go to Andy. Mr. Gallegos, what's your feeling on President Nixon's three-point piece proposal to end the war in India, China? I don't think it is a proposal to end the war. I think President Nixon, in 1969, had two basic alternatives, and the first was to really end the war by dropping the United States' demand for control over and overseeing the makeup of the South of the East Government, and then putting it through all day and being

out. Number two, to change the nature of the war, so it would be more politically digestible by making it into an air war instead of a land war, hoping by an air war that he could achieve some kind of a military success so that we could still control what government would be in time, South Vietnam. I feel only now, in the very last few days, as he really had any interest in ending the conflict on any other terms, and then what he elected would be his terms in early 1969. What type of terms do you think is going under what change in terms do you see him working under? I think he's about ready to throw in the towel on the insistence that we have the kind of government that we want in South Vietnam.

That's the one bargaining chip that could have been dropped on the table by President Johnson, and we would have been out. That's been the only real stumbling plot to the end of that conflict for five years. I think Mr. Nixon is about ready to make that concession. Are you saying, in other words, no longer support the choosing and banning our support of the choosing? That's right. I think that's what he's up to, and if he can find some compromise way to do that. Now, in your statement, our programs on foreign policy, you mentioned something about the United States should abandon its role as a provider of military support, and nations should begin to consider it as a nation with its, you know, looks toward us as a nation that helps other nations, et cetera. I do think this wouldn't put us down in the eyes of other nations if we abandoned this government that we've supported so long, in other words, well, we're too faced.

Not at all. I think we might regain a little of the prestige and respect that we certainly have lost by our role in Vietnam. We, I don't see how any kind of foreign policy posture could have been more harmful to us on an international basis than what we've done there. You mean, then, coming into another area where there's already a conflict in inserting our troops in our policy to try to, in some way, make a settlement in an area which really doesn't concern us? Well, I mean, basically, in injecting ourselves into a civil war, a civil dispute between peoples of the same country and our trying by the use of military force to determine the outcome of that conflict for our own best interest so that a certain competing group would prevail because they happen to be on our side.

That's what I say we should not do. What do you think is contingent for the release of POWs? If the bombings and mining were to stop, would you be in favor of still keeping a reserve force in the area until the POWs were released? Well, I think the release of POWs in the accounting for missing an action could be a parallel activity to our withdrawal. I think that once we make the concession that I previously mentioned, we can set a time table. It doesn't, the number of days don't matter that much, a hundred or whatever, in which we would be withdrawn and they would be releasing the prisoners of war to a neutral country. Those activities would go on parallel. And the question you asked, the answer beforehand regarding what do you think American foreign policy should not be and how it has been wrong? How do you think this can be changed and how do you think American foreign policy should be forward looking into the 70s and 80s?

Well, it's almost amazing to me the amount of the number of people who still hold on to the domino theory, maybe in their mind they don't put that label on, but they still have this idea that every hostility that rises around the world when a particular road-wing government dictator, cries wolf and says, hey, these are communists, I need help find them that this is part of this domino theory and that there's some single entity of communism that's sprained around the world. We've got to mature enough to make a judgment as to what is really happening, what's really happening in the Philippines, for example, what's really happening in any country around the world, is it a dictatorship and oppressive government being challenged by its own people because of their growing nationalism and their desire for freedom, or is it some outside force intervener, what is it?

We're going to have to start looking at these things objectively and we're going to have to realize that there's going to be political questions and political conflicts that arise all around the world and that we can't go around solving those questions with military responses and that there is a limit. If we learn anything in Vietnam, we should learn that there's a limit to what a military force can do anyway and particularly in settling a political question. Are you then calling for a semi-isolationist foreign policy? No I don't think so, I think it can be balanced. I don't think that it seems to be felt that there's only two alternatives either where the policeman of the world or where isolationist. That doesn't have to be at all. I think we can find some kind of a balanced approach to things. Now for example, let's take the mid-east situation. I don't think we put our heads in the sand. I think supplying some argument and planes to Israel has helped maintain a balance of power

since 1967 and by reason of that we've avoided major hostilities so that there has been time and I hope more time for working out of the conflict so we've got a role in what happens around the world but we don't earn respect and we don't solve problems by just jumping into these conflicts and particularly civil conflicts like in Vietnam. Do you think the United States should maintain that role in the Middle East that it has? Yes, I don't see it as an active interventionist in the mid-east. The most active role I think we could play is direct negotiations with the Soviet Union to try and get their agreement to withdraw their presence from the mid-east. Haven't they done so?

To quite an extent. Well they got kicked out of Syria, I don't know that they're out of Egypt. I think there's some withdrawal there but they still have a presence in a number of the countries. Would you be in favor of our not supplying arms to Israel if the Soviets agreed not to supply arms to any Arab states? In other words leaving it totally just between the two countries or would you still like to see the United States supplying arms to Israel even if we didn't get this over. Well I think as long as we're satisfied that there's a balance that Israel can hold alive from a security standpoint, if Russia stops the flow of arms and there is that balance and it seems to be there now and then in that event we can stop. That would be a welcome development and that might come. In fact I see the whole mid-east situation coming to settlement that way, piecemeal. I don't believe we'll ever see the United Arab Republic in the various countries involved

in Israel sitting down around a table like we are and here's the treaty and here's the pans. There are the TV cameras and everything's done now. It isn't going to come that way. It's going to come by little steps here and there a lot of defact of unwritten agreements and I think that's the way it'll be settled and that's why if there's no major hostility for a long period of time those kind of piecemeal almost really unspoken solutions begin to come about. The Congressional courtedly reports that 36% of all congressional committee meetings were held in secret last year. And when a majority of those meetings didn't constitute national security or individual privacy matters, do you think this practice should be continued? No, I don't. I think they should be held in public except for there's matters of national security or perhaps personal privacy and I also think committee votes should be recorded.

I think there should be teller voting in committees. The Ways and Means Committee holds all of its sessions in which it drafts and discuss the year's legislation in secret. What would you do in Congress to prevent or in some way to make those Ways and Means Committees meetings at the initial one's public? Just what we were talking about, it required that those sessions be held in public before the press be subject to attendance by members of the press. And I also feel that this practice of having such control over the flow legislation itself should be reformed. For example, you know that even after Ways and Means has said this is what we're going to consider. Still, there's another point of friction loss in the process where the committee chairman decides what bills are coming up.

And I think at least a majority of the committee, if not even a lesser number, should be able to petition and on their petition legislation be conserved by the committee. You've said that you are in favor of decentralizing the federal government as such, of moving major federal departments into medium-sized towns across the nation relocating them. How can you deal with the secrecy that does need to go on between the departments and the effect of that, if say the H.E.W. was in San Francisco and the Department of Defense was in Houston, how could what is now unique about Washington be maintained over these wide geographic distances? What's all the secrecy for? I don't really don't see that there's any particular merit in trying to preserve a physical location that contributes to the secrecy or the security of dealings of government agencies. I think that's one of the biggest problems in government operation now is that they sweep

under the table things that they don't want known under the guise of security or some kind of confidentiality and then they do publicity releases on the things that they want the public to know. Why not have it out in the open and if it will achieve that and it never occurred to me that that might be achieved by this decentralization and to me that's just another good reason for decentralizing. Well how do you account for the fact that there already are quite a number of branches of the different departments in major cities now, isn't that a form of decentralization of these departments? It's not decentralization of control, it's decentralization probably of some of the functions, but I'm talking about getting, for example, the Department of Agriculture itself, the main location of its operations out of Washington and out to Des Moines, I will say, for example, with transportation and communication facilities being what they are, why not?

Maybe these people would begin to communicate with and actually exist with the kind of people that they're supposed to be serving. What kind of fate would be in store for Washington DC then? I think the best possible thing that maybe it would quit this expansion that has created a terrible problem of congestion and pollution. Washington DC isn't going to shrink, that's for sure. We know that, but with three and a half million people in that general metropolitan area, it doesn't need to grow anymore, and maybe it could catch up with some of the problems it has now. Have incidents such as the Watergate Affair, Soviet grain deal and ITT, seriously undercut American confidence in government? I hardly think so, it's a strange thing this year and maybe we're going to look back on it in some years to come and say this was a turning point in this nation, but if you

ask people if they're questioned on a poll, what do they think is the most important quality among people who hold public office or seek office, they'll say honesty by far, rank that way out of head. But now these things that are happening in government which clearly show dishonesty, clearly dishonesty and corruption among the people holding office is not affecting the electorate this year, one aisle, they aren't paying attention to it, it's my feeling that most of the American public, when they see a story about that, don't even read the story, they're not even interested, just strange thing, and I think maybe the reason is that the majority of American people are comfortable, they have a winning combination as far as they're concerned, they've got their home and a couple of cars and they've got a job, they don't want to rock the boat, and that's their main concern now, and as a result, things like

this are just going by the wayside, and as I've been in some government, it's what it's always been then, and it's not changed. That's right, there's not confidence or faith in government, definitely have that feeling, but they don't seem to care enough about that, it's not as important to them as a fact that if we make some changes, in other words we take those people out of office who are doing that and put somebody else in office who probably wouldn't do that, but would make some changes that might affect them a little bit, might mean some added taxes, or might raise a lot of some ethnic groups that they compete with, that they'd rather not have that happen, that these things go on. Do you think instead it could be that the American public has gotten used to these type of things coming up in a political campaign where you dig up as much dirt as you can, and

they figure it's just more mud-slinging, and that's why they're not paying attention to it? The Fair Campaign. The Fair Campaign Practices Committee came out yesterday saying this is probably going to go down into history as one of the worst campaigns, most unethical ever conducted. Well, that may be the case, but how could we ever, in America, think that we'd come to the situation where the national campaign headquarters of one of the parties would be bugged, would be monitored, and there'd be a surveillance on it, and then we'd look the other way. To me, and maybe this sounds a little bit over-dramatic or something, but to me, I can really see that after 72, we have another term for Mr. Nixon, and then what the Republican Party did in their convention, almost guaranteed that Vice President Agnew will be the nominee, and then we'll have eight years of spirit of Agnew, and then we'll be in 1984, and then people are going to look back, and they're going to say, well, there's

where it went, it all happened, and we nobody cared enough, and here we are, and we can have a society where surveillance on people and watching their activities and listening to everything they say, and all that will just be part of our everyday life. Well, what type of legislation would you propose, or do you, if elected, that you would like to see that could stop some of this surveillance? What's against the law now? I mean, what they're doing is illegal now. I don't know what more legislation can be required. We've got the laws. It has to become a matter of citizen concern, and citizens have to become our right over it, and I think it's then it's also a matter of leadership. What kind of men do you have in the Congress and in the presidency? I think those are the answers rather than more legislation. On your government reform, you say a limit should be placed on the number of terms of congressmen conserved, conserved in the past, both freshmen and senators and congressmen supposedly should be seen and

not heard. What are you going to do in an instance like that? I'll probably try and be seen and heard as much as I can. I realize that I'm not going to go back there and change the whole thing overnight. There have been plenty of young congressmen who had that idea and were frustrated about. So to be realistic, I hope to work together with what now constitutes a pretty good block of progressive congressmen in trying to chip away and achieve reforms, one by one, things like, say, retirement of committee chairman at age 65, election of committee chairman by the committee. Those two things, if I could do something for just those to achieve those two changes in the way businesses done the house, I'd be very pleased with that. I'll have to work with the leadership to some extent. I've got

to try and maintain committee appointments that are going to be beneficial to New Mexico. So, I don't have any illusions and I don't represent to you that I'm just going to go back and say, here I am, we're going to change this whole club after it's been going this way 150 years. What would be those committee appointments you'd be looking for that could help in Mexico and how would you try to work within those committees? The principal committee appointment I'd like to have is the joint committee on atomic energy. I've been voicing this since early in the campaign since the primary. You see, that is the only joint committee that can initiate legislation. And since it's inception, there has been a member of the New Mexico delegation on it. In fact, for a while there was Congressman Morrison, Senator Anderson. I think there's a very good chance. Now, I see Jack Dan as recently said, it looks like he's going to be fine. I hope so, but there's

an excellent chance. I don't know what vacancy he is, well, Senator Anderson's seat, I suppose. But in the house, Edmondson left that committee run for the Senate and Wayne Aspenhall was to feed in the primary in Colorado. I talked to Carl Albert a couple of months ago in Washington and he gave me to understand that at that time there was the Edmondson vacancy. And he said that that would probably go to Congressman from Washington. Hanover is in his district. And that the next one coming up would be a likelihood for me. Well, once come up just by that happenstance of Aspenhall's defeat. So I think I have a good chance to be on that committee. And if I'm on it, I'd like to work on the formulation of what I call a national energy policy for this country. And that is giving the atomic energy a new role, kind of a wider role in coordinating all of our research and development of new clean energy sources. Do you think enough research has been done

on atomic energy to warrant its use as a power source? Oh, yeah. I certainly think so. So I think the research and the fission reactors is sufficient. The fast breeder reactor is fairly far down the road to development. I think much more of our resources and efforts should be devoted to research and development of a thermonuclear device, a fusion reactor. It's still strictly in the experimental stage. But I really invite anyone who has any doubts to spend some time studying and talking to the people who work in that field. Because I think I have as high an environmental concern as anybody who's presenting themselves for public office, national office in this state. And yet I'm convinced that the people who work with reactors and work in that field know what they are doing tremendously conscious

of any potential hazards and have developed procedures to avoid those hazards. We'll come back to the environment later in the interview. You've proposed legislation to limit spending for campaigns for the House of Representatives to $20,000 as a reasonable figure. How much have you spent so far in the campaign? Between 35 and $40,000. And how much do you expect to spend totally? Probably 50 to 55,000. That's probably the limit of what we'll be able to. It seems that Reynolds is probably going to win the election in the swimming district. And I know you have quite a few differences with him philosophically. I think we'll work pretty well together. We do have a number of differences in viewpoint and I doubt that those will be resolved. We just see a lot

of things differently. But as far as working with him as an individual, as a congressman, we're going to work well together, I feel. Harold Reynolds is a guy who will level with you. I may not agree with you, but he's going to tell you where he stands. He's not going to, he's not wishy-washy about it. He's open. He's easy to talk to and work with and he's conscientious and already we have a lot of communication with his staff. I really think we'll work well together. There'll be a number of things that will be able to cooperate on, I'm sure. Do you favor the placing of a ceiling on government spending? Yes, I think that's acceptable to me. I think this $250 billion ceiling on government spending is fine. The question is not how much we spend. It's what we spend it on. Okay, you've advocated a $20 billion cut in the defense spending currently at about $85.4 billion. A majority of this will be coming from what we expect, the conclusion

of Vietnam conflict. How many billions of dollars do you expect to be pumped back into the rebuilding of Indochina? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know that we're going to undertake that. That'd be pure speculation. I don't know whether we're going to be able to undertake it. I'm not convinced that when the United States is out of Vietnam, that that conflict is going to be resolved. That civil war has been going on since 1945 and I wouldn't be surprised to see it continue in some form, maybe at a lower level and more of a guerrilla type war conflict. I wouldn't be surprised to see it continue for some time after we're actually out of it. Well, do you expect to, do you think we have moral commitment to rebuild those nations as we have at the conclusion of World War II? We probably do have some moral commitment to rebuilding if it can be achieved, if there

is an atmosphere of peace, I guess, of order, in which we could operate and do it. Yes, but that cost would be the extent of it. I have no idea. Outside of defense cuts, then where else can the government save money? He can save money on its own operations. If we rely on President Nixon, his government reorganization bill states that we would achieve a five billion dollar savings in the price of the operation of the federal government. I'll take his figure. Congressman Luhan has charged that your proposals will cost the taxpayers approximately $208 billion. Could you defend that? Absolutely. I can defend it because that's completely inaccurate. He, first of all, I think it's interesting in the public

ought to know that he had his pricing done by using his congressional office to parcel out to the Bureau of Land Management and HEW and various federal agencies in Washington. This work of pricing for him then to use this as political fodder. In other words, prepare his campaign material for him at taxpayers' expense. I'd like to know how much that cost. Now, at no expense to taxpayers using economists, some of them from here at the university and people on our staff, we have a pricing. It's in our issue booklet and it shows that we come out with the implementation of our programs and with tax reforms and cutting the budget of a net gain, a net savings of about $11 billion. In other words, this deficit would be closed by our pricing and so this $208 billion figure of his is completely an absolutely phony. I saw last night, he's never, I've asked him to show me his pricing

and he has never granted that request. But sitting with him last night at the Kiva, I just glanced over shoulder on our jobs program. We talk about a public works program in these areas of high unemployment. Now, there was a bill that passed the Congress calling for this very activity. It was vetoed by the president but it would have implemented this program and it had a $9 billion price tag. It was right there. Now, I look over at his work sheet on the thing and he's got a $60 billion price on it. So we're using figures that are established where he gets his and what they came up with, I don't know. And I'm sure on something like healthcare, my concept of a healthcare system for this country that stayed very specifically is not a parallel to the Kennedy Griffin bill. The Kennedy Griffin bill has a price tag of $77 billion. The program that I have in mind is going to cost about $8 billion. I would

imagine, this is a little hot and we'll let me see his papers, but I would imagine he's probably got that $77 billion Kennedy Griffin measure in there when he's pricing my program. So far as I'm concerned, he's talking through his hat when he talks about this $208 billion. In your welfare program, you talk about creating more jobs or training people to get jobs with the economy such as it is now, what kind of jobs are these people that are trained going to cap? What kind of jobs do you see them being trained for? Well, there are, with economy even as it is, and you'll find this here in Albuquerque, it's a prime example of it. There are a lot of jobs available if there are people with the skills to do them at any time. There are places of business here at any given time that can employ 20 or 30 people if those people just have some skills. I can name you places in the production of clothing, for example. A big problem here is not just unemployment,

but unemployability. People who need work don't have a marketable skill. I assure you that the pure fact of the lack of jobs is highly exaggerated. Yes, there is a lack of jobs, but there are many jobs you talk to businessmen and they'll tell you we could use people if these people just had some skills. In order to fight crime, you have proposed a national police academy costing $50 million. Sort of along the lines of how the military academies are running about training the officers and going through that sort of thing. Do you possibly foresee this turning into a police complex, like a military complex, the way anapolis and a West Point have turned out? No, I sure don't see it that way. That's not what's intended. What I see is a young person who has a regular four-year education, say in liberal arts course, then going on to

this academy for a course of a year or two or 18 months, whatever it is. That's what I had in mind. Not that that's the whole curriculum. But with a college background, then going to the academy and having the specialized training in criminology and law enforcement, then being prepared to go in as a commissioned officer in the local police forces. What I see is bringing into police work some people with a much different background than the typical officer we have now. I hope a background that would mean much more social consciousness, understanding of all groups of people, understanding the kind of people that an officer usually deals with. What I made me now, I think, is kind of just the opposite of what I think maybe was the implication in your question. One of the points of your welfare program is work in incentives so that the person on welfare, when he works, earns more than he

does off welfare, which has been one of the biggest scribes against the welfare system. How is this different from President Nixon's plan that he proposed and came out with about a year ago with a work incentive type deal? I'm really not aware of anything in President Nixon's program that amounts to true work incentive that I know of. Really, maybe I'm just not that conversant with his program. I know he's got a minimum income level and he does have something that if you work and you measure these two things together, you make so much then your income is supplement, so you have a certain level of subsistence. So I guess that's basically his work incentive. I'm talking about a scaled allotment of benefits so that you match up the public assistance, food stamps, and Medicare value, and then the person's work and you reduce those but you don't reduce them totally so that he comes

out substantially better with his income from earnings as opposed to the person who elects not to work. And also in your program, you mentioned something about young people in northern New Mexico, especially who come from well to do families and are well educated but go on welfare and you said these should be required to live in the state for a period of time and also work on public works projects. Were you referring to hippies and commune type inhabitants? Well, not necessarily. I think that would include some of them and I'm not striking at them. It includes a large group of people. But I really think that it is fair to have their participation in the kind of projects that I talk about and that there would be a lot of good for me. And I wouldn't be surprised that many of them would welcome that role, particularly in say environmental core, something of that sort. Just briefly on your national energy policy,

you have an annual new savings of $5 million and this is through the consolidation of existing agencies. Are these major agencies you're talking about? For instance, the AEC, the EPA, all of the environmental, no, no, it would be, it would involve bringing over basically the Federal Power Commission and two sub-departments of the Department of Interior under the AEC, the National Energy Commission, NEC, and not the EPA. In fact, I see taking out certain functions of the AEC and putting them under the NEPA. There's an inconsistency in the AEC being the licensing authority and the regulating authority and the use of atomic reactors. And at the same time, the promoter of them and developing them, that function ought to come out and go over under the Environmental Protection Agency. So those conflicts you'd

seek to resolve them? That's right. So those are the agencies. I'm talking about going under the AEC and achieving the savings. On the California ballot this November, there's going to be a referendum called Proposition 19, which will allow the people of California to vote on whether they want all criminal penalties for the simple use, possession, and cultivation of marijuana removed. Do you favor this form of a referendum on the New Mexico ballot allowing this choice up to the people? Yes. I would favor seeing a question like that, presented to a referendum. On one of your court reforms, you say, alcoholism and drug addiction should not be dealt with through the regular judicial system. There are medical rather, these are medical rather than legal problems. They call for prompt confinement of medical and rehabilitative treatment, not trial and imprisonment. How would you rehabilitate somebody on marijuana? I don't think you rehabilitate somebody on marijuana because that's not an addictive

drug. Basically, what I'm addressing myself there to is those who are addicted, who are really rendered unable to function by either the drug of alcohol or addictive, hard drugs. Should you legalize marijuana? I'm content with what the New Mexico legislature has done with it for the present, and that is to make possession of less amounts of misdemeanor. What type of controls would you like to see put on other types of medications such as tranquilizers, diet pills, these things, and... Yeah. That's one of the real areas of concern. Most people fail to recognize it. They talk about drug culture and they think about some young people down in the park, but the drug culture is 200 million people. Everybody's got to have their aspirin or whatever it is.

One of the first things I do is that I would require some of the pharmaceutical houses to quit over-producing the market on drugs and to just produce what is the legitimate prescription market because you take your reds, sacrabarbitales. American companies are way over-producing the market and they know that, and then they're putting these drugs into commerce where they know they go to Mexico and then they come back in in black market and they end up on campuses and school grounds. That doesn't have to be. They can put a trace component. I think they should be required by law to put a trace component in their drugs so that it can be determined that that was manufactured by American company if it shows up on the street and also that we make a measure of how much production will fulfill, as I said, what I think is the legitimate market and that's all that they ought to produce.

Are you in favor of programs such as TIPS, TIRN and PUSHER, where persons are paid for in forming on drug salesmen? I don't know what the success of those programs have been, but I think that's a good program. So you are for the philosophy of monetary return for information leading to, you think that's an effective way to combat the problem? I doubt the effectiveness of it, really. If it does sound good, I think so, but something has to be realized about this PUSHER business. In my experience, and I work directly in a methadone drug program in Santa Fe, Elvisio, in my experience, the users are the ones selling it by and large at the local level. It's a guy who's supporting the habit. He's not some guy standing behind a tree with a black cape and just selling it to people. So really, he's one of the kind of people that you need to help and you need to be work

on rehabilitation and do more in that respect than just arresting him. That's such a simple and easy answer for somebody to say, well, let's get after the PUSHER and solve the drug problem. It just isn't that easy. The PUSHER at the level that the law enforcement officer usually deals with him is a user too. And he's a guy who needs to be given the opportunity to be in a rehabilitation program or some kind, and then he's no longer a PUSHER. From what segment of minority groups in the Mexico, do you expect to gain electorate support? Well, of course, I hope to gain electorate support from all segments in my district. I'm trying to think it's pretty close. Who's the minority group? Because that Chicano and the Anglo are pretty evenly balanced in my district. I think it's pretty close. I hope to gain some support from the Anglos, the minority group in this district. From all, really, the Indians, the Indians only compose Indian population is one or two

percent in this district. And then black population is also very small. White and brown is very, pretty evenly balanced in this district. Concerning the Native American Indians, since New Mexico is one of the states, which does it anyway, have a large segment, comparatively speaking, do you have any American Indians working on your staff? No, I don't. Would you, if elected, seek to have some work? Definitely. And I have taken that position before, for now. I have one final question, Mr. Gagos. Would you concede your election if it would bring peace in Vietnam? I might be willing to do that, although there are so many other pressing problems. That's the reason I hesitate. To me, I feel that there are so many other things

that are wrong and that I disagree with the way this job is being done. I hesitate to say that Vietnam, that conflict has to come to an end. But our whole attitude toward national priorities, the way we're doing things in this country, those are equally important problems. And that's why I think my presence in the House would be helpful to those things as well as to the end of that conflict. There's a last short question on the national political campaign. Do you think this has been an issues oriented or a personality oriented campaign? You're asking me about the national campaign, Senator McGovern and President Kennedy's campaign.