Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564104
label
Transcripts - 08/04/1970, 08/11/1970, 09/22/1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564104
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 08/04/1970, 08/11/1970, 09/22/1970
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Conference Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564104
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c6130cda0b9721ff
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -
08/04/1970, 08/11/1970, 09/22/1970
Box: P03
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at:
[email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD AUGUST 4, 1970
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 387.)
Chishway funds)
Q
Governor, did you discuss this with the President when you
were down there last week?
A
No, on this subject we didn't. That's why I've had to
get a letter off. We spent most of our time last week discussing
some of the welfare problems.
0
Isn't this hand in hand, Governor, with attempting to cool
the economy, motivation which you supported recently?
A
Yes, but that particular phase of cooling the economy was
called off a few months ago. As a matter of fact the President
phoned me to tell me that on the following morning they would be
announcing the complete release of this at the federal leve/and
we therefore issued a simultaneous statement that we were immediately
phasing our $176 million dollars worth of projects back into the
program.
8
Governor, do you have any idea why this money is being held
up?
A
No, I don't. It is -- I know the first time this occurred
in my ddministration was during the Johnson administration and we
lead the fight at the Governor's conference to protest then what was
a kind of a budget withholding. This was the type of thing of making
a budget appear to be held down by just not spending monies in a
given year, and we don't favor this at the state level and we
certainly don't favor it at the federal level.
Q
Governor, do you think the inflation danger has subsided?
A
Well, all I can go by is that the -- those who were staging
that fight in Washington -- I don't know, the fight against inflation
isn't over, but they cancelled out that phase of it and did it on their
-1-
own, no protesting. Those of us who were cooperating with them were
going along until they gave us the word and they made the decision
that they could now relax in that area.
Q
Governor, on the figures you were using, about 19 million
from -- down from the same period last year, then 20 million last
year the trust fund could have supported, which trust fund are you
talking about not being enough money in it and then asking for 200
million dollars? I don't understand the --
A
No, we are talking about the allocations that we get back.
Our -- California's share of the -- of the gasoline tax for the
entire state highway system. It is another one of those instances
where California pays in more than we get back, but that was true from
the very beginning. But the proportionate allocation that we should
get, if they follow the original concept, in which that money was to
be distributed back just as our own gasoline tax fund is spent on
building highways, we would have gotten that much more and should be
getting 19 million dollars more in this quarter.
Q
Governor, another topic.
A
All right.
8
What comments do you have on President Nixon's remarks
concerning the Tate-La Bianca defendants in Los Angeles?
A
Well, I think anyone can recognize someone inadvertently
making a remark that has implications beyond what they had intended
and beyond that I'm going to say nothing because having seen the furor
created I certainly don't want to say anything or make any comment
that might in any way endanger the progress of justice in that parti-
cular trial. So I'm saying nothing.
Q
Do you think this remark could have endangered the progress
of justice?
A
This is like the 11th commandment. I can't say anything
without running the risk of adding to the same problem. So I'm not
going to say anything.
Q
Governor, do you have any comment in general on Cesar
Chaves' effort in the Salinas Valley and specifically his call now
for a secret ballot so the wokers may vote between the teamsters'
union and his union?
A
Yes, I'm a little puzzled by his sudden conversion to a
belief in balloting for the workers now with regard to another union
in another area when he has denied this for the people he's been
-2-
organizing in the San Joaquin Valley. I personally believe in the
right of workers every place to vote on secret -- by secret ballot
as to whether they want a union and if SO which union and I would
make the State Conciliation Service available to help and have urged
upon them this kind of balloting -- voting and I just don't think that
it is something that you can decide to have for one group and -- in
one place and not agree to the rightness of it all over, and I would
add this, I think that those same workers having decided on a union
have a right to ratify it by secret ballot any contract arrangements
their union leaders make with the employers.
Q
So this time you are in Cesar Chaves' side, possibly?
A
No, no, I'm -- I have to say that I'm a little puzzled
at the fact that he can believe in it for one group of people when
it suits his purpose while still denying it to his own. I -- I
would think much more of him if Mr. Chavez had agreed and would
agree to secret balloting for all farm workers. I have respect
for the ability of the farm worker and his common sense to make
decisions in his own behalf the same as I have for all other workers
and I don't think they should be denied something that just through
the absense of law, in either the state or federal field, does not
prescribe this. All other workers outside of the farm economy are
so covered by federal legislation that gives them that right of ballot.
8
Governor, the Board of Directors of the Social Workers
Union, they claim to represent more than half of California's social
workers, has sent you a letter which I think you've not had time to
get yet, quoting the welfare institutions code as saying that your
welfare director shall be appointed wholly on the basis of training,
demonstrated ability, experience and leadership in organized social
welfare administration and they say that Mr. Martin, whom you
appointed, does not fit any way, shape or form the stated intent of this
law.
I wonder if you have a comment on that.
A
Well, they also disapproved of a welfare director before
Mr. Martin. I think where one of the differences lies is that with a
welfare case load that has increased a hundred 13 per cent in the last
four years with the percentage of people on welfare in California going
up from six per cent of the population to 9.3 per cent of the popu-
lation that our selection of someone who will also have consideration
for the taxpayers and the rest of the citizens is something that they
are probably not sympathetic to, but that's the way we are going to
8
Governor, what is your reaction to the court ruling that
an alcoholic can receive welfare simply because he is an alcoholic?
A
Well, this is like so many other court rulings. I think
sometimes they get far afield. The problem of alcoholism is the
problem of a tragic disease. It is a disease that afflicts a great
many of our citizens and we have tried in California to have programs
to try and get at the problem of this disease which for too long a
time has not been properly treated, but I don't think that this has
offered any particular help in the problem whatsoever, to just simply
rule that by not seeking an answer or a cure to that disease someone
can then just be supported at the expense of the taxpayers.
Q
What would be the expense of the taxpayers if this ruling
stands?
A
I haven't had time to get an estimate on that from our
people.
Q
Governor, you say you are going to keep Robert Martin as your
director. Have you checked though -- does that mean you have
checked the legality of doing this and as far as the language that
they are quoting you, that this doesn't preclude Martin's legal
appointment as State Welfare Director?
A
There seems to have been no objection to it. We have
gone ahead and made appointments on the basis of who we thought could
handle the job and I don't think that we violated -- that's an
opinion we have to make as to whether they are qualified in this
field, and if they're meaning that we must turn only to the ranks
of social workers for this -- someone of this kind, then heaven help
us in trying to solve the problem.
Q
Governor, the Lieutenant Governor said over the week -end
that if racial problems continue in the prisons it might be necessary
to institute segregation in the prisons on a racial basis, the policy
in the Department of Corrections. Do you endorse that idea and
is that means considered by the administration?
A
Well, let me answer the statement as well as thequestion.
I think that what happened was the Lieutenant Governor started speak-
ing about separating those people that are causing the trouble, and
the question them came back if this was on a strictly racial basis
and as far as I've been able to learn, while this is a possibility
and there have been such things in some of the institutions, not only
here but in the rest of the country, that I don't believe the report
is that this was strictly that. But the questioning then went
back to well, if this was on a racial basis, segregation, and I think
he was speaking to the common sense practice that if you've got two
gangs of people that are getting in fights, whether it is in a street
or in an institution, the most common sense thing to do is to
separate them until you can find out what's causing the fights and
stop them from occurring.
Q
So you would do it on a racial basis if that appeared to
be the reason?
A
I'd do it on whatever basis and on a temporary basis. I
don't think anyone -- any one of us here, I know none of us are
committed to the idea of segregation, but if you have two factions,
whatever their differences, that are causing trouble and fighting, I
think the answer to the problem begins with separating them so that
they can't get at each other for a while.
8
Governor, last week you said you would have an investigation
into the state prison system. Since then we have had another killing
at Soledad and the guards at San Quentin seem to be going through
quite a bit of turmoil amongst themselves. Do you think that we
should maybe step up this investigation or ask the Attorney General
to look at the state prison system?
A
No, we have -- we have a procedure for that, a correction --
in the State Corrections Board that is chaired by our Secretary of
Human Relations. And from the reports that we have received and
reports from Ray Procunier, I don't think that any outside investi-
gation is called for at this time. I think, as I said last week, and
as the Warden has said, they're part of what's going on, is just a
reflection of the kind of violence that is abroad in the land and is
reflected in the type of people that are coming into the institutions
and a higher percentage of them, because of our -- our subsidy of
probation that has -- most of the less violent types out on probation.
Q
Do you have any comment on Assemblyman Willie Brown's report
on Soledad?
A
Yes, I don't think that it contributed anything to solving
this particular problem. It dounds strange, I'm sure, to some of
you to come from me, but I don't think that inflammatory type statements
is contributed.
Q
Governor Reagan, another topic?
-5-
A
Yes.
Q
The Senate today passed out Senator Harmer's bill which would
divide the Los Angeles school system into 12 separate districts.
What is your opinion of this suggestion and if this isn't the answer,
what do you think the answer is for the problems of Los Angeles
schools?
A
Well, Ray, it is a -- it is a complicated problem. I
have been critical of the size of those districts. I have referred
several times to a quite respective school study of several years
ago that said that school districts that get above 20 to 30 thousand
students are getting into a place of diminishing returns. I haven't
seen the legislation in its form -- if it somes down, how it will
come down. But I'm certainly going to give it serious consideration
if it reaches my desk, on this matter.
8
Do you basically favor decentralization?
A
Whenever it is possible, yes.
8
Governor, Assemblyman Bagley last week said that he had
done the racing industry a favor in exchange for lobby support for
your tax bill. Do you approve of that -- those tactics?
A
Well, now, he's going to have to speak for himself. The
only thing that I can tel 1 you about the -- the racing situation,
no connection with tax reform whatsoever. There has been a bill
upstairs for sometime that was am omnibus bill, you might say, that
would have affected almost every phase of racing. There have been
great disagreements within the racing group because of this. The
breeders and owners of horses have been quite opposed. I took the
position with the racing people who were advocating this bill that
was such a large segment of the industry itself opposed, that I
thought they should go out and get together and come back in probably
in Januarly with a bill that didn't -- that they all could agree
upon. Subsequent to that time they came back and there was agreement
in the racing industry that the problems, particularly of some of the
smaller tracks, the economic problems were such that without waiting
they could agree upon additional revenue that was needed by these
tracks as well as by the horsemen in purses, and I said if they came
back in with a simple revenue bill and left out all of these other
things that have caused the controversy in this session that I could
look favorably upon that. And that's the only thing that I know
about and I've heard the same rumors -- statements that someone is
-6-
lobbying on behalf of our tax reform bill, but on the other hand
I heard that a great many of the so-called third house representing
their clients are on their own, have favored our tax reform bill and
have been urging legislators to vote for it and I'd have to agree with
them, I think it is a common sense bill.
Q
Governor, Jesse Unruh indicated today that you may be more
interested in having the Democrats kill your tax reform package than
in getting the bill passed. They -- for some political advantage
itself.
Do you see any advantage politically in this onurse of
action?
A
No, I -- if he's meaning the issue of this in. the coming
election, no question, this will be an issue and there is no question
that I'm going to do everything I can if this bill is defeated to
let their constituents know those who defeated this bill and prevented
them from getting the property tax relief that they should be getting.
But that is not nearly the advantage, and I'll trade anything of
that kind over a million times to have this bill passed on behalf of
the people. I don't think anything is really worthwhile politically
that hurts the people and not passing this bill is going to hurt the
people of California.
0
Does that include Senator Clark Bradley, Governor?
A
Senator Clark Bradley knows how I feel, yes, it is hard
for me to understand how anyone can -- can really legitimately oppose
this legislation.
Q
You mean you are going to Clark Bradley's district and
say he's an enemy on my tax reform bill? You are going to speak
in there about that?
A
Let me put it this way, anyone who's opposed this is
going to have to defend himself on the basis of why he opposed it,
because I'm going to continue even in the failure of this -- I'm
going to continue to campaignfor this kind of tax relief, whether in
this session or in the next.
Q
Governor, what is the best hope now for the passage of your
tax bill in the Senate? Is it the August 18 special election?
A
No, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't say that. I think the best
hope is just to continue trying to persuade some of the 13 who are
presently opposed that they are in truth not serving their constitu-
ents by taking this stand.
-7-
8
Governor, would you consider calling a special session.
on tax tax matters if it doesn't pass in the regular session?
A
I haven't ruled that -- I haven't ruled anything out, let
me put it that way, so I won't be writing a lead for you. I haven't
ruled out anything, but it is a case of you have to go almost day by
day as to what you can do to try and bring this to a head and bring
it to a settlement.
8
Governor, Mr. Bagley said that he had mobilized the
lobbyists on behalf of the bill, particularly those --
A
That what?
Q
That he had mobilized some lobbyists on behalf of the
bill.
You were saying a moment ago that he did not do that on
your behalf or you -- that you were not asking the lobbyists to get
the bill through.
A
I haven't asked any one of that kind to get the bill
through.
8
What do you think of the general proposition of getting
lobbyists to get the bill --
A
Is this very much different than my own public appeals to
people to impress on the legislators that they want this tax bill?
When you say lobbyists you are talking about people that represent
various groups of our citizenry, including the schools and the
churches, and labor -- organized labor. I have met with some labor
leaders recently and have told them of what I think. the advantages
of this bill are to the working men and women of the state, and a
number of them have expressed an interest in carrying the ball on
this and advocating its passage. I'm all for it.
8
But you said legislation had been offered on your behalf
in exchange for it.
A
Well, now, that is not true, if that was said, because I've
just told you completely the story of any legislation that has to do
with racing, that I was unwilling to see any legislation in view of
the two year ago increase in racing days -- to see any great omnibus
program of changing the whole structure of the racing game in Cali-
fornia at this time.
Q
A moment ago you said that lobbyists have supported this
legislation possibly because it is common -- it is a common sense
bill.
Do you think that's the only reason then?
-8-
A
Well, you'd have to ask them what their reasons were. I
can't see, as I said before -- I find it very difficult to understand
anyone who has an opposition to it. I have heard a great many
reasons advanced for the negative votes and I've heard a great many
distortions of fact in those reasons, and I think this is pretty
good evidence that the case againt the tax bill is really lacking
when they have to turn to distortions and inaccuracies and even
outright falsehoods about the present tax bill, in order to justify
the not voting for it.
Q
Well, Governor, still to follow that up, though, you said
that you didn't endorse the racing legislation, but Mr. Bagley,
however, did work for that. Now, do you condone that practice?
A
Well, condone what practice?
0
The practice of him working -- in exchange proposition with
lobbyists.
A
Well, I have told you the position of how a piece of legis-
lation aame into existence regarding one industry. I didn't talk
to any lobbyists and I didn't tie it to any vote for anything else.
And I don't know what else has gone on in that regard and I have
not bargained and I don't make deals.
Maybe
if
I
did
we'd
have
a tax program.
0
Governor, have you thought of going on statewide television
to correct some of the misunderstandings, perhaps, and increase the
public support for your tax program?
A
Yes. As a matter of fact I was on a couple of interview
programs down in Los Angeles over the week-end and explained this
program.
Q
Governor, have you seen anything that gives -- makes you
any more encouraged than you would be a week ago at this time when
the -- the Democrats and Clark Bradley first blocked it? Have you
seen any softening in the opposition? In their opposition?
A
No, and of course over the week-end it would be pretty hard,
you can just kind of live and hope that maybe getting home and meeting
the people on the street that some of them might have gotten different
viewpoints.
Q
Governor, I'd like to go to another subject.
Q
Same subject, please.
A
Same subject.
Q
Governor, aren't you worried, though, if you tell Clark
Bradley's voters about what he did on tax reform you are throwing
the 11th commandment out the window? Is that a dead issue?
A
No, the 11th commandment isn't a dead issue, but I think
the legislator and the governor can agree to a different piece of
legislation. I will say this, when I was remarking about distortions
and so forth, I will say that Clark has a legitimate -- in his mind,
differente of opininn about the right of shifting a tax burden to
the broader base to relieve one section -- segment of the taxpayers,
namely the property owners, and he feels very strongly about this.
He has not to my knowledge distorted the situation nor has he gone
out and tried to pretend that there was some other kind of tax reform
program that he favored. He just does not believe that -- as much
as I do, that the property tax owner is entitled to some relief.
That he is a segment of the taxpayer who is being presumed upon.
Q
Governor, can you tell us what distortions have been made
and who has been making them? Who has been telling falsehoods?
A
Yes, I think the charge that our tax bill, for example, the
general charge that our tax bill benefits those of higher income
more than it does the lower income and by actual figure as compared
to the tax bill that the opposition put up in contrast to this
several weeks ago, ours actually increases the tax burden for the
upper income levels far more, and there is in many instances benefits
the upper brackets at the same time that it penalizes the lower bracket
and even takes into the income tax paying people who are presently
not paying an income tax. Our greatest relief comes from about the
$7,000 bracket through to about $20,000 income. This is where
the greatest amount of tax break comes which I think is the over-
whelming majority of the people of California. As you get up into
the upper brackets there is an actual tax increase for those indi-
viduals in our program as it is laid out. Now, in the -- in the
$1500 flat exemption property tax as against our combination of
exemption of a thousand plus 20 per cent, you will find that before
there is benefits anyone above ours their house has to be worth
less than $10,000; that from $10,000 value of the house on up our
program is more beneficial.
Q
Governor, have you any word from any Board of Supervisors
in support of your program? Particular Boards, I'm thinking of.
A
Yes, we have a number of letters from Supervisors.
-10-
Q
Can you tell me what counties?
A
Oh, Squire, I can't remember right now because I've also
been getting a great many letters from county supervisors on the
welfare programand I haven't -- I can't sort them out right now.
Q
Governor, can we go to another subject?
8
Same subject.
One more.
A
All right.
Q
Governor, then you have not ruled out personally campaign-
ing in the districts of these Senators or -- and going on statewide
television? Those are both possibilities?
A
Yup.
Q
That you are considering.
A
Hup.
8
Senator Danielson has been critical of the Williamson
Act provisions in your tax program which would have the state pay
a share of the county's subsidy to open space lands which owners
would promise not to subdivide. He says that in Kern County there
would be about a million dollars tax break and that the large land
owners who are getting a benefit under thatprogram now include
several large oil companies. Do you think your program should be
providing a tax break for such large commercial operations rather
than the farmer whom the Williamson Act was originally aimed at?
A
When you set out to protect open lands and when you set
out to see if you can't find someway that land will be taxed on
its use rather than on its potential subdivision value, there is no
question but that there can be some people benefited that were not
your primary purpose. But what's the greatest advantage? In order
to prevent a few from getting what you consider is an unnecessary
break do you then rule that none of the other people can be benefited?
Particularly at a time when it protects -- and the preservation of
open lands is one of great environmental concern as well as the
fairness to the taxpayer. And the present custom that is driving
so much of our open range as well as our agricultural land into
suburban sprawl, urban development, is this fact that once a subdi-
vision appears everything for several miles around stops being
classified as farm land and suddenly is taxed on the basis of how
much it would be worth if it became a subdivision. Now, much of
that land the farmer really wants to farm and he wants to stay there
and keep it as open land. And the Williamson Act was pretty well
thought out to give nim some kind of a tax break each time so long
as he contracted each year for ten years ahead. And this, I think,
is a -- is a pretty good curb on just the speculator.
Q
But in Kern County only 13 per cent of the land in the
last study was classified as prime agricultural land.
A
Well, there is a different rate for land that is not
prime agricultural land. Simply open or grazing land. Now, I'm
speaking of one farm that I know about, for example, that in a dozen
years went from $800 tax to $23,000 tax, and that land couldn't
produce more than about a $2,000 hay crop.
8
Is that your own ranch?
A
What
Q
Is that your own ranch?
A
I'm not saying.
8
Very shortly, if Marty will let me on the taxes -- at
what point -- how long will you hold out for the 27th vote?
A
The day that we know that we can't get it, there is no
change. But we haven't --we haven't given up yet. Every morning
I walk into the book shop -- book store -- I mean my library, I
shouldn't say book store, and stand for a moment of silence in
front of the book on Patton.
(Laughter)
Q
Governor, another subject. Do you know about the problem
the California fishermen have been having with Russian trawlers?
A
Yes.
Q
Have you become involved or do you have any information --
to be called in that?
A
No, it seems to me that this is a federal problem. I
know our own fish and game department has kept snime track on this
and issued some reports. It seemed to minimize the threat that some
people feel is there, but I'm afraid -- I'm afraid this one is going
to be Washington's problem.
Q
Governor, your Riverside County campaign chairman and
attorney has admitted transmitting $6500 in cashier's checks to the
primary election campaigns of three county supervisors, who later
voted for a zoning change requested by the corporation making the
donation. Now, are you going to ask that chairman to resign or
not in your campaign?
(conflist of interest)
A
Well, that's going to depend on what comes out of this.
I've heard that. I don't know any of the -- that any of the
facts have been established. So far we are talking about a charge
that's been made. I do sincerely hope that there is no wrong doing
there, but if there is then he'll -- you bet.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
8/11
8
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD AUGUST 11, 1970
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is
furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and
there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
00d
Q
Before we get to the big picture I would like to ask you about the
Native Daughters of the Golden West in Redding angry at you because you
got a couple of paintings of theirs they say belongs in the Shasta
Historial Museum. They have written you a letter. Do you plan to return
these paintings?
A
What paintings and where are they?
Q
They are in the Mansion. Two paintings by Frederick Schafer
and Manuel Leutz. All we know is that Mrs. Reagan got them and they
want them back.
A
I think there is a painting of Yosemite out here in the reception
room. Most of these paintings were loaned. There are a few actually
belonging to the State which were purchased from galleries, butmost of
them are on loan from various art galleries or museums. If, by some
error, we have something that belongs somewhere else they are welcome
to have it back and I will have to look into it.
Q
The presiding judge of the Superior Court in San Francisco said he
was thinking about changing the location of the trial from San Francisco
to San Quentin. If this goes through it will be the second change. In
what
the light of all that has happened do you think about conducting the trial
in the penitentiary?
A
I would rather look to the whole problem and say that we have already
contacted the Chief Justice and he has, in turn, been in touch with all
the presiding judges about soliciting from them their views and getting
together for whatever might be necessary with regard to courtroom decorum.
The type of thing we have seen, to try to disrupt the court with this
kind of violence to make sure this cannot happen again we have been in
touch with the Youth Authority and the Correctional people to urge them
to meet not only with the law enforcement but with the presiding judges
to see what they can work out in events of this kind to ensure that a
tragedy cannot occur again.
- 1 -
Q
What do you think about the possibility of holding it within San
Quentin.
A
I would rather wait until I here back from them. I know there are
many things to look into, for example there are many judges who have
ruled out firearms on the part of law enforcement officers in their
courtrooms. This may have to be reviewed. We have to review the
Mulford Act and see if there are any additions with regard to 8 bringing
weapons into public buildings. The law now says "Only a loaded gun".
We are looking into this. I am saying that I am not going to make a
comment until I get the word back from the judiciary about this.
Q
Do you believe there was a conspiracy in connection with Soledad
and the shootings on Friday?
A
I wouldn't be able to hazard a decision on that.
Q
Would you ask the Attorney General to look into the prison system?
A
We are looking at this from every angle to see if there is any place
where changes or tightening up can be made to see that it doesn't
happen again.
o
What do you think of the concept of allowing the Trustees to
establish criteria to designate California State Colleges as Universities?
A
This is a very complicated problem. In Illinois they are all
/under a technical definition
termed Universities. Many of our colleges do not qualify as Universities.
There are some that do. This was supposed to be the Coordinating Council's
plan for higher education to make sure it wasnot unnecessary duplication
of effort in the area of research in granting a graduate degree. We know
that the cost for instruction for a graduate degree is several times what
it is for the undergraduate. There should not be an unnecessary
proliferation of this. I cannot claim a closed mind on this. I would
be opposed to simply blanketwise saying that the whole college system
has the title of University. We do have a problem of those that actually
are unqualified. Somehow there has been an attempt to downgrade the
title College as if, somehow, this is inferior to the title University.
I do not believe that. I think it is a very respected therm. I think
college in its own area can claim all the academic stature the
University can.
or
Can you say it meets the state's needs as it is?
A
I have an open mind in taking a look and reviewing the state colleges
who have attained University status,
- 2 -
Q
Could you comment on this morning's economic conference?
A
I haven't been into the economic conference so far this morning.
I am going in after this press conference. This is a follow-up on a
meeting I had with a number of industrial leaders some time ago and
they are economists. They are professionals in this field and can carry
on where we left off in that other meeting with whatever cooperation
the state can give, with whatever we can do in keeping with the private
sector looking ahead and planning ahead, particularly in this time of
economic slump. I think it is a temporary dislocation. The original
meeting was held long before this slump started, in anticipation of
this possibility coming up in connection with the anti-inflation fight.
The results of this morning's meeting and reports will be given to me.
The main thinko is to find out how we can cooperate with the private
sector.
Q
Phil Watson of Los Angeles county says the tax reform measure
would be a financial disaster in that county.
A
I think that is a little over =reaction there. We recognize there
are some mechanical problems and the delays in getting it passed has
added to them. This will result, if it is passed, in reduction of the
homeowners' tax taking place in the spring instalment, instead of in
the first one. It will mean a notice in the first tax bill that comes
out this fall to pay only the instalment. We have made $2 million
available to help the counties. I don't see this as a great catastrophe.
It is a simple matter of getting the tax increases into operation and
then making provision as quickly as possible to turn back to the people
the tax relief.
Q
He has made such an issue of pointing out these problems.
A
He has a big county there and we do have problems but they are
mechanical difficulties which can be overcome and we can make this work.
Q
Compromises on the tax reform program have failed over the weekend.
Are you giving up on getting it as part of the regular session or is
a special session becoming more likely?
A
I haven't ruled out anything with regard to trying or giving up
as yet on this as to possible amendments. I am not disturbed about that
because, frankly, I think this program was wexking worked on so long
and so many things considered I do not see the need for any amendments
or compromises. It think it is a good bill and while I am willing to
look at any suggestion it is difficult for me to think, and I have not
seen any suggestion yet that changes the basic concept of the bill, only
weakens itk and I think it should be passed.
Q
Are you in a posi. on to offer amendments in Order to make this
deadline?
A
No, nor will I.
2
What is wrong with Bradley's analysis?
A
It is not one that imposes unfairly on the lowest earners. It is
indeed a tax shift and he borrowed the phrase from me. I have been
calling it that for over a year. It was never intended to be a tax
reduction or increase. He made a great point as if, somehow, this was
a deception to the people, that tax reform should mean tax reduction.
Tax reduction comes from reforming government not the system of
taxation and he also made what I think was the weakest case. We have,
for the first time in history, by expenditure controls in an effort to
/object to
prevent the property tax from coming back up. He doesn't wank those
controls but he doesn't want it passed because he says some day a
legislator can come in and vote out those controls. If kthat is going
to be the approach to legislation why another legislator can come in
next year and turn something down or change it. If you believe in
S omething you pass it, and continue to keep it the way it is.
Q
Is it a valid point that the controls originally in the program
weakened
have substantially weakedn?
A
Substantially weakened only to the point that about 13 breaks out
of 44 with regard to tax overrides in particular cases where hardship
would result. I don't think this is a weakening. That is a way that
substantial property tax relief is given and a very substantial guarantee
is given on protection against its comigg back up. The other place
where I think there was a distortion simply by inference was to say that
this ia a bill that passes to one segment of the taxpayers for the
relief of one other segment. This was almost to infer that the homeowner
is not going to be subject to the tax bill which is a tax increase.
They too are going to pay all the increased sales taxes. What we are
talking about is switching Kan unfair burden from one segment of the
taxpayers to a tax that is overall and covers the entire spectrum.
I think this is fair and not unfair. It is unfair to let one section
of the people go on paying K an unfair tax burden.
/distortion by
2
In your charge of other opponents are you now including Senator
Bradley.? I assumed you meant Democrats.
A
I have to say now that Senator Bradley's presentation to UROC was
not founded on fact and not a fair presentation.
- 4 -
Q
Have you any comment on the action of the Board of Directors of
UROC in endorsing Senator Bradley's opposition to tax reform plan.
A
I am bothered, of course. They heard one interpretation of the
tax reform program that was distorted and not based on fact and took
their action without attempting to find out the answer to it.
Q
What is the welfare situation now that you have given up on the
$10 million? Have you changed your position on what you want to do?
A
We are going ahead with the program that is designed to see if
we cannot, once and for all, get a handle on this runaway unfair
situation. We are reviewing totally every state regulation, every
administrative procedure open to us and everything that might require a
state legislation and are doing the same thing with regard to federal
regulations with the intention of taking it up with Washington. It
has to be solved. We cannot go on supporting it in its present form.
It is a mess.
/Senate Committee killed the proposal
Q
**** killed to take lead out of gasoline. Is *the defeat of the
bill a setback in the effort to control smog?
A
The controversy as I understand it, is the procedure whereby we get
to the leadless while preserving leaded gasoline for those cars who
cannot do without it. It is a phase-out program. I am one who believes
we should get this done as quickly as possible, not running anyone off
the road on this. I think the recommendations that came out of the
conference are the recommendations that could reduce this lead content,
the swiftest and with the least dislocation. I don't believe we have to
have as many varieties of gasoline. The automotive industry in Detroit
has announced they are now going to reduce high octane required down
to 91 percent.
Q
Are you willing to rely on the industry to get the lead out?
A
No. Our legislature must take into account what they can accomplish.
I am opposed to a program that would maintain the tanks of leaded
gasoline and then at a premium price offer a lead-free gasoline and hope
that people will pay the premium price and voluntarily get that gasoline.
Q
This would not have occurred if this bill had passed. Are you
saying this is a setback?
A
I am saying I have not had an opportunity to look into what was not
passed. I am not as well informed as you as to what happened yesterday.
Q
Can you say whether ot not you supported the bill?
A
At this moment I do not know what bill we are talking about.
- 5 -
Q There is a story on the formation of the Golden Circle Club by
John Wayne at a COS
$3000 to $5000 to join. gislators have
been invited to join kand lobbyists. The story says you endorse this.
A
My only comment is that I couldn't afford to join and I don't
know anything about it. I will have to look into it and see what Duke
is doing.
2
The Assembly yesterday passed a bill by Bagley that would tax all
race horses a flat fee regardless of champions or nags. Is this an
equitable means of taxation?
A
The poor horse raisers have a problem to deal with and that is
that nags eats just as much as the good ones. If we want to encourage
the horse breeding industry in California I think there are some problems
with regard to property tax that we have to face. If you compare the
tax on a million dollar stallion in Kentucky to the tax here in
California, it is easy to see why horses leave California and go to
live in Kentucky. I believe in incentive taxation. I believe the
industry gives hundreds of people employment in our state, but I don't
know the bill he introduced but I must say the poor horse raisers
started in a losing business in the beginning. He has to love horse
flesh a lot do do what he does.
I Do you still have horses yourself?
A
I own a couple of riding horses. I have gotten rid of all the
breeding stock. I bred race horses for the market and sold them.
2 Back to smog. You endorsed the idea of using motor vehicle funds
for smog research . Cologne has a bill in the floor ready for action
by the Senate. Are you supporting the bill?
A
I would have to look and see what the bill is. We are advocating
the use of that special license fee if that bill passed for that sort
of thing. I recognize that smog caused by automobiles this is the same
/in my book.
as highway maintenance, This is a legitimate use of the tax money. I
would have to look at the bill. Theoretically or in principle I cannot
oppose that idea.
0
Earlier this year you were taking a hopeful look at the smog
situation, that it was improved in many aspects. In view of what has
happend in Los Angeles this year are you reassessing your position?
A
Well I think we are way ahead of most states in this and
where California sits in the cities of highest pollution, we aren't even
in the first ten. Maybe we would be No. 1 x if it was who tkalks about it.
Some time ago, if you recall, our smog control board and the weather
people said that Los Angeles particularly was going to have more extreme
problems this year and that was in weather prognostication.
Due to unusual mete Y ogical conditions,
Not increase in act 1. smog. The truth is that W are back to about
the 1960 level of smog. We have actually improved that much in spite of
the increased number of automobiles. It is hard for someone in the
actual smog area to believe this as he looks up at the sky and wipes
his eyes and it is true we have turned the corner and there is a decline
on
largely dueto the restrictions by all automob$les, and as the newer ones
replace the older ones on the road. This will be very marked before
this decade is over and I believe there are some signs of breakthroughs
/speed
/slated
to up our timetable. Our biggest improvement by law is ********
for 1974 and I believe before then we will achieve some standards in
advance.
2
How do you define smog going back to 1960?
A
I cannot say I know accurately how this estimate was based bue one
of the principal offenders was hydrocarbons. This also includes carbon
monoxide and I believe it is based on the sum total of pollutants into
the air. I have seen the chart which shows that in 1966 the corner,
and we started back down.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
PAUL:
We will be a little late with the transcript today
because we didn't have a reporter.
#######
- 7 -
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD SEPTEMBER 22, 1970
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
I just have a short opening statement
here.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan Press Release No. 502)
2
What about a special session on welfare, Governor?
A
Special session on welfare. No, I don't think we are
ready.
We had one package of welfare bills which failed, as you know
of passage. We just wouldn't be prepared with what I think is a tota
reform that is necessary and I think that we can present it in the
next session in January.
what
Q
Governor,/do you think of Senator Schrade's proposal to take
the vote away from welfare recipients?
A
Well, that -- I doubt if the people would hold with it.
I suppose that was based on the normal practice in SO many clubs
and unions and that sort of thing where a member loses his voting
privileges if he is a delinquent in his dues. But I doubt that the
people would hold still for anything of that kind in this country.
8
What is your own view, Governor, on that? Would you
personally favor such a thing or not?
A
Well, I would favor -- No, I would favor recognizing our
responsibility to the truly needy and the aged and disabled, as I
have so often said, and then correcting what I have described as
egal fraud, those people who beyond need are a burden on the taxpayer
backs due to the regulations that have come down to us principally
from the federal government.
?
But you wouldn't deprive them of the vote?
No.
Why do you think he'd make a suggestion like that?
A
Well, I think perhaps Jack was calling attention to the --
how far we strayed from the original purpose of welfare, and how much
-1-
it is being abuse and what a threat it is.
,
suppose you could call
that kind of like Nick Petris' bill about outlawing the automobile.
Q
Governor, you signed Assembly Bill 981, a so-called law and
order bill, which would allow local agencies to eject unruly people
from meetings, including members of the press considered to be con-
tributing to the disturbance. Why did you sign that bill?
A
Well, I signed it because, first of all, I don't think it
was any bill that was aimed at the press at all, and I doubt if there
is any local community in its council meeting or any other meeting
that would stand up and bar thepress. But there have been instances
and there are certain particular areas in mind where there has been
an organized program of har rassment to prevent a local board, such
as a City Counsil, from actually conducting its meeting and some
participants in there now have been representatives of the new element
that has come to join all of you, the underground press. And I this
it was because of this that they simply included the right to eject
an individual who might be participating in this disruption. But I
certainly don't believe and I -- I was very careful about that bill
because I knew there was great concern, and I-- I feel that all the
safeguards are in it. Now, if in some instance local government
or any other government agency should take advantage of this bill in
some way as to shut the public out by barring the press, then I think
in January I would join with anyone in making a correction to see that
couldn't happen.
D
Which examples were you referring to? Which underground
press, in which meetings?
A
No, we have had some reports from some communities, particu-
larly where there has been a history of violence, such as in Berkeley,
where Council meetings have been disrupted on evidently a planned
basis. Not just a sudden disruption in which if you arrest the
individuals for unruly or disorderly conduct that you solve the
problem; that this is a planned thing where: as fast as one is
ejected another takes his place, and they just make it impossible
for hours on end to conduct the legitimate business.
2
But if your example is Berkeley, which underground media
are you referring to?
A
Well, I'm speaking generally of elements of an underground
press and I suppose those that seem to be part and parcel of the kind
-2-
of radical revolutionary movement and therefore they are part and
parcel of the efforts to disrupt oprderly government.
Q
Governor, in trying to restore your cut in thie highway
patrol --
Q
Wait a minute.
SQUIRE: Stay on this subject. Finish the other subject
there first.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: We will come back.
D
Governor, one of theprovisions in that bill sort of opens
it up for local interpretation or for a value judgment of an interpre-
tation of a credited press. Now, by virtue of being
the
underground is "a credited press." What if these things begin to
move out of hand and there is a criterion set up that is not palatable
to the press itself?
A
Well, as I said before that's pretty hard to envision a
local government that could penalize its own local press coverage.
I doubt if they ever would try. But as I also said, that if anyone
did so far stretch things as to try and shut out the public interests
by barring the press, I'd be the first one in January to -- to say,
"Let's correct that and make sure that can't happen."
Q
Do you recognize the underground press at all?
A
I don't know enough about them to know one thing or the
other. I was only siting that as some of -- some of what has taken
place that prompted that particular portion of the bill. But I do
not believe anyone can interpret that bill, and I read it very care-
fully, as being a threat to the press or in any way aimed at curbing
the press in its coverage of govermental activity.
Q
I defer to Mr. Cozen (phonetics)
8
Thank you. In trying to override your cut in the highway
patrol pay raise, Jess Unruh said today that in reducing that it
demonstrated that you are only giving lip service to law enforcement,
What is your response?
A
Well, my response is that there was nothing I hated more
than having to veto this bill. I realize that there have been
rather incomplete accounts of this. First of all, the highway
patrol, I'll take second to no one in my praise of what they mean.
I think it is one of the finest bodies of its kind to be found in
the nation, if not in the world. Their record speaks for itself.
It is -- when I met with them a few months ago about this particular
bill, I pointed out that .number one, this impression that has been
widely given last :
ht on television by some
the representatives
who were talking, that they were getting a three per cent increase,
ignored the five per cent across the board increase that all employees
got. They are getting an eight per cent increase in comparison to
the five per cent increase for other employees. It was just a plain
case of -- of a balance that we couldn't do it, but when we met with
them a few months ago they knew of this. They knew that -- as a matter
of fact, the first proposal for three per cent came to me as something
that they perhaps, if I was willing to go as high as three per cent
because there was great pressure from other departments in areas to
not grant any at all above the normal five, and it -- it was suggested
to me that the three per cent-they might be willing to reduce their
bill to three per cent. I agreed to three per cent and even though
they wouldn't reduce their bill I informed them as much as two months
ago and it is kind of shocking to me to discover now that the rank
and file were not told of this by their leadership and that -- that
they have known all this time that I was going to agree to a three
per cent increase over and above the five. A total eight per cent
increase. Now I've just heard that the Board of Directors of the
Association, however, God bless them, they have voted that there
will certainly be no slowdowns or strike sanctions or anything of the
kind because of this, and I think it reflects that they know that we
would like to do all that we could for them.
Q
Governor, it was pointed out during the debate by Mr. Unruh
and others that this money comes not from the general fund but from
the motor vehicle registration fund which Mr. Unruh said there is
73 million dollars in that fund and there is no fiscal crisis and
that that money unless -- if it doesn't go for these salaries will
go inta building more highways.
A
This is -- is it true that theirs comes out of a special
fund, but it is also true that there is a matter of trying to maintain
a certain balance. Just a couple of years ago we passed what I
think gives them one of the finest retirement systems comparable to any-
thing or better than anything that can be found any place in the
country, and certainly in the state. This was an indication that
our effort to do what we can -- if you asked me my personal feelings
about it, I'll tell you I don't think there is enough money to pay
them for the great job that they are doing, and this goes for a number
of our other law enforcement agencies also.
-4-
8
Governo: when you say "they" who d you mean "they"?
A
I guess I'm talking about the highway patrol.
Q
I mean the lobbyists of highway patrol or leaders or whom?
A
I'm talking about the association representatives and
their legislative representatives who met with me on this bill a
couple of months ago.
Q
The same people who had the press conference yesterday?
A
What? Yes.
8
What sort of balance are you taking about, Governor, a
fiscal balance or a balance in equity, in salaries?
A
A balance in equity and a balance in what you can do for
one section of emp oyees where you were restricted as to what you
could do for the rest of our employees because they were out of the
general fund; that simply because of the financing coming out of a
special fund put one section of employees totally out of line, it
just didn't seem fair.
Q
Governor, do you agree and support the concept of denying
the college and university faculty members any salary increase this
year?
A
This was a legislative decision, as you know. We had put
in for a recommendation across the board for five per cent increase.
The legislature made it very plain that they would not approve that.
8
Can we go back to welfare, Governor?
A
What?
D
Can we go back to welfare, again?
A
Yes, all right.
Q
Could you explain why you signed the bill, the Townsend
bill giving this pass-on of federal monies to the old age people
who have been on the
if your administration takes a nega-
tive position on raising the cost of living increases for a
,
that is 950,000 children of the AFDC program.
A
Well, no, this so-called pass-on was the federal government's
decision about allowing an excemption -- well, our own bill was to
allow an exemption, seven dollars and a half, in outside income that
was exempt from being computed before paying our old age assistance
program. Now, I recognized and I hesitated for a while, because it
does create a difference betwen those people who have an outside
income and those people who are totally dependent on our grant.
At the same time we have with previous bills been moving toward a
-5-
leveling up of the aid to the disabled, the aid to the blind, and the
aid to the aged. And I finally felt that this just wasn't being
equitable, that even though it did leave this one bracket -- this
division in the aid to the elderly, that we should do it. I think
that they need -- I don't think we are paying enough in those categories
yet as I have said many times in here, what they need in the face of
inflation, and cost of living. We are doing the best we can. We
are leading the nation in that category. But I think we would all
like to see a day when we could have our welfare program so in hand
that we would have the means to provide a better living for all of
those people and here was an opportunity at least for some.
0
But did you say that --
PAUL BECK: Governor, if I could interject for a minute,
the Duffy Bill would have raised the payments to the AFDC
and we supported that bill, as you know.
2
But the administration's position is -- according to the
hearing examiner is negative.
A
What is?
Q
Is negative.
A
To what?
Q
It is a negatibe position, you said that -- in your brief
you said that you felt the legislative process was sufficient.
That was the Congressional intent, that was what the Attorney General's
opinion was.
MR. MEESE:
He's mixing --
Q
Entirely --
A
I don't quite understand.
MR.
MEESE: He's mixing two concepts, Governor.
A
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.
Q
Governor, where is the money coming -- going to come from
to pay for this 7 and a half dollar pass-on?
A
Well, we are asking that about a lot of things that have to
do with welfare right now, as to where the money is coming from, and
so far we are still desperately working, hoping that we can correct
the things in the program to make it available by eliminating the
expenses that we shouldn't have in that area.
Q
Governor, can you explain why you signed the $7.50 this
year after vetoing it the prior year?
A
Well, once again, I don't think it is the same thing. The
-6-
prior year this pr. ram -- well, I'm confused, 'm going to say
left out someone or it put someone in here and I'm going to ask Ed
here to give me a hand.
1700 bills has been too many for me.
MR. MEESE:
The prior year it passed on a Social Security
increase.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: That's right.
MR. MEEDE: Which we had already compensated for by an in-
crease in the cost of living of state welfare, whereas this year
there is no pass-on per say, it merely allows a $7.50 per month
exemption of outside income from any source. Annuities, pensions,
outside pensions or anything else, so this is a big difference between
the bill this year and previous years.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: I have to -- remember that our old
age assistance which goes along with the others has a built-in
cost of living increase. When the federal government puts one in with
Social Security also we could again be giving a double cost of living
increase to those people who get both grants. I was stymied there
for a minute and I'm going to have to beg your indulgence on that.
960 bills came down in the last week of the legislature and I have
not only been signing a bulk of them, but vetoing some 70 odd and
I just drew a blank there.
Q
Governor, can you be a little more specific about where the
money is going to come from, where this pass-on -- you said it would
come from areas that we shouldn't have -- expenses shouldn't be there.
A
We are -- as I have told you before, we are trying and
have been for some time and we are continuing in an effort involving
changes in our own regulations and hopefully getting permission for
changes in the federal regulations to eliminate abuses that I have
been talking about for the past several months, but particularly for
the last few weeks, the abuses in welfare that have made this a back-
breaking cost that the state can: no longer afford and I don't think
the country can afford. Now, I don't know how successful we are going
to be, but until we make our all-out effort on that we are going to
find out how successful we can be.
Q
If you are not successful in light of all the monies bills
you did sign, do you foresee a deficit at the end of this fiscal year?
A
We are working on -- we have the threat hanging over us,
as you well know. This was -- this was announced even before the
budget was passed, announced that, yes, welfare and Medi-Cal both
-7-
are running ahead of our estimates in the budget. So this
is
the
threat that has us working even if it wasn't for this particular change
in expense.
8
Governor, why did you veto Senator Harmer's bill which
would establish the study in the decentralizing of Los Angeles'
school system?
A
Well, Ray, this was a bill that apparently those people
who were affected, as evidenced by the fact that about 19 out of the
24 legislators from that particular school district, were all opposed.
It was simply forcing on a district something that apparently the
district did not want and his original plan which started out, and
which he could not get passed, was a plan to actually decentralize
that
district. He then changed to a study, but the study was a
study of the study because it was literally -- the bill would have
caused a study of the -- of the little study, the little company
study that had already been made and it just seemed to me that there
was no point in this legislation. The
whole
school
district
is
itself now going to experiment with a program of decentralization and
we ourselves, as I told you, have a group working on the whole program
of education and educational finance. So that
was
the
reason.
Q
Governor, going back to welfare for a minute --
8
One other question on that. Did you tell Senator Harmer on
Sunday that you would call him before you vetoed that bill?
A
Senator Harmer asked me -- we talked and I -- he called
some things to my attention. I told him I would go back into the
file
and
study
those
again. I couldn't find anything to change my
mind and if you really want to know the whole sorry story of that,
he said to me that he hoped he would hear from me, whatever my deci-
sion was, without having to read it in the papers. And I told him
he would, and that night with the rest of the veto messages ahead
of me, one of the members of the staff said he'd make that call.
This was on a Sunday. And he called me to get the number. And
I went through every wastebasket in the house and everything else and
I couldn't find the slip of paper on which I had his number, and on a
Sunday we couldn't get his phone number. The next morning the messag
went up, same staff member tried to reach him, getting him at nine
o'clock in the morning, was unable to get him on the phone until 2:30
in the afternoon. We did make every effort, it was just an error.
I still haven't found that piece of paper.
8
Are you still looking for it?
Q
To get back to welfare, you mentioned -- well, you'd been
mentinning welfare abuses. Have you read in the paper the story of
the doctors, the hundreds or several thousands of doctors who haven't
been reporting their Medi-care fees in their income tax returns?
Do you have any comment on that type of abuse?
A
Yes, if they are getting away with it, certainly.
I
think -- and I think the Internal Revenue people will catch them.
I
must
admit that there was a half way temptation for
a
minute to try and figure out how they did it. I think along about
April a lot of us have been tempted that way.
But I'm -- I'm hard
put to understand how anyone could.
Q
Governor, I want to make something clear on the Townsend
Bill, are you saying at this point you don't know where that money
is going to come from and if you can't find it it could put the
budget into deficit?
A
No, no, no. We -- while it is true that the budget was
passed with the expectation not of this -- as I have told you before,
we have a -- we have a deficit position -- a threatened deficit posi-
tion in the whole area of welfare as was announced some months ago
which we are working on that right now.
Q
Governor, this morning Senator Stevens expressed a
great deal of unhappiness about your holding of the veto messages
until, as he put it, quarter to twelve Sunday. Said that came close
to flouting the constitution. Can you comment on that?
A
Yes, I've got an answer for Senator Stevens or any of
the rest of them up there, if they will run their business a little
better than to send 960 bills down in the last week.
Q
Governor, you indicated you said that you would fight
the question of conforming to. federal welfare laws to the point of
secession. Could you either explain how you intend to accomplish
that or tell us what other : means your administration is consider-
ing to deal with that problem?
A
Well, some of the gentlemen, I'm sure, were here covering
the campaign trail where I made that remark to an audience, and I'm
quite sure that they would be the first to agree it was a facetious
remark.
Q
Could you tell us what other means -
A
California might be able to secede, but I don't think the
nation could afford it. No, we -- we have lawyers representing
us, the Attorney general's office are furnishing evidence back.
-10-
We don't believe we areout of conformity. We never have believed we
are out of conformity. The Department of Health, Education and
Welfare has told us we don't have to pay another dime to be in
conformity. It is a little confusing, frankly. And since we are
one of the highest paying states in that particular area, it is --
it is hard for us to understand what conformity would mean. So
we are -- we are continuing and naturally we shall oppose and appeal
the
judicial decision.
Q
But you don't think it would cost California any money
even if you lose it, is that what you've been told, right, Governor?
A
I'm most optimistic that it isn't going to.
8
Do you think the passage of the President's family assist-
ance program is going to open the door to further paperwork or legal
fraud as you have called it.
A
Well, I'm opposed to the program. I was not opposed
to the President's original concept which I thought was one that
was aimed at taking away the choice between being on welfare or
working for the able-bodied. I think that the bill and as I have
said repeatedly, that the bill as it finally made its way through
the House of Representatives, came out with the preservation of a
great deal of what is wrong with welfare now and simply expanded
and added to it, it just became a bigger -- threated to became a
bigger mess than what we already-have and so we applied the bill
as it came through the Congress to our own situation here in the
state and found that it just increased our welfare problem. And we
made that information available to Washington and to some of our
fellow governors. All of our fellow governors.
Q
How did it increase the problem?
A
Well, because the -- many of the things that are wrong
now were still built in. The incentives to work were no greater
than they are now. There was not a hard and fast, as there was
originally set out to be a hard and fast choice that the person
either had to take work training or work or get off welfare. And
all of these have been modified down to the same loopholes still
exist and it just becomes bigger.
Q
Accepting your statement that the state is not in conformity
with the federal law, what is the state planning to say to Judge
Zerpoli
, when it next meets as to whether the state is planning
to bring itself to conformity?
-10-
11
A
I haven't read all the briefs or the evidence that is
going to be presented now in the state's position. I'm sure you could
get that from the men that are representing us.
Q
I have tried without success.
A
Well, there's lawyers for you then.
That's
why
I
haven
been getting any information.
Q
Governor, do you think the people of California wouldbbe. bette
served if veto sessions were abolished?
A
Oh, there is a great deal of talk of that going upstairs.
I think that the legislative process -- Bob Monagan has been trying
and has suggested some various reforms that should be cleaned up.
I think that there is a second look due with regard to reform because
I -- I don't think that there really was a reform over the recent
decade when it was supposed to be. It just went from about
a four million dollar annual legislative burden to about a twenty
million dollar bureaucratic maze.
Q
Governor, I have another question on welfare. When did
NEW say you didn't have to spend another dime to get conformity?
A
In the meetings prior to the hearing out here.
Q
This was after the Duffy bill was killed in the senate?
A
No, while the Duffy bill was still up there.
D
Well, was their remark on the contention that the Duffy
bill would pass?
A
No, uh-uh.
Q
Governor, regarding -- in reference to the legislature
as a bureaucratic maze, do you have some complaints about the way
they are operating up there, generally speaking?
A
Just 960 bills in one week.
Q
Is that your main complaint, just the last -- the rush
of the last week?
A
No, I think that there are -- I think there are some changes
that are needed and I think most of the legislators talk about them.
% try to keep my nose out of their affairs, and I think that's proper
But I think that such things as the fact that the budget, for example,
culd be held up past the June 30th date, and there seems to be no
provision built in the law here, this great flood cf bills that does
come down here at the end of a session, the questioning now about the
value of this -- of the veto session, these are the things that, as
I understand it, a number of the veteran legislators are talking about
upstairs, and as I say the Speaker has already made it plain that
he has been proposing some ideas that he thinks would amount to
legislative reform, and I think there is evidence that it is needed.
8
On the specific question of the veto session, do you favor
elimination thereof?
A
Well, I know that at the time when it was passed it seemed
to be an answer to a -- to an executive office practice of pocket
vetoes and SO forth with which I was in disagreement. I think if
you are going to veto a bill you should be prepared to tell why you
are vetoing it and I subscribe to that. Maybe this particular
method in this session is not the answer.
Q
Another subject.
Q
One more on the veto session. Were there no veto session
this year, would you have taken the same action in signing and
vetoing bills that you have just taken?
A
I have a kind of a feeling -- I've never gone along with
the idea of letting them become law without the signature or vetoing
them but unwilling to state why you vetoed them. I think the
people have a right and the legislators have a right to know that
you either put your name on it for them or you explain why you
wouldn't put your name on it.
Q
In other words, you sign no bills out of fear that your
veto would have been overriden?
A
No, no.
8
Jess Unruh recently released a poll that shows he's gained
some four points on you since the last California poll. He seems
to be closing the gap. Is this going to change your approach to
your re-election campaign?
A
Well, I haven't planned to make any house calls, if that's
what you mean.
SQUIRE:
Any more questions?
(Laughter)
000
13