Illustrated Daily; 6030; Jeff Bingham Interview

It is Thanksgiving recess, and New Mexico's congressional delegation is home for the holiday. Time for an exclusive interview with the state's Democratic United States Senator Jeff Binghamon. That's coming up next on the Illustrated Daily. The Illustrated Daily, Managing Editor How Roads, Good evening. It was just about three years ago at this time that then New Mexico Attorney General Jeff Binghamon surprised the experts by defeating an incumbent Republican United States Senator Jack Schmidt in the 1982 General Election. Since that time, the New Mexico Democrat has endured the obligatory freshman year or two of watching and learning the ways of the United States Senate. But over the past

year or so, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Binghamon has begun to leave his own signature on the affairs of this nation, most notably in recent months on the proposed comprehensive Pentagon reform measure. That measure, scheduled for Senate hearings after the first of the new year, has been characterized by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater, the Republican from Arizona, as potentially the most important defense legislation to have evolved over the past four decades. A look at this and other matters tonight in a one-on-one interview with Senator Jeff Binghamon. And Senator Binghamon, welcome back to the Illustrated Daily. There's to be here, how? Senator, starting with this defense department reform measure, why is it being characterized as potentially the most important piece of defense legislation to have emerged over the past three or four decades? Well, how what's contemplated in this and of course still remains to be seen how far we get with the reform measure. But what's contemplated is a major reorganization

of the defense department in order to try to get a more efficient and effective management process in place. You go back over the wars and the military combat situations we've been in in recent decades and even before that. And you can see problems in the chain of command. You can see lack of coordination between the services. You can see difficulties of the Secretary of Defense working with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, working with the individual service chiefs. And we're trying to begin to address some of those problems and do so before the next military engagement occurs. Right. You have an advantage over us. You sit on the Armed Services Committee. You are privy to a lot of information and insight, born of that vantage point. When you say we can look back and we can see management problems within the chain of commands over the past decades, that doesn't mean a lot to most folks here in New Mexico. Is there

a way to demonstrate for them what those problems are and how they affect them? Well, there are a lot of examples a person can pull out. One is the incident or the problem we had with the Marines in Lebanon over a year ago now. When you go back and say who was responsible and who was in charge and who's in the chain of command over that Marine Corps unit that was there. P.X. Kelly, General Kelly who is head of the Marine Corps, the commandant, is in no sense in the chain of command. He had nothing to say about it and yet he was being pulled on the carpet to explain what had gone wrong and to justify the precautions which had been taken or not been taken. How would the commandant of the Marine Corps be exempt from the chain of command in the situation of this sort? Well, in a combat

situation where there's actual fighting to be done, it's clear that the fighting is under the chain of command, under the Military Reorganization Act of 1947, which set up the Defense Department. The Secretary of Defense is to work through the unified and specified commanders in each different area of the world. And the individual services, the Navy, the Air Force, the Army, the Marine Corps are really not part of that chain of command in a direct sense. They provide troops, they provide supplies and all to that unified commander who then has responsibility for carrying out the duties. I think that that's one example. Another example of the problems is in the case of Grenada. Everybody thinks on Grenada as a major success in certain ways it was. But there were major problems in the ability of the Navy to communicate with the Air Force in the case of Grenada. Problems

with the interoperability of their various radios so that they could make contact as necessary. One of the key calls which had to be made from the ground to bring in additional air support was made on a regular credit card that was used to pay telephone. Those are problems which we hope to avoid in serious military encounters in the future. And only by thinking through the organization of the Defense Department and proposing some solutions at this time can we hope to avoid that problem in the future. I'm taking those illustrations as problems. What would the organization reform major do to remedy them? And how would we be better protected, better served as a consequence? Well, it would do a series of things. There are 90 some odd recommendations in the study that we've come out with which we're going to hold hearings on as you indicate it.

But some of what it would do would be to put more power in the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff so that that's not so much a group that operates by committee consensus. I think that we need more authority vested there. It would also put more authority in these unified and specified commanders so that they are not going ahead in hand to each different service saying, please provide this. Please advise me as to your position on that and what would happen. We've got to have a mechanism in place and a structure in place for wartime which somewhat resembles what we've got in peacetime so that we don't have a one set of orders and structures and hierarchies in place for the average day to day operation and then assume that that can be replaced overnight with something completely different when we get into combat and that's what we're doing today. I've heard it said that we will perhaps have a better administered defense department

as a consequence of this better management. But would we be better defended? Is our national defense apt to be stronger as a consequence of this or does it make any difference one way or the other? I think we'll have a stronger national defense. I think we'll get more national defense for the dollars we put into the military. Clearly you're not going to fix all the problems. The defense department is an enormous organization but I think that it has been allowed to grow and much of the inefficiency in the defense department today as a result of the fact that no one's been able to take on a serious review of the way it's structured and that's what we're trying to do. As I say you've got tremendous inertia in the system resisting any kind of major reform but I think that Senator Goldwater is very serious about it, Senator Nunn's very serious about it and with the commitment that they have

to it I think we may make some real progress this next year. I've heard a lot of people express surprise of at Senator Goldwater's interest in this project given his historic support of the defense department. Some people used to call it unquestioned support. What brought, furthermore let me further tell you what surprises me. The bipartisan nature of this, you're deeply involved, Nunn's deeply involved, Goldwater's deeply involved. I mean that's a rather interesting bipartisan portrait of the Senate Armed Services Committee. What brought this about? Well it is not surprising to me having sat through many, many committee hearings with the committee members there and Senator Goldwater asking questions. He is a strong defender of national defense but he is at the same time a critic of the inefficiencies that he sees there. He's pointed out one of the first things that struck me when I got in the Armed Services Committee was his cross examination of the Navy in their presentation of their

budget as to why they had requests for 16 different types of aircraft to be constructed for naval uses. He felt that was inefficient. We should have fewer aircraft and be able to buy them in larger quantities and get a much more efficient buy. That's a very valid point in my view and it's just one example of him trying to get more efficiency, more defense out of the dollars we spend. American public has heard a good deal in recent months, past year or so, about $600 coffee pots and you know $250 crescent wrenches and what have you. Is it conceivable that somehow those kinds of buys as it were would be eliminated, ought they be eliminated as a consequence of this reform? Well indirectly I think the number of such horror stories will be reduced. I think that the Secretary of Defense, if this reorganization were to go forward, would have a better

ability to demand accountability from the people who are procuring weapons systems and procuring spare parts and there would be a clear line of authority and I believe that the number of instances of significant waste would be reduced. All right. We have a bicameral legislative system in this country. What's happening over on the House side in Congress? Complementary to or commensurate of the Senate entered efforts. There's a bill which has been developed over the last several years in the House Armed Services Committee which deals with a piece of what we're talking about. It deals with the problem of reorganization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That's a major piece of what we're talking about but it's only part. I think they're going to look at our proposals in the other areas and I hope that as a result of these hearings that we've got scheduled for after the first of the year, we can bring the House Armed Services Committee members along and

hopefully get their support for some of these reforms. Is the traditional Defense Department old guard going to gang up on this major at these hearings? What do you expect to happen there? Oh, I think there'll be a lot of that. It's already started at some of the preliminary hearings that we've had and the issue comes down to whether you think anything's broke. I mean, we had quite a debate where Senator Warner from Virginia who used to be the Secretary of the Navy made the case that we don't have anything broke, we don't need to fix it. And Senator Goldwater on the other hand countered and said we do have something broke and we need to get a fix before we have to test it again. The point of a guy like Goldwater in this instance is really critical, isn't it? It is critical and of course next year is his last year in the Senate. He's announced he will not seek reelection and his terms up at the end of next year, so this is our best opportunity to bring about some significant reform in the next six to eight ten months. And I hope we're successful.

The view from the Armed Services Committee, the recent summit between President Reagan and Party Chairman Gorbachev. What difference does that make to America's national defense? Well, it could have a major, major impact depending upon what finally comes out. I think that people are generally encouraged by the upbeat attitude that the President returned from the summit with and his constructive approach to additional meetings with Mr. Gorbachev. I think they're also very skeptical about entering in, about the ability of the United States and the Soviets to enter into major significant concrete arms control proposals. I think that the difficulty comes is in the detail of those agreements and those agreements do become quite detailed before they're finished. So whether we can actually come to a meeting of the minds with the Soviets on how major reduction in offensive forces should take place has to be seen down the road.

What do your instincts tell you? My instinct is that there are some major hurdles to overcome. It's going to be difficult. The President, I think, is going to find himself at odds with some of his key advisors if he wants to get an agreement and wants to, by June, when Mr. Gorbachev is coming to this country. I think he's sort of inviting Mr. Gorbachev in June. He's really put a time frame on this issue because I don't think the public will want to see another summit where everybody is very friendly and nothing very concrete to results. So I think there will be a lot of very frank and open discussion between the President and his key advisors in the next few months about what is in the national interest and what we can agree to. All right. You're a colleague in the United States Senate. Pete Domanage, he was on this program. Just a few weeks ago, as a matter of fact, just about the time the Senate passed the Graham Rudman deficit reduction proposal, he thought at that time it was a good measure.

You at that time were at least reported as having reservations. In fact, you voted against the measure. So certainly an indication of a reservation, I guess. Now today, in this afternoon's Albuquerque newspaper, Senator Domanage tells us that within five weeks or so, there are two weeks, I believe it was. There seems to be a deal likely to be struck, which would either reduce the budget deficit over the next five years or result in, in fact, in automatic cuts and programs. Can you tell us anything about this? Sure. I can tell you probably more than you want to know about it. It's a major subject of discussion there in the Senate these days. The Graham Rudman proposal, as initially introduced in the Senate and where we took our initial vote on it, I did oppose. And I did so because, first of all, let me describe briefly how it works. And then I'll tell you my reaction. The way it works is it tries to legislatively set targets for the size

of the deficit over each of the next five years. And it says that, whereas the deficit this year is 190 or so billion next year, it'll be 144 and the year after it'll be 108 and the year after it'll be 36 billion less. And so it knocks 36 billion dollars off of the anticipated deficit for each of the next five years. And it requires the president to submit a budget to us which meets those targets of reduced deficit. And then it requires the Congress to adopt a budget which meets those targets, doesn't have to be the president's of course. And to the extent that we fail in that effort, it contemplates an automatic across the board cut in the various funding areas, defense included. Half of the cut would come out of the defense budget, half out of non-defense budget. If a cut is required in order to meet those targets. So that proposal was made in its initial form, I voted against

it because I felt it was not flexible enough in circumstances where a recession could occur in allowing us to extricate ourselves from it and suspend the effect of it. Because if you start into a recession, the last thing you want is additional restraint on spending or increased taxes, one of which would be mandated by Graham Rudman. The second reason I was opposed was I thought that as drawn, the president might find a way to exempt defense from the cuts and therefore pursue his agenda of priorities which he had been pursuing for the last five years and really devastate a lot of the domestic programs. In its form, as Senator Domenici described it here in the paper today, I think if that is the final form that it comes back to us in, which I'm sure he would know, I think then it probably is better than doing nothing, which seems to be the alternative. It still has major problems,

I still have great doubts about its workability, but it is a mechanism for forcing us to deal with the deficit. When you say you have doubts about its workability, what does that mean? Well, I doubt that the president without a major change in his policy positions, I doubt that the president can propose to us budgets that meet those targets, unless he's willing to raise taxes. You think the race can propose a balanced budget, is that you're saying? I'm saying that he cannot meet those targets over the next five years, in my view and his proposals to us without also making part of that proposal an increase in taxes. I don't think the Congress can meet its obligation to hit those targets without embracing some kind of tax increase as part of that. Well, if you're right, what good is it to pass at your major? Well, it may force a more realistic view of the fiscal policy of the country. It may force the president to come to grips not only with the need to

cut domestic spending, which he's been assiduously pursuing. It may also persuade him that the cuts have to come in defense and that there has to be some revenue if we're going to deal with deficits. So far, we've done very well in the last few years, and the president's done very well by essentially allowing deficits of $200 billion to continue year after year. This is a way of breaking out of that pattern, and although I have great difficulty in seeing it work over the five-year period, I think that it may force a confrontation with the hard choices, which would be very healthy. Lots of people talk about these huge federal budget deficits, but they also read regularly in the newspaper and here on television about a relatively healthy economy, and they hear warnings of doom and catastrophe on the one hand, but on the other hand, they see inflation stable, unemployment, high, but not

as high as it has been in the past. Interest rates down, though still high, they're having a hard time, I think, putting two and two together and coming up before. I think that's right, and I think the only way you can put two and two together is to realize that the economic factors which are affecting the interest rates and the inflation rate and these other factors are not only our national economic factors, which is what we've always considered, but the international. We are borrowing heavily from foreign countries today and from foreigners of all kinds in order to finance this major deficit, and that is helping to keep inflation down. That's helping to trade deficits, helping to keep inflation down. It's helping to keep interest rates reasonably low, and I think that there are serious economic difficulties in our future if we don't come to grips with the deficit.

But what you've just described is essentially not a national economy anymore, but an international economy. Well, I think that's exactly what we're in, and I think that we've not completely come to grips with it in our policy making. I think we've always assumed that we had such a strong economy, and we were such a major part of the world economy that whatever we did, if it was good for us, it would be good for everybody else. The truth is, we are part of an international economy today, and I think we're buying difficulties for our children and our grandchildren by allowing this deficit to continue to roll forward. You have over the past several months been very vocal in your concern about the huge trade deficit, and the fact that we are now a debtor nation. Yet, I don't, maybe this has to do with our policy making process, I do not see anything happening in Washington likely to reverse that trend.

Well, there's not near enough happening in Washington. There are some things happening which are encouraging. The Senate this last week came out with a bill, or several of us did, Senator Danforth was the lead senator on it, and Senator Moynihan on the Democratic side, but both Senator Domenici and I joined as co-sponsors to modernize and rewrite the trade laws applicable in this country. I think that is a step in the right direction. It's not a quick fix, but it is a step in the right direction. I think Secretary Baker's intervention in world currency markets with the help of some of our allies has been a step in the right direction to bring the overvalued dollar into line. There's a lot more that needs to be done in order for us to begin to come to grips with this growing trade deficit, which will be $150 billion this year. But I'd say that there are some initial steps being taken. Unfortunately, I don't think that the administration feels the trade deficit is anything it needs to seriously address, and that's...

Yeah, people don't see it. You have shown an interest in the case of the University of New Mexico bringing our conversation back home here. A University of New Mexico instructor by the name of Margaret Randall, a citizen of Mexico, but born in this country, raised here in Albuquerque, who has been told to leave the United States by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the INS. Because of her alleged political writings, your colleague in the Senate Pete Domenici has declined to intervene in this case. Of course, you on the other hand, did what is your level of involvement in this case? Well, how I received a letter, I guess each member of the Congressional delegation received a letter from Tom Ferrer, the President of the University, laying out his views on the case and indicating that he would appreciate it if we would look more deeply into it and see if the basic rights of this lady were being interfered with. I have written a letter

to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. First, I obtained their decision, a copy of it, and read through it, where they go into great detail about particular statements in her writings over the last decade or two, that they found objectionable and highly critical of our government policy. Then I have written to INS asking if there is a basis other than her political views for turning down her application for permanent residency. As I understand it, she has not applied for citizenship. She has applied to be a permanent resident because her husband is here and other family members. My question to the INS was very simply, is that application being turned down because of her political views, where in the case of a person with different views, it would, as a matter of course, be granted?

All right. You may have read in the afternoon paper a letter to the editor concerning your involvement in Durandal of Fair. We have very little time, but I want to read it to you and get your brief response. It was written by one Larry Lopez of Albuquerque and I quoted, Bingham's job is to represent citizens and uphold our laws, not to protect illegal aliens taking our jobs. Would he be as eager to spend his time and our money if she were brown, poor, uneducated, and wielding the short hoe and called the wetback rather than a university professor and quote? Now ask your response. Well, my response is, first of all, there's nothing illegal about her presence here in this country as I understand it. She's here legally and as a person here legally, she has the rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution. I think it's clear under our Constitution that the rights of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, apply to everybody who's here, not just to citizens. And I would, I would hope that in the case of anybody denied

those rights, I would feel at my job to at least inquire to determine whether those rights were being violated. And that's what I've done in this case. I think it's entirely appropriate. And I hope that the case does not reveal a circumstance where individual rights are being violated. And I hope that once the hearing process is over with, either Margaret Randall will be allowed to remain or there will be some basis other than her political views to justify denying her application. Senator Bingman, thank you for coming to the Illustrated Daily. We have to leave it there. My pleasure. That's it for tonight. Tomorrow on the eve of Thanksgiving, a very special illustrated daily on location at New Mexico, soon to open museum of natural history. It is really something quite extraordinary. Meanwhile, thank you for joining us. I'm Hal Rhodes. Good night. . These questions for Sandra.