Republican Elton Gallegly announced earlier this year that he will be retiring at the end of this term, after serving 26 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. With that in mind, the Sun decided to talk to Gallegly about his time in Congress and the impact his decisions have had on local, national, and international government.
What are your main comments on the defense strategies currently being used by NATO and the Obama Administration?
Well, it’s not just NATO; it’s our policies in Afghanistan and what’s taken place in Iraq. One of the things that concerns me greatly with what’s happened in Iraq is the impact and influence Iran is going to have, being the next-door neighbor and kind of circling Turkey, which has been an ally—a very strategic ally—of ours for a long time. But more than that is our strategy in dealing with Iran, because Iran does have enriched uranium. I have to be careful with this one, but we do know that they have more than a handful of centrifuges to provide just energy, and of course that’s what they’re saying: Their nuclear program is only for providing electrical power for their country. And it’s clear that they have more than enough centrifuges to develop enriched uranium … at a military level, meaning a nuclear bomb. The potential for what that would mean in the hands of truly a madman who has openly said—and it’s an easy quote to find—about him being in support of wiping the state of Israel off the map. I mean … saying that about a neighboring country in the Middle East is unsettling at the least. These are difficult and complicated equations. Those are the kind of issues that need to be addressed, and they can’t be ignored. … With so many things happening in the world, it’s forced the public eye off of what’s going on every day in Iran. You know how the news cycle works; if you have a really important story, but something comes along that’s a little more timely and so on, that really important story gets shoved onto a back burner. Unfortunately, I think some of these stories might have been developed to help obscure the situation in Iran. It’s very troubling.
So do you feel that there should be absolutely no negotiations or discussions with Iran?
Well, you know, I’ve supported negotiations, but do you know how long we’ve been negotiating with this guy? … At some point, you’ve got to draw a line in the sand if the guy’s planning to build a bomb to destroy the world. Negotiation with a religious fanatic—when you’re dealing with the Ayatollah, and they’re talking about destroying countries around the world—that goes beyond what most of us think about as traditional forms of religion. So at what point do you change your strategy, other than just giving them what they need: time? … We have to tighten the rein. Quite frankly, I think it needs to be tougher—these sanctions to strangle his ability to get his oil out of the country.
Has your role in the House of Representatives changed at all since the Obama Administration came into the White House?
I wouldn’t say that the role’s changed, but the process is certainly different. The chess game is different; you don’t have a president that works with you in the same way, although I’ve been able to get some of my legislation through and I’ve worked probably as well as any Republican could with President Obama. I certainly disagree with him on his economic policy and any of his social policies, and will be working strong for the nominee of the Republic party in November.
Who has your vote? Or have you even decided yet?
Well, you know, the nomination and the primaries are not complete yet. We still have a convention, but clearly I believe that Mitt Romney will be our delegate, and I believe that he will be the next president of the United States.
You mentioned the legislation you’ve been able to get in under the Obama Administration. You’re working on some bills currently that have elicited some excitement from environmental groups—the Sun has received press releases that are almost ecstatic—because you appear to be working with them. What made you decide to pursue these issues?
I’ve had mixed reviews. I don’t normally see the ecstatic ones that you’re referring to, but I’ve seen some of those that are criticizing or dubious, concerned that I didn’t go nearly far enough with this conservation bill. When you get both sides saying that you’ve done too much or not enough—if neither side is really happy—you must be doing something right.
I thought it was interesting, combining forest preservation with off-road vehicle usage, and then combining military readiness with sea otter protection.
You know, in my opinion this really shows that you can accomplish great things without compromising other things. All too often we have a situation of “them versus us,” and that holds true on both sides for obvious reasons. I have a young man on my staff who is tirelessly helping me meld these things together, Kenny Steinhardt, who’s just done a masterful job and [is] tirelessly working with each one of these groups—our dialogue and getting the maps done—and it’s still going to have some fine tuning through the process, but I think it’s one of those things that we should be proud of.
What would you say to your detractors who might say that it’s pork barrel?
Well, how much money is it going to cost? This isn’t pork barrel; there’s no money involved. We’re talking about a land exchange. We’re not talking about exchanging money. Pork barrel is when you’re building a bridge and you don’t have a road on the other end. It’s certainly not an earmark, because we don’t do earmarks anymore.
I meant it more as the concept of slipping in something with something else.
This isn’t slipping something in with something else; it’s a freestanding bill. It’s not going to be slipped in as something in a conference report somewhere. It will stand on its merits. Some will vote for it, some won’t vote for it. And if there’s enough votes at the end, along with the Senate to support it, I think it will become law.
Have you heard much from your constituents regarding these bills?
It hasn’t been nearly as controversial as a lot of things. Quite frankly, I think that’s a good thing. If you’re going to go in there and bulldoze sacred land, people have a right to be up in arms. On the other side, if you take away recreational land from someone who doesn’t disturb anyone else, it gives those people a reason to be upset. When you live close to an urban area, you need releases, you need to have a place to go out and recreate. At the same time, when you have land that doesn’t have, shall we say, economic development value, and you can save it for environmental reasons, so be it. … I’m sure there are folks saying, “Well, these are all the things we wanted, but I’m really skeptical of this guy and why he’s doing it.” There’s no mystery in it. Just look at what it does. If you support it, support it. Don’t oppose it because you don’t like the guy who did it. On the other side, don’t support it just because you like the guy. Do it based on the merits. And knowledge can be a powerful thing—do your homework and everything else falls in place.
How will the redistricting process impact the constituents in your district?
As you know, I’m not running again. This is a decision … I made quite a while ago, long before the final district plans were drawn up. After 26 years, I’m the longest-serving representative from Ventura/Santa Barbara County … and I have 10 grandkids at home and I think sometimes you have to accept the fact that it’s time to pass the baton to someone. But I didn’t finalize it until the first of January because in many ways people look at you as a lame duck and that makes it more difficult to get things done. Quite frankly, I wanted to use the time as well as possible and leave the options open, but [retiring] was clearly in my master plan.
What advice do you have for whoever ends up winning your seat?
As simple as it can get: Just remember that knowledge is power and know what you’re doing before you do it. I think a “ready, aim, shoot” person is always going to be more successful that somebody that’s “ready, shoot, aim,” but it’s kind of a tempting thing in our business, to do it that way. Do your homework, listen to the people that you represent, and don’t just check the wind to know which way you should go. Know your subject, believe in what you’re doing, and support it or oppose it.
What are the most important issues in this upcoming election?
Well, clearly the three most important issues in this election—let’s make sure we get this very clear—the first and foremost is jobs, the second and equally as important is jobs, and if you’ve … figured it out, you know the third thing I’m going to say: It’s jobs. Jobs and the economy impact all the other issues, as far as education, health care, criminal justice … and of course national security. People might say, “Well, what does jobs and the economy have to do with national security?” Just about everything in the world, because the thing that makes a country more vulnerable than anything else is its economic structure. All you have to do is take a look at the Soviet Union. It wasn’t the bomb that took the Soviet Union out; it was the collapse of their economics. You can go back historically in countries as far back as you want to go; it’s normally not the bomb that takes them out, it’s the economics.
Contact Managing Editor Amy Asman at aasman@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Mar 29 – Apr 5, 2012.