Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564110",
    "label": "Transcripts - 04/01/1971, 04/13/1971, 04/27/1971, 05/04/1971",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564110"
}

{
    "id": "118564110",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564110",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 04/01/1971, 04/13/1971, 04/27/1971, 05/04/1971",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564110",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-008-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-008-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-008-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564110",
    "naId": 118564110,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-008-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "99342fb290c55b5e",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual\ncollections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -\n04/01/1971, 04/13/1971, 04/27/1971, 05/04/1971\nBox: P03\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\n4/1\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD APRIL 1, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after theconference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I'm sorry to have kept you waiting\nin here. I understand that you had another engagement previously\nand certain clearing of the room had to take place. I have a\nstatement here.\n(Whereupon the Governor read Press Release No. 180.)\nQ\nGovernor, is the $15 million dollars figure a total of damage\nor is that total cost to the State -- is the State's share of repair-\ning?\nA\nNo, that's total damage. The State's share --\nMR. BECK: 17, I think, Bill. You add the other two\nin there.\nQ\nYes.\no\nGovernor, is there anything apropos of consideration on\nearthquake damage, is there anything the administration can do to\nexpedite theavailability of federal money on the loan basis for people\nto repair their homes and businesses?\nA\nWe have been having some meetings on this and talking to\nsome of our Congressmen about it. When I think back on how swiftly\nwe have been able to cut red tape at every level ofgovernment, local\nright on up through state and federal in the actual emergency and\nthe disaster aid and how effectively we worked together literally\non moment's notice, I myself am hard put to understand this great\ndelay now in processing the applications for small business administra-\ntion loans. And while there is some evidence in the last -- probably\n48 hours of a stepup in the processing of these applications, I\nwould think that if a pace doesn't quicken and they don't in some way\nmatch the other agencies in the speed with which we have been able to\nhandle these things, that maybe there ought to be a congressional\ninvestigation into just what is preventing this -- these applications\nfrom being processed.\nQre. being Governor, do you plan to see the President personally\non this matter as requested by City Councilman Knoll phonetics)\nfrom Los Angeles?\nA\nWell, I think that I will be seeing the President shortly\nnow that he's out here in the west, and I certainly will bring this\nsubject up and -- and discuss with him the -- just what I've said\nhere, the matter of how suddenly there has been this lack of speed.\nQ\nGovernor, therSouthern Crossing bill still rests on your\ndesk. Have you decided what you are going to do with -- about that?\nA\nWell, I would rather not make any answer decision now\nbecause there are still some individuals who have requested meetings\nwith me and want to give what they have described as additional\ninput on this whole matter and on both sides, so I just don't think\nit would be proper for me to make a comment.\nQ\nWhat about the speculation that you may veto the bill\nwith the understanding that there would be a Bay area vote on the --\non the matter in June of '72?\nA\nWell, again, 88 I say, I just don't want to give anything\nthat would indicate that I've made a decision and as I properly\nshouldn't, until I've heard these other individuals that still want\nto give me additional information.\nQ\nGovernor, what was your reaction to the conviction of\nLieutenant Calley?\nQ\nCan we stay on this subject?\nSQUIRE:\nFinish on this Sirst.\nA\nYes.\nQ\nOn Your deadline, Governor, on the Southern Crossing bill,\ntechnically it is Sunday midnight but you are leaving the State\ntomorrow afternoon. Will you make a decision and announce it?\nA\nI'm goingto have to make the decision before then, yes.\nQ\nBefore you leave the state?\nA\nYes. I'll make it, I won't dump it on someone else.\n8\nCan you tell us the kind of groups you are waiting to have\ninput from, Governor?\nA\nI haven't seen the schedule here. I met with a couple\ndifferent\nof supervisors over in the Bay area from -- representing two/counties\nyes\nyesterday. I have, as you have already reported, met with Assemblyman\nCrown, the author of the bill, and I haven't actually seen the\nschedule, I just know that there are others that I amvtold still want\n-2-\nto come in and have some input.\na\nHave the San Francisco Supervisors been in yet or given\nyou the information?\nA\nOne was here yesterday and gave me a copy of their resolu-\ntion, we discussed this generally.\n8\nWho is that?\nA\nSupervisor Feinstein. Now can I get off the bridge.\nTwiname\n0\nGovernor, Mr. Twine with HEW last week wrote your admini-\nstration saying that in view of the Supreme Court Decision that the\nState could increase the AFDC maximums and requested a timetable for tha\nHave you decided on the timetable or reply to him?\nA\nNo, we are in communication with him and replying actually\nthere is no great and immediate problem on this. And since our own\nwelfare reform proposals, the decision of the court that simply said\nthat administratively we could not make the decrease or the cut in\nsome grants that we wanted to enable us to make us increases in the\nothers, that this was a matter for the legislature, so now it isjust\na -- it is applain case of informing HEW that -- the procedure that\nwe intend to follow on this.\nQ\nIn that letter' they ask for a timetable. What was your\nreply to setting a timetable for increasing the maximum?\nA\nWell, I don't think that there is any change required in\nthe way we -- we have a quarter yet to go, a full quarter of the\nyear, and --\nMR. MEESE: This is still being developed jointly with\nHEW on how we plan to handle it.\nA\nWe are talking to each other.\nQ\nGovernor, they didn't give you a deadline of tomorrow\nto set a timetable? To let them know what your timetable was on this?\nMR.\nMEESE: They just wanted a reply by that time,\nGovernor.\nA\nThey just wanted a reply and the knowledge that we are\nproceeding.\nQ\nGovernor, isn't there a deadline, though, with the federal\nJudge in San Francisco, Judge Zerpoli, who set a cut-off date of\nApril 13 of federal funds if the state doesn't have any plan to bring\nitself into compliance. Isn't that order still in effect?\nMR. MEESE: No, that's stayed because the case is on\nappeal at the present time.\nQ\nGovernor, how much would itecost to provide the cost of\nliving increase per month? That is if you put it into effect on\na monthly basis, how much would it cost to provide?\nA\nI can't give you the answer yet, the people over in\nwelfare are working on those figures and I don't have them.\nQ\nIs there any possibility that you would or could provide\nit with the unanticipated refenue which is now, I believe, in the\nSocial -- have been budgeted for Social Welfare, but now apparently\nisn't going to be needed?\nA\nNow, I presume that you are talking about the 25 million\ndollars so-called that was hailed as a surplus. That aasual use\nof the word \"suplus\" is a little confusing at times.\nThe 25\nmillion dollars just means that the deficit is 25 million dollars\nless than had been ancitipated.\nQ\nBut your budget, though, that is in the legislature now\nis balanced. You had anticipated paying that deficit, hadd't you?\nMR. MEESE: Talking about two fiscal years.\nQ\nRight.\nMR. MEESE: And we are talking about the present fiscal\nyear which has a deficit of estimated, in December, of $150 million.\nThis means that deficit will be 25 million dollars less if these\nestimates that you are talking about prove accurate.\nQ\nO. K., then what are you going to do with the money next year\nwith which you had anticipated paying the deficit?\nMR. MEESE: One of the things we are going to find\nout if we have it on the 30th of June before we start spending it.\n8\nGovernor, upon whom have you been relying for legal\nadvice ind welfare and Medi-Cal matters and from the taxpayer's point\nof view, isn't it about time you got a new lawyer?\n(Laughter)\nA\nNo, I don't think SO. But I tell you something, I\nwould think that they might review their staffing in Washington.\n8\nWell, I mean the Courts, though, you haven't really been\nright yet or the lawyers -- your lawyers haven't, have they? I\njust thought everything that's been contested has been found against\nwhat you've been trying to do.\nA\nThis is assuming that the Judges are right. I'm a\nlittle --\n8\nThey have the last words.\n-4-\nA\nYes, I k. 1, and I'm a little confus about the most\nrecent decision. There was a technical decision by a Judge that\nwe could not raise one or -- or lower one part of the welfare grants\nadministratively, that this had to be done by the legislature, but the\nsame judge ruled that we could raise the grants for theesther part\nof the welfare recipients without going through the legislature.\nAnd this alone has me a little confused and seems somewhat incon-\nsistent.\nQ\nGovernor, what do you intend to tell the Department of\nHealth, Education and Welfare, is the state's plan or what procedure\nare you going to take?\nA\nWell, for one thing our reform proposal would put us in\nconformity. Our reform proposal is that we are asking for the\nlegislature for, is exactly what we have been talking about, ability\nto reduce what we think are excessively high grants to peoplewwho\nhave good solid earnings and outside income in order to have funds\nto raise the grants to those who are totally destitute and who have\nno other source of income. And the Judge has -- the Judge's ruling\nprevented us from doing this administratively, did not rule on\nthe matter of whether it was right or wrong to raise the grants,\nhe simply said that this was a matter of statute, this was a matter\nthat required the legislature to act and that we couln't do it\nadministratively.\nQ\nMr. Orr seems to indicate that the Court's ruling would be\nput into effect rather automatically and this would bypass the 25\nmillion dollars, whatever you are going to call it, that suddenly has\nshown up and you didn't realize it.\nA\nWell, as I told you, this is a -- we are still, and we\nhave our people working on it, what the figures are that confront us.\nQ\nGovernor, I just want to make clear about that 25 million.\nAre you saying, are you, that out -- that it will be used then this\nyear for any welfare program, and that it will be used instead to\nmeet the deficit at the end of this year?\nA\nWell, let me -- as we said, this isn't a surplus. This\nis an estimated deficit that is smaller now by that amount. But\nagain in the area of welfare, how this came about or how this deficit\nwas reduced is a kind of hard thing to put your finger on. We --\nwe have a feeling that it resulted from our own talk of welfare\nreform. We have a feeling that this program is so tig, so complicated\nthat when you start talking about it, as we have publicly, about the\n-5-\nweaknesses and the liberalized approach in welfare, that has lead to\nthis problem, that there is a kind of tightening up that takes place\nall down the line, and the people's attention in the whole welfare\nstructure is brought to the things that we are pointing out and they\nkind of are a little more careful with regardtto eligibility and\nthis over a period of weeks, and a few months, has been able to actually\ntighten up welfare that much. Now, by the same token there can be\na slackening. We are running a case load increase, of approximately\n50,000 a month. As you all hailed last month, 48,000. Well, that\ndidn't surprise any of us as we have been telling you it is running,\nthe increased case load, at an average of about 50,000 now.\nNow a slight fluctuation in that upward can make that 25 million\ndisappear.\nQ\nWell, you've already budgeted part of it, I believe, for\nSenator Burgener's bill. 3.2 million, according to the Department\nof Finance, who is planning to take 3.2 million out of that fund\nfor Senator Burgenerss bill, So apparently someone down there\nbelieved that part of it, at least, is going to be --\nA\nWell, it appears at times when you have to make some\nallowances, you know. You assume that you've got some flexibility\nup to certain amounts. You take some considered risks in -- in\nthose amounts.\nQ\nWell, the question I ask is are you going then to let that\nhang and apply it against the surplus if the -- I mean against the\ndeficit 1f it does occur or are you considering using it for anything\nelse beyond the 3.2 million we were talking about?\nA\nI couldn't give you an answer on that.\nI don't know.\nWe will have to see what our situation is at that time.\nQ\nAnd what's -- excuse me, at what time?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nAt what time, at the end of the year?\nA\nWhen we come down to some recognition as to whether we\nhave it or not.\nQ\nCould we go back to that court decision for a moment?\nQ\nWait a minute. Doesn't the aspect of the ruling that\nsays you can raise the grants, doesn't that bring you in immediate\ncompliance with federal law if you do it? Isn't that all that's\nrequired to bring you to compliance with federal law? I know it\ncosts money, but doesn't it bring you into compliance?\n-6-\nA\nIt would ing us into compliance, there are a number\nof things that would bring us into compliance. There is a funny\ntotal\nthing about trying to get in compliance with HEW. If you told up\nthe number of states that are out of conform with HEW it seems that\nthe only one that's in step in the United States is HEW. All of\nthe states, apparently, are out of step which should give usesome\nindication that there is something very wrong with HEW's regulations.\nQ\nHow many states, Governor, do you think are out of --\nA\nWell, I've seen most recently listed Nebraska, Indiana,\nArizona, Connecticut, there have been some others now, I can't name\nthem all. But almost every -- every edition of the press brings\nout some more news notes about states that have been found for one\nreason or the other to not be in conformity with HEW.\nQ\nYou said that HEW has been very cooperative with you in\ndiscussing your program and that they are interested in -- in it\nfrom a nationwide point of view.\nA\nYes.\nQ\nWhat's the problem with -- going on in HEW?\nA\nI don't know. Maybe we got their attention.\nA\nIs it that approach to this, bringing the compliance,\non which you believe youhhave enough time to -- to affect some\nprogram, this question of raising grants? Is it this aspect you\nthink yourhave sufficient time to bring yourself to compliance?\nA\nWell, we have a quarter still ahead of us. There is no\nthreat of immediate cutoff of federal funds because we -- theseis\nalready approved for another quarter to go.\nPAUL BECK: Governor, I wonder if I could just bring\nout something that you have got a federal court decision, a state\ncourt decision, you've got a re-hearing or hearing on a conformity\nissue with HEW, you've got the welfare reform bill and you've got\nthe budget. All these things are hinged and tied together, so at this\npoint in time until you really know where you are going you can't\nreally make any solid decisions without anything.\nQ\nGovernor, I understand you are going to Japan. Are you\nalso going to Vietnam, and if so, why?\n0\nWait a minute, we are still on welfare.\nQ\nI said it was an exception.\nQ\nHere's one on welfare.\nA\nI'll get back to that, there is still some questions on\nthis.\n-7-\nQ\nI've got used on the welfare question. A San Francisco\nCourtshasveuled that wives of Vietnam veterans are -- can receive\nwelfare while their husbands are over there fighting, what do you\nthink of this? Is this a good idea or not?\nA\nWell, we have just heard about that. It has just come\nto our attention and we don't know exactly what the situation 1s.\nI just have to say that if there are families of servicemen that are\nin need and as I say I don't know the situation or just what it is that\nthey are talking about, but it would seem first then that there must\nbe something wrong with the allotment provisions that have pertained\nsince World War II, as far as I know, in the military, if allotments\nto families when servicemen who are the heads of the families providers\nfor the families are absent, out of their jobs. It would seem to\nme that there is something very wrong with welfare and this again\nindicates 100 -- if welfare must be the basis for support of the\nfamilies of men who are serving their country in uniform. Now, can\nwe answer the question?\nQ\nO. K., I understand you are going to Japan. Are you going on\nto Vietnam, and if so, why?\nA\nWell, let me say here, I'm afraid that I made that trip\ndiscussion that I had with you the other day, I made it sound more posi-\ntive than it is. This is still an 1fy thing, and there is such a\ntrip being considered as to -- as to other visits over there. The\nWhite House has been interested and the White House has discussed also\ntenaatively, the possibility of other visits in Asia and whether they\nwould include Vietnam or not that has not been finally decided either.\nThe whole thing has not been finally decided, but the White House\nitself -- the President has discussed the possibility of my making\nsome visits.\n0\nWho goes with you, do you know?\nA\nWell, making the trip, I'm a family man, I take the family.\nQ\nWell, Governor --\nQ\nGovernor, a trip such as this hasi preceded presidential\nbids by virtually ever presidential candidate in the past. How do\nyou plan to dampen the speculation this is a prelude to such an effort\nby you?\nA\nI think it ought to be rather significant that the suggestion\nfor the visit has come from the President, which I think would suggest\na different interpretation than you are suggesting.\n-8-\nQ\nCould th be some sort of announcem on his part?\nA\nWhat?\n(Laughter)\nA\nOh, no. I did, as you recall, once before I did represent\nhim on a trip to the Phillipines at his request, and this is not an\nuncommon thing, it is sometimes down done by legislatore, sometimes done\nby others. I remember back right after Franklin Delano Roosevelt\nhad run against Wendell Wilkie and had run on a pledge that he wald\nnot send any Americans overseas, and right after he was re-elected\nWendell Wilkie was the first one he sent.\nQ\nGovernor, what would be the purpose of the trip?\nA\nWell, I think that if -- 1f the Japan portion of the\ntrip should take place, that would have to do, WI think, with just our\nown state relationship and a trade partner with Japan, and a very\nclose relationship that we have always had. On the other visits, then\nthis would be determined by the White House and be determined by where\nit would be suggested that I go.\nD\nGovernor, the other day you said you had accepted the\ninvitation. What's been changed since then?\nA\nWell, I -- in accepting, and I'm sorry, it was my fault,\nI didn't make it clear. I used the word \"accepted\" when I should\nhave said was, I said that, yes, I would be receptive and willing\nto -- to go if this is all --\nQ\nWhen would you go?\nA\nThis has been discussed for the fall, but there is no set\ndate.\nQ\nGovernor, you anticipated running against Congressman\nMcCloskey in the Presidential primary?\nA\nAm I considering what?\n8\nDo you -- do you anticipate running against Congressman\nMcCloskey in the Presidential primary?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nIn California.\nA\nNo, what I have said to the President -- I would think\nmake automatic this thing. I have told the President that, that I\nwanted to head a delegation to the convention pledged to his renomina-\ntinn of re-election and under California law then this would mean\nthat that slate of delegates pledged to the President would be on the\nballot. And if Mr. McCloskey wanted to inject himself as a candidate\n-9-\nin the California pramary, then that would mean there would be\nanother slate of delegates.\n8\nHe said -- he said about running -- talked about running\nin the primaries, I just wonder whether you heard he was going to\nrun against you in this Slate in California.\nA\nHe would be running against the President in California,\nand I would simply be a member of that -- of that slate of delegates.\nI don't know whether he's picked California for his run for glory or\nnot.\nQ\nWould you welcome his candidacy, Governor, is there kind\nof a test between the Republican party on Vietnam?\nA\nVery frankly I thought -- I thought that he should review\nhis thinking very seriously because the main issue that seemed to\ndisturb him so much is one that I think shows a great lack of under-\nstanding of what this country is all about, when he expressed his\nanger at the President beaause the President said he wouldn't abandon\nour prisoners in Vietnam. And I think that anyone ought to review\nhis thinking about opposing that because I would think when he talks\nimpeachment of a President for making such a statement, I think he'd\nbe surprised how many of us would suggest impeaching any President\nwho would abandon an American prisoner.\nD\nGovernor, will you give us your comments on the outcome\nof the Calley trial, the verdict and the judgment and sentencing?\nA\nWell, no, I'd rather not comment because knowing the\nmilitary process, this is not final. A verdict has been handed\ndown by the Courts Martial, but as you know it is not a final verdict\nand not a final sentence until this is reviewed all the way up through\nthe military and all the way high as the Commander in Chief in the\nWhite House. So I don't think it would be proper to comment.\nQ\nWhat do you think of Governor Wallace's statement that\nhe will try to see if the State of Alabama can avoid sending anybody\nto the draft until this issue of Lieutenant Calley is resolved?\nA\nWell, I -- I'm going to let process -- due process take\nits course.\nQ\nGovernor, about four years ago Spiro Agnew encouraged you\nto seekthe Vice-Presidency; has he renewed that encouragement at all?\nA\nNo, not at all.\n(Laughter)\n-10-\nQ\ngovernor, he wants to get in a Calley question over there.\nGet in there, Bill.\nQ\nWell, Warren asked it, I was going to ask -- you said you\nplanned to see the President soon. Would that be before you go to\nArizona?\nMR.MEESE: Nothing definite yet.\nA\nI don't know, we are waiting to hear. It would be just\nas easy to come back from Phoenix.\n8\nCan we get back to Calley for another question? Some\ndraft boards have resigned in protest to the Calley decision. Would\nyou sympathize with any California draft board members who resigned\nin protest?\nA\nWell, this is up to them, if they want tormake that\ndecision. I recognize this is a highly emotional issue and I think\nit is a very complicated issue with regard to a man in the military.\nWhat he does. There is a -- I don't think there is any question\nbut that a war of this kind has revealed that the enemy is not always\nin uniform.\nc\nWould you, however, be sympathetic to California draft\nboards who resigned in protest?\nA\nWell, I would have to respect their right to do it.\n8\nAnother subject. Governor, the so-called education\nestablishment introduced in the legislature yesterday its bill to\nfinance education in California. Two questions. One, have you\nhad any chance to talk to Superintendent Riles about this program\nwhich he backs, and two, when can we expect to see your promised\nprogram on education reform?\nA\nWell, we are still reviewing this situation with regard\nto whether we can establish, as I said once before, to the people\nthe actual need of education, and part of this is trying to find out\nexactly what did the more than a half a billion dollars that we have\nincreased for public school education in California in the last four\nyears -- what did it accomplish and why it apparently has not added\nto the educational quality of our school system. I haven't had a\nchance to meet with Dr. Riles on this. I would -- I'd like to\nhave time to find out and to learn from him just what it is that's\nsupposed to be accomplished with thes-money. The part of the pro-\nposal that has to do with equalization and a simplification of the\n-11-\nformula, this of course meets with our ppproval, this too weehave\nbeen studying.\nQ\nGovernor, on that same topic, this program calls for a\n400 million dollar off the top from your General Fund, an additional\n400 million dollars. Starting next fiscal year. Would you support\nthis?\nA\nWell, I have to say again I have said that if it became\nnecessary to -- for the qualify of education to ask for a tax increase\nin order to -- to improve education, that I would not be unwilling\nto do that. I've said this for about two years now. I've said\nalso that I felt that after the half a billion dollar increase that\nhas already been given that it is absolutely essential bhat before\nwe ask the people for more taxes for education we be in a position to\nguarantee them that we have a reason to know that that money is needed\nand that it will improve the qualify of education. And so far this --\nas I say, is what we are discussing and researching right now in our\nown shop and at this moment I couldn't make such a statement to the\npeople of California.\nQ\nGovernor, on another subject. Most medical authorities\nright now agree that there is an epidemic of venereal disease in\nCalifornia, and I was wondering what yourposition is on taking some\nsort of action to combat this, education for the youth or something\nthat would do something to alleviate this problem.\nA\nWell, we have been aware of this problem for sometime and\nthat's why we have our own agencies concentrating on it. It is\nepidemic. No question about it, but I think at the same time that\nrather than just a health problem as of the moment , and while that is\nvital of course to try and curb this, I think that the whole\nramifications into the kind of permissiveness, the spreading of the\nbelief that old standards of morality don't apply, the recommending\nthat abortionsis an easy answer to those who want to give in to their\nown desires, and I thinktthat the -- that this has to be -- we have\nto approach this problem fow from what have we been doing with this\npermissiveness, with the toleration of the commune type of living,\nthe Haight-Ashbury syndrome, the Sunset Strip in Los Angeles, and\nall because it is out of hand, and it is down at a very tender age\nin our high school young men and women. But we are deeply concerned\nwith this and we have been working on this to see what we can do.\nQ\nGovernor, going back a second to your statements here,\nyou go for a tax increase if the need could be demonstrated for\neducation, doesn't change your position a nuttle bit on balancing\ntherbudget without new taxes?\nA\nWell, no, because for two years, almost two years, ever\nsince we have had a task force, we have said that nothing that --\neach time we have granted the request for a gigantic increase in school\nsupport we have done so on the basis of numbers in which we recognize\nthat no one -- no one in the educational community and no one in the\nlegislature, no one in our office, has been able to establish an\nactual need and a claim that this money was needed for academic quality.\nThere was no question about the need simply because of school\ndistricts that were up against the wall financially and evidently\nhad no plans to meet their problem any other way, but to ask for it,\nand so in a kind of emergency atmosphere each year this money has\nbeen granted and I started saying then that I felt that before we\ndid this any more we should be able to assure the people of California\nthat they were getting their money's worth and that this money would\nbe spent for an improved education. And I have said repeatedly that\nif and when such amoment came, if we could guarantee to the people\nthat there was a necessity for this and that required an increase\nin taxes, that I would not hesitate to propose such a thing.\nQ\nGovernor, when do you expect to get an answer from the\ntask force?\nA\nWell, as I told you, we are having these discussions\nright now and this -- and this study is going on.\no\nGovernor, last week -- change of subject. Last week\nyour administration failed to send a representative to Washington\nduring the CRLA. The Administration said that no invitation had\nbeen rendered regarding those hearings. What is the status of those\nhearings presently and will your administration send a representative\nin the future?\nA\nThere was no representative requested. There was no\nmeeting in Washington, the only meeting that was held in Washing-\nton was the newly appointed Judges who are now out here carrying on\nthe hearings that have been decided upon at the time of the sustaining\nof my veto. They have held, as I understand, the first hearing and\nwhat they are doing is investigating CRLA and we understood back in\nthe beginning the purpose of this was to go back to Mr. Carlucci\nwith recommendations as to how legal services to the poor -- rural\npoor could best be provided in California. I suppose the pattern\nfor other states also. So our people have offered their full\ncooperation, and are cooperating with these Judges that have been\nassigned.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD APRIL 13, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corpss for their\nconfenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and\nthere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no00\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Sorry to have kept you waiting a few\nminutes, but there was another press conference going on out in the\nhall there.\n8\nIs it better than this one?\nA\nYes, a group of eager students all on one subject, they\nall stayed on environment.\n0\nGovernor, Assemblyman Gordon Duffy said you have reached\nan agreement in the restoration ofsome of the Medi-Cal cuts made last\nDecember. Have you indeed reached this agreement with the Legislature\nand what is it?\nA\nWell, we -- we had agreed with Gordon Duffy earlier before\nhe introduced thebill on certain areas. Now there's been an amendment\nto the bill with regard to achange in some of the funds. I haven't\nhad time to meet or consult with anyone on this and whether this\namendment which was -- is contrary to the agreement, whether this is\ngoing to be something that we han handle or not. But up until that\namendment, roughly the idea of about $10 million dollars to be returned\nto counties, a few of those things were things that we had agreed --\nas a matter of fact some of them were things that we had set out to do\nourselves.\n8\nYou were opposed to the 2 million dollars going to the\nnursing homes?\nA\nWell, don't say opposed, I haven't had a chance to meet\nwith our people yet on whether this opens up any doors that we can't\nhandle.\nQ\nGovernor, Mr. Uhler says that the State -- the administra-\ntion does not want to be in an adversary position in the CRLA hearings\nnow being held. Can you tell us, is theoffice of Economic Opportunity\nstill accumulating information to present to the federal panel and\nhow much money has been spent for this accumulation of evidence?\nA\nI wouldn't havethe answer on that. No, I think what Mr.\nUhler was saying is that we are -- the State intends to cooperate\nas a friend of the commission and meaning it is not an adversary\nposition. This investigation isn't as repeople have implied,\nan investigation of our veto. That's a closed chapter. This was\nthe thing that we had discussed with Mr. Carlucci and his people at\nthe time of the veto about a commission to investigate the entire\nfield of legal assistance to the rural poor and how best to handle\nit.\nQ\nWhy is Mr. Uhler opposed to an open hearing?\nA\nWell, I think the -- there is a feeling that what was apt\nto happen, where some of the hearings with the demonstrators and\nmaking a kind of a traveling circus out of it instead of really\ngetting down to an investigation of what the -- what would be a\nproper way of providing this legal assistance to the poor.\nQ\nDo you feel that three State SupremeeCourt Justices are\nnot capable of conductingg a courtroom type hearing?\nA\nNo, I didn't -- I never said that. I just think that the\ninvestigation was supposed to -- to find out, as I said before, the\nbest way to provide this legal assistance, and I think there were --\nevery reason to believe that you could have a type of hearing in\nwhich you would have demonstrators more than objective witnesses.\n8\nGovernor, would some of the information you have gleaned\ntend to justify the charges made last week by the correctional\nofficers that the CRLA or its attorneys have instigated some of the\nviolence in our institutions?\nA\nWell, I -- I read that and heard that, as the other people\ndid in the news here. I haven't had an official report on anything\nof that kind yet, so I would imagine that this is the kind of thing\nthat these hearings are supposed to bring out and will establish.\nQ\nAnd your docmentation shows nothing that would substantiate\nthat charge?\nA\nWell, there was nothing that I know of in our original\nreport on the veto that dealt with that, was there? Or was there?\nPAUL BECK: There was some reference.\nA\nThere was. Well, he says there was a reference to it in\nall the 283 pages.\nWhat?\nQ\nCan you give us specific examples?\n-2-\nA\nI just had to find out it was in there.\nPAUL BECK: It is in that report, that thick report.\nbig\nA\nYou are talking about the/original veto report.\nQ\nGovernor, on another subject. The PUC is under fire,\nit is not being operated in the best interests of the public interests,\nand I was just wondering whether you had any advice for the commis-\nsioners or not.\nA\nNo, I haven't talked to the commissioners, but I -- I\nhappen to believe that they are not doing anything that we haven't\ndone in other departments of state government, and that is try to\nmake it more efficient and better able to operate and I don't believe\nthat this commission in any way is going to operate against the\nbest interests of the consumer. It is awfully easy for someone\nto only take a book at utilities rates and charge that this is the\nentire work area of the Public Utilities Commission, but I think the\nPublic Utilities Commission, if it is to properly represent the best\ninterests of the people, has to see that utilities in our state are\nable to meet the responsibility and provide the utilities that are\nneeded. Now, we have evidence in the rest of the country where there\nhave been breakdowns and failures, we see the brownouts in the east,\nwe see the great power failures that have taken place, and I think\nthat this is very definitely a part of the Public Utility Commission\nto see that the utilities can expand to meet our growing needs.\n0\nGovernor, in spite of your advice to the citizens of\nBerkeley, they apparently voted in three of the four radical slate\nto City Councilman, and the one most liberal member to Mayor.\nI wonder what your reaction is now and are you concerned that this\nwill spread to other communities in California?\nA\nWell, no, and frankly, in answering a question here in a\npress conference, I had never thought about my answer being advice\nto the people of Berkeley. If you are going to take it as advice, I\nhave to say I broke even because we at least retained the single\npolice force in Berkeley. No, I -- these are local elections and\nperhaps it will serve as a kind of a warning to other communities\nthat if they are concerned, then they should take a greater interest\nin local elections, stop having 25 and 30 per cent turnouts of voters.\nThey better get up --\nQ\nThis wasn't a 25 per cent turnout of voters.\n-3-\nA\nNo, no, but I'm saying stop having that in other communi-\nties where this is rather general, 30 -- 35 per cent turnout is\nconsidered qute a reasonable turnout in a great many local elections.\nQ\nSame subject. Governor, did you see -- do you see this\nchange in the state's relationship with Berkeley in any way, this --\nthe new nature of this city government?\nA\nNo, they have atcity government there and I think the state\nwill fulfill its responsibilities, whatever they may be, to a local\ncommunity, Berkeley included.\n@\nGovernor, are you pleased that there was such a large\nturnout for the voting?\nA\nI'm always pleased if there is alarge turnout. I -- I\nthink when you think of all that it has cost for us to have the\nprivilege of voting, it is hard for me to ever justify someone that\ncarelessly throws that privilege away, and doesn't exercise his\nright.\nWell, Governor, do you think perhaps the locale&lections\nought to be on a partisan basisrrather than non-partisan?\nA\nOh, I -- I haven't really sat down to give that very\nmuch thought. This is -- as I understand it, one of the reforms\nin California that hails back to the Hiram Johnson days; I really --\nI really couldn't comment on that. Many people, of course, express\na belief that in partisan elections then you have party responsibility,\nnot for only getting out and vote, but for whatever may go wrong, you\nhave a party that can be held responsible. I don't know.\nQ\nGovernor, on another subject.\nQ\nNo, I have one more. One on Berkeley. Governor, what\nkind of government doyyou see emerging now in Berkeley as a result\nof the election?\nA\nI'm just going to sit here with unsatisfied curiosity\nuntil we see what happens.\nQ\nYou said, Governor, that the -- this ought to be a\nwarning to other communities to turn out in larger percentages than\nthey have. Are you suggesting that if they did turn out in larger\npercentages the results would be different than the results in\nBerkeley?\nA\nWell, I don't know. Let me -- maybe I'd better add to\nthat then lest you read me incorrectly. Let me just say that if\nthere are any peopl that are concerned and ar disturbed by what\ntook place in Berkeley, then they should accept this was a warning\nto make sure they have a turnout in their own communities, to make\nsure that in any community whoever is elected represents the feeling\nof that community.\nQ\nAre you concerned about it?\nA\nI don't live in Berkeley, and I have no intention of re-\ntiring there.\n2\nDo you think it represents any kind of threat to other\ncities in California?\nA\nthought that that -- I thought that thing on the ballot\nand this was really more what I was talking about last week, I thought\nthat thing on the ballot to break up the police force into a kind of\nneighborhood home guard situation was pretty ridiculous and would\nnot meet the modern requirement S today in crime fighting. And I'm\ndelighted that it didn't get any place.\n8\nHow about the candidates themselves who supported that\nmeasure?\nA\nWell, now, they are no longer candidates, they are office\nholders.\nLet's just wait and see how they perform their duties.\n0\nGovernor, during the past two years there's been a\ndevelopment at San Jose State College, plans for graduate school in\nsocial work. During this time they have put together the cúrriculum\nand hired the fauulty, but because of a cut in your budget for the\ncoming fiscal year they will not be able to open as planned in\nSeptember as a graduate school. The school was to uniquely pursue\nsolving problems, particularly, for the Mexican-Americans. Were\nyou aware of the cut and do you think it is justified?\nA\nNo, I don't think that we cut that specifically. I think\nthis is again one of those areas in which when the budget is\ndecided upon the priorities then are established within the educa-\ntional system itself, and if they made the decision that this was\nnot of that high a priority, then that's up to them.\nQ\nI understand that the Chancellor considers this number\ntwo on his priority list for new projects.\nA\nWell, now, I'll check. I don't know that this is\nsomething that we specifically cut. It is true that the legislature\nexercises more control over the State college than it does over the\nuniversity in this regard.\nBut we have been working very hard for\n-5-\nthe last four years to get away from the old fashioned line item\nbudget for the state colleges, and give them more of a program\nbudget similar to the university. Now, I'll be surprised 1f I find\nout that we did anything to dictate where the cuts would take place.\n8\nGovernor, on politics, we have some -- some reports that\nI'd like you to comment on, if you will.\nA Tom Reid, Reed who was active\nin your campaignliast yer has been active down in the southern states,\nor at least onesouthern state on behalf of a congressional candidate\nand perhaps on your behalf with an eye to the 1972 national elections.\nWould you comment on that?\nA\nI couldn't. If he's -- if he's helping out some friend\nsome place, that would be up to him and for him to do personally, but\nhe sertainly is not doing anything in my behalf. He knows exactly\nmy position. He knew in advance that I was going to meet with the\nPresident and I informed him fully of what I was going toosay to the\nPresident and waht I intended to do and he supported my intention\nwhich was to -- to lead the delegation pledged to the President's\nnomination.\n8\nSo he's neither there in your behalf or at your behest?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nGovernor, another subject. There are reports of your\nrepresentatives exerting pressure on Republican assemblymen to join\nin opposing an override of your veto of the southern crossing bill.\nAre you afraid of sustaining your first override in this measure?\nA\nOh, no, I think sometimes you know, I -- I almost think\nI ought to pick out one of those motherhood bills and veto it just\nso we can get this over with, it is like waiting for the other shoe\nto fall. Everyone building up things about vetoes, the President gets\nthem every day, override. I -- no, but I believe very firmly in\nmy reason for the veto, and I would like to have my veto upheld for\nthe simple reason that : don't believe anyone really knows what is\nthe feeling of the people in that area about the bridge, and I'd like\nto let the people decide. Let them make that decision.\na\nWell, are you -- are you in any way exerting pressure on\nRepublican Assemblymen to uphold you in this or are you letting\nthem go their own way?\nA\nNothing more than telling the legislative leadership that --\nhow I felt about the veto and hoping that -- that I would have\nsupport not only from Republicans, I hope I'd have some from some\n-6-\nDemocrats also.\n8\nGovernor, why aren't you using a little pressure on them?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWhy aren't you using a little pressure on them?\n4\n(Laughter)\nA\nSquire, as I said, I expressed my feelings to the legisla-\ntive leadership. Now --\n0\nNothing unusual around here.\nA\nHow forcefully I might have expressed that feeling, I\nhaven't go into, nobody asked me. Let me just say I feel very\nstrongly that the veto and its accompanying -- my accompanying execu-\ntive order which halted construction on the bridge in order to get a\nvote of the people, was the proper couse to take because I think\nthere were a lot of people upstairs that were talking in behalf of\nthe people in the Bay area, and they didn't know what they were\ntalking about.\no\nWhat makes you think that, Governor? What information\ndo you have that makes you think they haven't got accurate information?\nA\nWell, you take a look at the wide variety of organizations\ntho have come over here pro and con with regard to the bridge.\nYou can point to one group and say, well, here's a group representatives\nyou can point to another organization, that's a representative of\na segment of the society and one of the only efforts at a poll that\nwas taken, a questionnaire, 87 per cent of the people didn't bother\nto return the questionnaire. And I think that this is an indication\nthat if you are going to go by the 134per cent who did fill out the\nquestionnaire, you've got to admit you are taking an awfully thin\nslice for your public opinion poll.\nQ\nGovernor, in view of your long-stated belief in the\nrepublican, lower case r, form of government, don't you think your\ndecision contradicts that and the second part of the question, a lot\nof people think your decision is a copout. Waild you comment?\nA\nNo, I don't think it was a copout at all. And I thought\na long time about this. When I told you earlier that I hadn't made\na decision, I wasn't stalling, I hadn't made a decision. I was\nstill hearing people. I was going back over the reports for 25\nyears the Southern crossing has been on the board, the traffic\npatterns and the figures on traffic are very hard to refute with\nregard to the need to this. I met with county supervisors from\n-7-\nmore than one county. Two sit side by side in my office and one\nof them is opposed to the bridge only on the hasis of a delay because\nhe doesn't like the layout of the freeway that would connect with the\nbridge. But he wants the bridge in reality. In the long run he\njust wants to halt it temporarily till they settle the freeway.\nThe other county supervisor from the other county doesn't want the\nbridge at all and it was just this kind of testimony and this complete\nlack of any -- your own -- well, the major papers in the Bay area\nall endorsed my -- my veto, and they upheld the reasoning behind it.\nI believe in the republican form of government, but I think like\nanything, there are exceptions. I think that there are times I\nbelieve also in local option and authority and autonomy wherever\npossible. Here's an incident of some people living around that bay who\nwere called upontto vote with regard to BART, a rapid transit system\nand I see no reason why with all this controversy we shouldn't find\nout how would they stand in a vote in having a Southern crossing.\nQ\nGovernor, would you like to see the public vote held\nin June and do you figure that it should be a flat decision or\npurely advisory on the part -- to the state? Whether the people's\nvote will decide whether this bridge is going to be guilt?\nA\nAs far as I'm concerned it will be a flat decision. If\nthe people don't want that bridge, I don't think the state should be\nin a position of cramming it down their throats.\n8\nYou would like to have it drawn so that would decide it?\nA\nYes.\nQ\nAnd would you like to see the vote in June?\nA\nI haven't thought about the time, I'd\nQ\nIs that when your freeze -- your six month freeze is up?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nNo.\nED\nMEESE: Six months freeze is only to give the legisla-\nture time to act, then the bill would take -- would specify the time.\nA\nIt would go to the legislature and they could specify that any\nI wouldn't veto that decision.\nQ\nAnother subject. Governor, you met with President Nixon\nabout ten days ago down in San Clemente and had a private meeting\nwith him for an hour and did you discuss anything except welfare?\nAnd if so, what? Would you give us a report on that meeting?\nA\nOn, just other than some general commenting on the news of\n-8-\nthe day and so forth, and the main subject was our welfare reform,\nand their own efforts at their own program. That was -- that was\nbasically the subject as I reported as the President reported in\nthe press conferences outside.\nQ\nWell, do you think that the United States Department of\nHealth, Education and Welfare is going along with the President's\nwishes as far as conformity and so on is concerned, the issue between\nthe fedemal government and California?\nA\nWell, let's -- let's straighten one thing out, conformity.\nOur -- the bulk of our -- of that in in fact with the President all\nof our discussion was on our welfare reform proposals. My\nconcerns about some of the things that have been advoaated at the\nnational level including a national takeover of welfare. It didn't\ndeal with conformity at all, conformity is a separate issue. And\nthe conformity issue is one that -- while everyone -- not everyone,\nsome have tried to make this out a great conflict, I can only point\nout that last year the legislation that we had introduced would have\neliminated the conformity problem. And the legislation failed,\nwe tried to do it administratively. And this -- we had a ruling\nin a court, threw this out. Now we are in a quarter that is already\napproved as for funding. There isn't a problem of federal funding\nuntil June 30 and in this quarter both federal government --\nthey agree with us that our welfare reform program would again elimi-\nnate the conformity issue. So against is incthe hands of the legis-\nlature with regard to this. But in the meantime the Director Carlson\nhas written a letter to Mr. Twiname, and that we believe by May 1\nwe will have some proposals that we can do administratively and which\nwill resolve thiseconformity issue certainly before the June 30\ndeadline if -- even if we don't have thepassage of the legislation.\nQ\nGovernor, these proposals you are talking about, they\nare -- are they, I should say, a part of your over-all welfare reform\nprogram? I mean are these certain administrative acts that would be\ntaken in part of the reform or are these separate actions?\nA\nWell, it would be tied in with some of the things that we\ncan do administratively and which we are proceeding to do now and\nproceeding to implement. And this would simply take a decision\nto increase the grants in this particular program which again was part\nof our reform. Now, the --\nQ\nSo what you are -- I'm just not quite clear what you are\nsaying is that you are going to speed up perhaps some of the reforms\nthat would have been done anyway to bring this conformity issue to a\nhead by June 30 or in agreement?\nA\nNo, no, we were going to go ahead with the administrative\nthings anyway, and we are going ahead with those, but now as\nDirector Carlson has written to Mr. Twiname, we will have a proposal\nfor them on May 1, specifically with regard to the conformity issue\nand as I say everything is solved if the legislature would pass the\nwelfare reform. But we have got to have a backup position.\nD\nAnother subject.\nQ\nOne more on that. What specifically will the May 1\nrecommendation include?\nA\nWell, it will involve a means of raising the grants which\nare now the conformity issue.\nQ\nHave you any idea where the money will come to do that,\nGovernor?\nA\nYes, this will come from some of the administrative\nreforms that we now have going forward in the whole welfare package,\nand in doing this we won't be doing anything contrary to what passage\nof our reform would bring about. It is something that would simply\nbe absorbed in the rest of the reform if the legislature goes ahead\nand as we proceed with the other administrative changes.\n8\nGovernor, could you specify a couple of these reforms for\nus?\nA\nWell --\nED MEESE: They are still being worked on.\nA\nThis is a part of the thing. As I say, by May 1 you\nwill have -- we certainly will havetthis information then for HEW\nby then.\nQ\nGovernor, you said a minute ago you would have a proposal\nfor HEW, but the letter said that they would be actual regulations\nthat go into effect. I take it that is what they will be. They\nwill actually go into effect May 1, it won't be a plan presented to you\nfor their consideration for adoption some later time?\nED MEESE: It will be a plan. It will be a plan and\nsome proposals and if they agree to them or thore is negotiations, then\nthat will follow, but the timetable and the deadline is the 30th of\nJune to make sure it is done by that time.\nQ\nHis letter said that the emergency regulations would be a --\nED MEESE: Would be ready by that time.\nA\nWould be ready.\nQ\nGovernor, why is there a need to propound new regulations\nwhen HEW looked favorably on the last batch of regulations that were\n-10-\nproposed in respons\nto\n, they said\ney would meet the\nconformity issue, why is there a need for some new ones?\nA\nYou mean the things that we had before the legislature last\nyear?\nQ\nNo, the regulations that you proposed to bring the state\nin line with the federal judge's order that you were out of conformity,\nand HEW said those regulations looked O. K., from the conformityppoint\nof view.\nA\nWell, the Judge ruled that we could increase the grants\nadministratively as we wanted.\nQ\nWhy change them?\nA\nThe Judge's own ruling was that we could not decrease\nin another administrative change in order to get the money.\nQ\nHow, therefore, do you propose to get around that?\nA\nWell, there are other administrative proposals that we\nthink are within the regulations and which have bedn discussed with\nHEW that are a part of the over-all welfare reform program.\nQ\nWhich will mean you can raise the grants?\nA\nWhich will --\nQ\nRaise the grants?\nA\n-- will produce money, yes.\nQ\nRaise the grants, find some in some other area?\nA\nYes.\nQ\nIn other words, you.are confident that the changes you\nare going to propose will not exhaust the state's welfare money by the\nend of this fiscal year?\nA\nThat's right.\nQ\nAnother question. Governor, do you agree with Assemblyman\nBurton when he says you are not likely to share - support his share\nof the legislation?\nA\nI thought it was nne of Mr. Burton's more perceptive\nstatements,\n(Laughter)\nQ\nGovernor, the sign on the Controller's door says there's\nabout 79 days to go, to pass the budget. It looks like now there\nwill be near some 4,000 bills before both houses by this Friday.\nCoupled with reapportionment, are you still confident that the legis-\nlature will be able to pass a balanced budget by the June 30 deadline?\nA\nWell when there are so many candidates up there with\nso much to do it is hard to pin them down as to whether they will get\nthis accomplished or not, but I'm -- I have to count on them getting\nthe budget. The ( stitution says we can't o: rate beyond June\n30th without it. Twice now in the last two years we have had a few\ndays, hectic days without it. I think they have got to settle down\nand pass the budget. I think they have been very slow. I know\nall these 4,000 bills they are talking about -- maybe that should be\nthe veto that I strive for, maybe I ought to buridle about 3,000 of\nthose and issue one blanket veto, sort of like the fellow with the\n2 by 4, getting their attention. I don't know whether I'll do that.\nQ\nGovernor, you said you are interested in putting people\nto work, yet in this country when we near full employment we have\nrunaway inflation. And the only remedy we have ever used for inflation\nis to put people out of work. Then how -- what do you plan to do\nabout this vicious cycle?\nA\nWell, as I said in a talk the other day, the only thing\nthat we have ever done in this country to cure -- in my -- certainly\nmy adult lifetime to cure unemployment is to get us into a war.\nThere was more unemployment prior to World War II than there was at\nthe height of all of the Roosevelt theories about welfare and WPA and\nso forth, and then the great war boom gave us full employment. In\nfact we had a scarcity of job holders. Then we had a big backlog\nfollowing World War I1 because of -- we didn't build anything for\ncivilian consumption during the war, but we got right into the\nKorean War and as we began to run into an unemployment we had an\naverage of 5.7 per cent unemployment during the three Kennedy years.\nAnd as I have pointed out in all those years a study of the transcript\nreveals there was never a single question asked by any member of the\npress of President Kennedy about unemployment as a problem. And\nthen with the acceleration of the Vietnamese war we went into full\nemployment again, even here in the State of California, in the years\nof 167, 168, '69, and now even more than the anti-inflation fight is\nthe winding down as we are turning to a -- toward a peacetime economy\ninstead of wartime, we have turned loose about a million military and\ndefense industry personnel in this country onto the labor market,\nwhich even without the anti-inflation fight would give us an unemploy-\nment problem. I think it is high time that this country with all\nthe ability that it has get down to solving the unemployment problem\nwithout a war. And I think the solving of it is going to include\neducation, it is going to include job training and it is going to\ninclude job mobility. This is one of the great weaknesses we have\nnever had in all these decades of unemployment, there has never been\nany place in any level of government where the an with a skill\nthat he can't sell no job for it could go and findout where, if any\nplace, in the country is there a need for his particular skill. We\nneed the kind ofmatching of skills to jobs and job openings that could\ncome about through a kind of central registry where we know that\npeople might be in demand. We have always beena mobile society.\nPeople pack up and move to go some place for an opportunity. I\nthink -- I think we ought to help those people who are willing to do\nthat by being able to provide this information for them.\nQ\nGovernor, is there any place you know of in the country\nwhere there is shis kind of a situation where people could go from\nhere, for example, could get jobs?\nA\nNo, as I say, I think this is a thing -- strangely enough\nit's never been done. Youldathink that under the Department of\nLabor all these years there would be such a thing. But, for example,\nrighthere we have about the highest unemployment here in California\nbecause of the wind-down in our own defense and space industries,\nand yet you pick up -- pick up the Sunday Times and in the help --\nthere were 11 full pages of help wanted ads in the Sunday Times with\nall this unemployment, and I ran through and skimmed through some of\nthose pages to see were these kind of Mickey Mouse jobs that didn't\nreally exist. No, sir, they were -- these were legitimate job\nopportunities ranging all the way from clerical personnel, from sec-\nretaries to household help and you -- you find it difficult to match\nseven per cent unemploymentwwith one paper in one city carrying 11\npages of help wanted ads.\nQ\nGovernor, do you share the view of some of President\nNixon's advisers that in California the economy is a bigger threat\nto his re-election than the war itself?\nA\nWell, I'm one who happens to believe that by 1972 the\nwar won't be an issue.\nQ\nBut how about economy?\nA\nI think the economy issan issue. I think the economy was\nan issue in the last campaign.\nQ\nWas any thought ever given to including Congressman\nMcCloskey on your delegation to the convention?\n(Laughter)\nA\nNo. According to Mr. McCloskey, he's apt to be running\nhis own delegation. We might meet some place at the polls.\n-13-\nQ\nAre you cluding many Republican CC ressmen?\nA\nNo, as a matter of fact I pledged to the President that\nany delegation that I would take to the convention would continue\nin the tradition of the last one, that it would span the whole spectrum\nof the Republican party in California, and be representative of the\nwhole party to keep the unity that we have -- we have managed to create\nhere in the last few years in the party.\nQ\nDoes that include McCloskey?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nDoes that include McCloskey?\nA\nI said you've got to go by his own statements. If he's\nrunning and he runs in the California primary, then he will have to\nunder our election laws -- he will have to run a delegation against\nour delegation.\nQ\nGovernor, did the President ask you -- did the President\nask you for that pledge?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nDid the President ask you for that pledge?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nDid you volunteer?\nA\nNo, I asked for a meeting with him to tell him that I\nthought it was time to do that.\nQ\nGovernor, is there any definitive word yet whether you\nmight follow Congressman McCloskey to Vietnam during your Japanese\ntrip?\nA\nYou mean on a search and destroy mission?\n(Laughter)\nA\nNo. No details of anything of the kind.\nQ\nGovernor, philosophically, do you think the California\nLegislature should come under the tefms of the State's 18 year old\nRalph M. Brown open meetings law?\nA\nDo I think that -- do I think that the Legislature --\nQ\nLegislature, it is not now covered by the Brown act.\nA\nYou know that I worked very hard to not speak critically\nof the Legislature as an organization. Individuals, yes. But I\nhad -- I haven't really given that any thought. I don't know just\nhow it would apply or where, what the situation is.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.\no0o\n-14-\n4/27\nPRESS ONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD APRIL 27, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(Thisrrough transcript of the Governor's press\nconferense is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for\ntheir convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press\nas rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nandthere is no guaraty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nCalif.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release #251) Ecology\nCorps\nQ\nWhere will the 28 centers be in Northern California,\nGovernor?\nA\nI don't think the've made an exact determination yet.\nThey will be in the northern part of the state and probably out toward\nthe - and into the redwood area. Up in the northwest part of the\nstate, but there's going to be backup material if you don't have it\nalreadythat will be distributed to you that will answermost of your\nquestions about this and the nature of it.\n0\nGovernor, how many conscientious objectoss are there in\nCalifornia and how big a volunteer force do you anticipate?\nA\nWell, now, this may be in the backup material.\nPAUL BECK: There are about eight to ten thousand nation-\nwide and normally these centers would have about 80 in each one.\nQ\nGovernor, do you have --\nQ\nDo you think $15 a month will be enough of an inducement\nto attract many volunteers?\nA\nWell, since in the area of -- of conscientious objectors,\nthey have to perform some kind of work of this kind to maintain their\nstatus as conscientious objectors, I think there is a carrot and stick\nphilosophy involved.\nQ\nGovernor, would they have to do this five days a week or --\nA\nYes.\nQ\nCould they go home on week-ends?\nyes\nA\nNo, this would be on a 40-hour week basis.\nQ\nGovernor, do you have to be a California resident for this?\nA\nWell, certainly that's going to be our aim, yes, is to -- to\nwork with our own selective service boards on this.\n-1-\nQ\nHas the Selective Service people said that this ecology\ncenter idea was acceptable to them as alternative work?\nA\nYes, we have been working with them and they are completely\nagreed and ready to cooperate.\nQ\nAnother subject.\n0\nNo, one more on this.\nDovernor, do you foresee in the\nfuture as possibly taking in your plan to put welfare recipients to\nwork?\nWould you adapt that?\nA\nOh, yes, we have thought of this kind of work.\nQ\nFor that -- this specific program?\nA\nThat's right, yes.\nQ\nGovernor, would you coarify that? Do you mean these\ncamps will take some of the welfare workers?\nA\nNo, we are starting now with this as we said. But\nin\nanswer to this question here, it was as this expands and as we implement\nthe work force idea to welfare, we have always considered this kind\nof work also as one of the areas for welfare people.\nQ\nGovernor, do you see any parallel between this program\nand the old CCC program of the 1930's?\nA\nWell, Ihthink there is a parallel in the -- in the type\nof work and things they are doing and certainly the CCC camps made a\ngreat contribution to environment to our parks at that time. But\nthis is -- this is an enhancement and enlargement of the kind of\nwork that has been conducted throughout the state by honer camps\nand some of which are being closed now simply because our probation\nsystem is working and is so successful that we just have reduced\nnumbers.\nQ\nYou say these people will wear uniforms. What kind of\nuniforms would they be? Would they be military type uniforms?\nA\nIt will be a uniform that will be more comparable to the type\nworn for forest personnel and ranger and one suitable for the work\nthey are doing.\nQ\nHas any research been done, Governor, in this manner\nregarding whether C. 0.'s would find this kind of work acceptable\nto them?\nA\nWell, it meets the requirements for the type of work the\nconscientious objectors are supposed to be doing and as you can see,\nthere is nothing compulsory about it, they are allowed to volunteer\nfor this and I would think that a great many of them would probably\nfind this very attractive, this kind of work.\nQ\nGovern\nyesterday in Washington\nQ\nGovernor, I still have another question on that same\nsubject.\nA\nWas yours on the same subject?\nQ\nI want to change the subject.\nA\nWe've got one more here.\n(Ecology)\nQ\nI got one more. Why aren't there any centers planned for\nsouthern California?\nA\nWell, I imagine beaause the closings that are contemplated\nright now are in the north so the -- the need is there, the problem\nis there.\nQ\nGovernor, same subject, can you tell us who thought of the\nidea?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nCan you tell us who thought of the idea?\nED MEESE: Jim Stearns.\nA\nJim Stearns, tthe man whose department this will come under.\no\nWhich are the centers that are being closed? Can you\nrecap that for us?\nED MEESE: There are five that were in the budget, I\ncan't remember.\nA\nThey are in the budget, I couldn't name them for you now.\n0\nGovernor, I'm still not clear, are you initially going to\naccept only C. O's or anyone who wants to volunteer?\nA\nNow, I think this is both, yes, that we are not going to\ndeny anyone who comes in and volunteers for this work at all. But\nwe are also -- this is going to be added to the list of things that\nare acceptable for C. 0's to do and we are going to solicit them.\n0\nThe type of facilities you are closing now, you are talking\nabout, are just the honor campsthings, the forestry camp?\nA\nYes, that's why I say this is an expanded type of thing, not\njust for -- not that they just do firefighting, but because those\nhonor camps --\n8\nToI want to clarify your statement, initially said to man\nstate's facilities currently scheduled to be closed. You are talking\nspecifically about those type of things?\nA\nThis kind of forestry work, firefighting work.\nQ\nGovernor, if you are accepting anyone, does that mean you\nwill accept welfare recipients and if so does this change their grants?\n-3-\nA\nI don't know that we have even considered that now in\nconnection with working for their welfare grant.\nVOICE: Governor, that is a separate process.\nA\nI think that's got to be a separate problem and will come\nalong with our welfare reform.\nQ\nNow, Governor --\nA\nNow.\n(Laughter)\nD\nYesterday Ed Reinecke in Washington came out for this\naccelerated public works program, the Democrats are pushing through\nCongress and which the Nixon administration opposes. What is your\nstand on that or have you made up -- do you have a --\nA\nI'm in the middle.\nNo, I think that what the Lieutenant\nGovernor was talking about and I understand what the President is\nconcerned about, I think there is a very thin line that has to be\nwalked here between trying to stimulate employmentand running the\nrisk of undoing the present efforts that are being made to curb\ninflation. Now there is a comparagel -- or at least a complimentary\nsituation here with the freezing of funds for example in the highway\nsituation, which has caused great problems for many of us certainly\nfor our state, with its great building program. And we -- I think\nthere is a way for both of these, the unfreezing of things like the\nhighway funds, and for some acceleration in: particularly hard pressed\nareas, but my concern about the congressional act is that it might\nbe flailing with an axe and run the risk of going overboard and\nundoing the work that's been done to curb inflation. I think there is\na way that we can meet this problem that we can have this stimulation\nand I would personally -- I'd like to start with the unfreezing of\nfunds.\nQ\nNew subject.\nA\nAll right.\nQ\nGovernor, could you give us your view of the inquiry that's\ngoing on by the commission over in San Francisco into the CRLA and\nthe state's role in that inquiry?\nA\nThe state's role, we will do everything we can to -- to\ncooperate and to help them. The one place where there seems to be a\nmisunderstanding is the idea that this was in some way supposed to be\na court with an adversary type of proceedings, and the defense and a\n-4-\nprosecution or pernaps better a plaintiff type of relationship in a\ncivil action or suit. Now, it was never our understanding that this\nwas the purpose of the commission. We were assured that it was to\nthe contrary, that a commission was to be appointed to study the\nentire situation, study CRLA, study any other ideas and come up with\na recommendation as to how to provide better rural legal assistance.\nAnd therefore what we have refused to do is enter into this as an\nadversary. We will be present as a friend of the court in a sense\nor a friend of the commission, do everything else. As far as witnesses\nare concerned, wanting to get testimony, they have a list of hundreds\nand hundreds of names of people who have made statements in our report\nthat accompanied our veto of CRLA, and they are free to call upon\nthose people. But some of them evidently mistakenly - some of the\ncommission had the idea or were misinformed in-Washington that they were\nto come here and literally sit in judgment while CRLA and the State\nof California conducted an adversary proceedings before them bringing\nin their witnesses and cross-examining and so forth. And this was\nnot the purpose and we will not join in distorting what we understood\nwas the purpose of the commission.\nQ\nWell, don't you think, Governor, the Commission knows what\nit is doing?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nDon't you think that the commission knows what it is doing?\nAre you sure that it misunderstood its mission?\nA\nIt certainly is a misunderstanding compared to what we were\ntold by OEO was the purpose of this commission. W pledged then and\nwe pledge now our full cooperation in any study they want to make of the\nCRLA.\n8\nGovernor --\nQ\nGovernor, the jugge in charge says that the State has\nrefused to accept the responsibilities in presenting 108 sase. Which\nis pretty strong lagguage. If he continues to take that view of\nthe situation, do you think that the Commission can fullfil the\nfunction as you think it is supposed to fullfil?\nA\nWe presented our case. We presented it at the time of the\nveto and the veto was upheld. Now we have neither the time nor the\nfacilities, the manpower to go out and like a trial lawyer bring in\nbefore a commission sitting in judgment all the witnesses and to build\na. case. They are free to inquire of anyone they want to as to their\n-5-\nstatements or any ohhers who haven't as yet made statements, and if\nthere is a misunderstandong on their part of what their purpose was,\nthere is certainly no misunderstanding on our part of what CRLA told\nus this commission was going to do.\nED MEESE: You mean OEO told us.\n8\n--- also of CRLA charged that your administration put\npressure on Ray Procunier to write a letter in which he charged that\nCRLA was responsible for a lot of trouble in the prison system. What\ndo you know about the source of that letter?\nA\nMaybe I can turn over here to some of the staff. I know\nof nothing about it and I certainly know of no pressure that I put on\nanyone and when I first heard that some lawyers were believed or\nsuspected, at least, in prisons of having instigated some of the\nproblems we have had that was the first that I had known about it.\nED MEESE: It came directly from the Department, there\nwas no pressure or even request framour office.\n0\nGovernor, you say your veto was uphold and last week or a\nweek before you said something about it -- there's nothing been dis-\ncussed about the veto. Isn't it -- it appears to be more accurate\nto say that Mr. Carlucci reserved a final decision while he weighed\nthe substance of your charges.\nA\nNo, Mr. Carlucci, and having been a party to all of the\ndiscussions about this, I can tell you that Mr. Carlucci upheld our\nveto. He then submitted a budget and a plan for a six-months new\nprogram to CRLA subject to certain changes and conditions and we --\nI agreed to not veto that one, to approve that one. The original\ngrant was vetoed. And he at the same time announced a proposal that\nin -- during this Anterim period he was going to appoint a commission\nthat would be mutually satisfactory, that would come and go into the\nwhole situation to determine the best way of providing legal assistance\nto the poor, the rural poor, and this is the total understanding\nthat we have with them.\nQ\nGovernor, aren't you get --\nQ\nDon't you think this three man group -- three judges\ngot their charge from Mr. Carlucci, aren't they doing what he told\nthem to do?\nA\nWell, I said a moment ago, they either misunderstood or\nthey were misinformed in Washington as to what their purpose was\nbecause it was not -- when they came here with the idea of an adversary\n-6-\nproceedings in which they simply sat in judgment, this was not our\nunderstanding. This was not what we had been told the commission\nwould do.\n8\nGovernor, aren't you -- your administration got the worst\nof it by not having someone appear in behalf of you at these hearings.\nED MEESE: We have people actually there present ready\nto assist the commission.\nA\nYes.\nD\nGovernor, is this commission mutually satisfactory to you\nnow?\nA\nWell, I have to be frank with you and tell you this was\none of the first places in which it waspossible there was a mis-\nunderstandinh ecause we were simply told who the commission was after\nit had been appointed.\n0\nGovernor, have you corrected this misunderstanding or this\napparentlimpasse now?\nA\nYeah, we corrected it on our part, we just said we wouldn't\ndo what the commission came here and mistakenly suggested we should do.\nQ\nGovernor, are you going to be prepared to accept the\nfindings of the commission now?\nA\nWell, I don't know what you mean in accept. The law\nstates that a Governor has the right to veto programs 1f he believes\nthey are not fulfilling their purpose. And I have to treat each case as\nit comes along. Each case as it comes up. Now, we had hoped that the\ncommission would be one that in studying how to provide this legal\nassistance they would look also at our own proposals for privately\nfunded legal organization, that would take over this task. We still\nbeliveve it will work, we are going ahead with the idea of some\nexperiments in this line 1mc two or three areas of the state.\nAnd I'll just have to -- if they go contrary to that, if they don't--\ndon't approve such a thing, and they continue with the idea of a\ngovernment funded program, we will simply have to -- to review it\neach time that it comes up, whether we -- whether it is doing its job\nor not. If it commits the same errors and follows the policy of --\nthat caused us to veto the original program, then I'd have to veto it\nagain.\nQ\nNew subject.\n2\nNo, Governor, Reagan, the May edition of the Reader****Digest\nsays that you caused CRLA to be investigated to settle some scores\nof your own, and in deference to the agricultural growers of California.\nWhat's your reaction to that statement, is that accurate?\nA\nYes, I have a reaction, I'm amazed that I've never seen\nit before, but it is obviously untrue.\nQ\nWould you ask for a retraction?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWould you ask for a retraction?\nA\nI just heard about it for the first time. Let me have\ntime to sit down and mull this, but the truth of the matter is that\nwe had appeals from county Boards of Supervisors, from school boards,\nfrom district attorneys, from Chambers of Commerce, from school\nboards throughout the State which resulted in the -- some 8,000\npages of documentation and the 283 page report upon which we based\nour veto.\no\nGovernor, do you think it is possible now that you might --\nthat you might approve another grant for CRLA if they -- if they compro-\nmised -- if they changed some of their methods of operation?\nA\nWell, there was never any question. Two or three years\nwe have been doing that. We tried to be cooperative. We had\ncomplaints about CRLA in the past years, and each time we said to\nWashington, we pointed these out and each time we were assured that\nthey would correct the things that were wrong and on that basis we\nwent ahead and approved the program. And it just finally reached\na point at the present time -- because the situation wasnever\nimproved, it reached a point where we vetoed. But we have said at\nany time, as witness the six month extension that we did -- or the new\nprogram that we did approve, beaause they gave us a list of corrections\nthat would be made -- and there is no desire on our part to eliminate\nlegal assistance provided for the rural poor. There is a desire on\nour part to make sure it is a program that legitimately helpsthe\nrural poor and I don't care how hysterical Mr. Reynoso gets in his press\nconferences, his shop was out there like a punch of idealogical\nambulance chasers doing their own thing at the expense of the rural\npoor who actually needed help.\nQ\nGovernor, in view of the fact that the State will not\nparticipate under the rules set by the commission, do you think that\nthis commission can arrive at a reasonable and fair conclusion after\nthese hearings? Are they all going to just get one side?\nA\nNo, there is no reason for them to just get one side. They\nwere a commission that was set up to do the job of investigating, and\n.8.\nI'm afraid they C. ehere with the idea that t..gy could sit at a\nbench while everyone else did the work and brought a case before\nthem, and then they would sit back and make a judgment, and this was\nnot what they were supposed to do. They were to go into the field\nand investigate California Rural Legal Assistance and if they are\nunwilling to do that they ought to resign.\nQ\nGovernor, can you tell us now are those commission members\nacceptable to you?\nA\nWhat's that?\nQ\nAre those commission members acceptable to you or\narent they?\nA\nWell, they are there.\nQ\nAre they acceptable to you?\nA\nHuh?\nQ\nAre they acceptable to you?\nA\nDoesn't make much difference, I'm sure, they are quite\nrespectable men, they have distinguished records on the bench and\nI'm quite sure that if their names had been proposed to us by Mr.\nCarlucci as had been the agreement, we would undoubtedly have approved\nthem and said fine, send them out here.\n0\nYou told us before that they were to be mutually acceptable\nto both sides and you represent one of the sides. Are they acceptable\nto you?\nA\nWell --\nED\nMEESE: Excuse me, Governor, they were to be mutually\nacceptable to federal OEO and State of California, the two governmental\nagencies involved.\n8\nWell, representing the State of California, are they\nacdeptable to you?\nA\nWell, like I say, yes, the only thing I pointed out was it\nwouldn't do much good now, they were appointed without any question\nas to whether they were. And I'm quite sure they would have been.\nAs I say, they have distinguished records.\nQ\nDid you have the opportunity --\nQ\nGovernor, you have said that you think that perhaps, as\na possibility, that the commission members had been misinformed as\nto the OEO's intent, as you understand it. In view of the way the\ninvestigation or whatever you want to call it, is progressing, do you\nthink that instead perhaps you may have been the one who was misinformed\n-9-\nby OEO as to what their intentions were?\nA\nWell, it is sort of like representative Edith Greene of Orego\nsaid once about the whole OEO program, when she said that Congress is\nquite used to there being some divergence in -- between congressional\nintent and what actually comes out in therepplication of congressional\nacts. But she said with regard to OEO that it seemed that OEO was\noverdoing it. And sometimes I -- I feel a little bit this same way.\nI think that as -- as executive orders or understandings start down\nthrough the bureaucracy to the people who are actually entrusted with\nimplementing them, smmething is lost in the translation.\nQ\nGovernor, have you talked to Mr. Carlicci and tried to iron\nout this misunderstanding as to what the commission should be doing?\nA\nWe have had a great many discussions. I personally have\nnot entered into those discussions, but I'm perfectly willing to meet\nwith him personally on this. And I don't think that there would be\nany real seriousproblem about ironing out any such difficulty.\n8\nGovernor, new topic?\nQ\nNew subject, Governor.\nA\nWell, all right, Ray and then you.\n8\nGovernor, the Chairman of both dinners in New England\nwhere you are speaking in June have announced that you have asked\nfor a $25,000 guarantee for those dinners. Why have you asked for\na flat fee and how much of that will go to National Committee?\nA\nWell, I don't have very many answers to your questions.\nWe have released a statement that you will all be having soon on this\nbecause some of ycu ever since the story appeared in the paper while\nwe were in Williamsburg, some of you have directed some questions to\nthe press office about this. So we have released a statement.\nLet me just say that this is -- first of all, nothing comes to the\nGovernor of California. But it's been a long-standing tradition\nand custom that when you go some place and this fits both parties, to\nimportant fund raisers, your own party backinn your area benefits\nfrom this and shares in the money you raise just as when someone comes\nout to our state for flund raisers, and is the principal drawing card\nat that fund raiser, that money returns with them. Now, I was getting\na great many invitations to speak, and with the limited number of\ntimes that I feel I can leave the State to do this, I put them in the\nhands of the National Committee and the White House, and said I will\nabide by their decisions as to where I can do the most good, where I\n-10-\nshould go, and as he statement will explain, when you get this,\nmoney then goes into a fund that is administered by the Republican\nState Central Committee of California, and this is used --\n0\nYou mean -- excuse me, Governor, you mean the part that\ncomes back to California?\nA\nThat's right, and this money then is used for those\npolitical tasks that people like myself have by virtue of being\ntechnically leader of the party in the State, but which wouldn't be\nproper to assess against the taxpayers. I go to campaign here in the\nState for candidates or in special elections or even when I leave the\nstate as I did to campaign in the special election for Congress in\nSouthe Carolina, these are not fund raisers, there is no return and\nyou can't ask the people of California to pick up the bill for that\nkind of expense.\nQ\nWho decides the fee?\nA\nWhat?\no\nWho decides how much?\nA\nThis is negotiated out by the National Committee now since\nI put it in their hands.\nQ\nBetween the National Committee and the State Committee\nin, say, Massachusetts?\nA\nYes.\n&\nGovernor, there was a newspaper -- nationally circulated\nnewspaper article that said you were building a war thest of some kind.\nAre you denying that?\nA\nWell, I don't know what that war chest would be for.\nMaybe I should have a war chest for all those that say I'm building\na war chest to go to war with them. No, 1t is used exactly as I\nsaid, and I certainly have no say as to how that money is used.\nWhat's done with it. As I said before, the only war that I'm\nengaged in is, as far as I can devote my time to this, and that isn't\ntoo much time, my time between now and the next election is going to\nbe cevoted to furthering the goals of the Republican party and pro-\nmoting the renomination afid re-election of the present President.\nQ\nHow do you pay fortthe staff members who travel with you\nwho are employees of the State of California?\nA\nWell, these are also -- this is part of it, that there\nexpenses certainly cannot br assessed against -- for the state.\n8\nThey are still on State salary, arethey not, when they\ntravel on these excursions?\n-11-\nA\nWell, in the area of security, yes, they have to be.\nQ\nGovernor, in light of your administration's declaration\nthat it wants to fight smog, how do you explain --\nQ\nI got another question on this.\nA\nAnother question on this.\nD\nGovernor, what's the percentage of fee that comes back to\nCalifornia?\nA\nI don't know. It is always negotiated out, depending\non the type of fund raiser and how much they expect to raise.\n0\nYou mean it varies from speech to speech?\nA\nOh, sure.\n8\nThe percentage?\nA\nYes.\no\nIs this $25,000 figure correct that you are quoting :us?\nA\nI don't honestly know. I don't know that -- that might\nhavebeen an asking figure, by the National Committee. I don't know\nthat it's been negotiated out yet.\nQ\nDo you know what the percentage is before you go to speak\nto these places?\nA\nWell, I could if I asked, to try and find out. The truth\nis I've never really bothered to ask most of the time whether it is\none where we are getting anything back or whether it is one that we\nare just going and doing for the love of the game.\nQ\nGovernor, your former press secretary, Lyn Nofziger, said\nyesterday that negotiations for these fees are conducted between you\nand the local republicans. Meaning in this case the ones in Massa-\nchusetts. Is he misinformed or what's the reason for the conflict?\nA\nWell, I thought since we turned it over to the national\n(ort-ot-state)\ncommittee previously before when I was accepting engagements here\non the basis of the invitation and had not gone through the national\ncommittee, yes. It was -- well, no, it was negotiated out here by\nrepresentatives of the party, not by me.\n0\nNot by you personally?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nYou have no role in the negotiations?\nA\nI have no role nor do I get anything from these fees.\nQ\nDo we try again?\nA\nNow try again.\n-12-\nD\nGovernor, in light of your admimistration's expressed\ninterest in fighting smog, how do you explain the fact that your\nGeneral Services director refused to revew an Assembly funded research\nproject which Assemblyman Hayes could prove that current -- which\nAssemblyman says could prove the current technology could virtually\neliminate pollution from the internal combustion engine?\nA\nThis I think was one particular manufacturer, an idea with\na smog control device.\nQ\nThe researcher!s name is George Cornelius, and he's in San\nPedro.\nA\nAnd this particular device we had already tried in our\nown smog control board, and evidently felt we had gone far enough\nand it was not dissimilar from things that are already being implemented\n0\nThe Air Resources Board recommended the extension,\nGovernor.\nA\nThis wasn't the answer that I had. We have had several\nmeetings, I remember it's been some months ago ontthis, as to what we\ncould do and we had already put some money into it.\nQ\nGovernor, do you remember the gentleman couldn't perform\non his contract. He said he was going to provide the devicer he'd\nprovide the system, said that the system would solve the problem, but\nhe could not perform on the contract, so the Director of General\nServices had no alternative.\nA\nThat's right, this is as I say, was several months ago.\nThat was right.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\no00\n-13-\n5/4\nESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNO: RONALD REAGAN\nHELD MAY 4, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conferere is\nufrnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their conven-\nience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as\npossible after the conference, no corrections are made and there is\nno guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\nGOVERNOR\nREAGAN: I have just a few words for an opening\nstatement here.\n#265\n(Whereupon the Governor read a press release.)\n0\nGovernor, since the amount of revenue to be collected through\nwithholding diminishes with each passing day when withholding is\nfinally adopted, if it is adopted, by the legislature, wontt there\nbe more complelling discal reasons not to include a forgiveness fea-\nture?\nA\nWell, this will be affected of course by the time that it\ngoes in, and I have already made it evident that I am willing to --\nwhere I have always held and would like to see whatever windfall\nthere is given back to the people, I am willing because when I originally\nheld that position we didn't know about the cruch that we are in and\nsome of the things that we would have to do without because ef this\nfiscal crunch, -- I am certainly willing to listen to alternatives\nin which at least a partion of any windfall could be retained for a\nnumber of purposes, one time expenditures. For example, we have had\nthe problem brought to our attention since the earthquake tragedy\nof the need for school construction we haven't counted on, and there\nare other capital construction items of that kind. The Tax Associa-\ntion itself has even proposed the idea of creating a contingency fund,\nbut I believe that at least a portion -- say it sould be divided half\nand half of the windfall could still be given back to the taxpayers.\nQ\nGovernor, what partisan political advantage do you think\nthe Democrats will derive by delaying passage of withholding?\nA\nThe only thing I could say is that as you well know there are\nno secrets in this building, is that there seems to have been some\ntalk upstairs about the fact that possibly by letting this state get\ninto -- this kind of fiscal trouble, chancing this kind of chaotic\ncondition, justas they have been willing to gamble on that by not\npassing budgets or time the last two years, nt this might in some\nway prove embarrassing to me and I think it is a pretty high price\nfor some supposed partisan advantage over me or embarrassment to me, to\nrisk the fiscal stability of the State of 20 million people.\nQ\nGovernor, would it prove embarrassing to you?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWould it prove embarrassing?\nA\nNo, I don't think so because I think the people are intelli-\ngent enough to know who is at fault.\nQ\nDo you think that's what they are doing, Governor?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nDo you think that's what they are doing?\nA\nNow, well, you fellows are upstairs more than I am. I'm\njust only telling you that this seems to be the only thing that I\nknow that has been talk, that has come down here.\n0\nDo you really feel that that's what they are doing, though?\nA\nWhat I feel or what I think -- I've discovered long ago that\nI'd better not answer you fellows on that unless Inam prepared to go into\na court of law and prove it.\nQ\nGovernor, you've said that you had hoped withholding could\nbe part of tax reform this year. But do you feel now the legislature\nshould go ahead with an independent withholding bill?\nA\nNever been any time when they couldn't have done that.\nPending the passage of tax reform, the use of the increased revenue\nthat would come in annually from withholding could be earmarked in\nadvance for what is the prime goal of tax reform, property tax relief.\nQ\nYou would sign a withholding bill that is separate from a tax\nreform pacakge?\nA\nYes, never had any objection to that.\nQ\nWhy is it too late for withholding, couldn't the legislature\nput the bill through in a week if they wanted to?\nA\nYes, but the thing is it takes several months to gear up\nfor it.\nQ\nWhy?\nA\nYou are going to have to ask Mr. Huffin and the tax people\non that now. They tell me that roughly they need about six months\nto gear up for withholding.\nQ\nYou mean too late for July 1?\nA\nFor July 1. Yes, it isn't too late to pass it. It can be\n-2-\npassed, butI'm talking about the starting date now would possibly\nbe -- probably be January 1.\na\nGovernor, are you saying your proposed budget is now\nunbalanced?\nA\nWhat?\n8\nIs your proposed budget now out of balance?\nA\nNo, the budget has always been submitted on the basis of\ncalling for welfare reform.\nQ\nWell, can it be balaneed without new taxes since you won't\nget withholding in time?\nA\nWell, the situation is -- well, no, withholding was not a\npart of balancing the budget. Tax reform is a -- is a separate\nsubject and I might add contrary to what some newcomers to your ranks\nhave proposed in their editorial comments, tax reform is still a very\ntop priority item with me.\nQ\nGovernor, the other day the Senate Finance Committee put\nthat 72 million dollars of the teachers' retirement money back into\nteachers retirement fund. Now, doesn't that throw your budget out\nof balance?\nA\nYes, but I've got to wait to see what all happens by the\ntime it goes all the way. I still think that this was unnecessary.\nI think that there's been much ado made about that 72 million dollars.\nThe State is totally responsible for any contingency that happens\nin the retirement fund. It is antactuarily funded account now and the\nState is responsible, so whether you leave some money lying in a bank\nor use it makes absolutely no difference.\n8\nGovernor, do you feel that you have been actively, and doing\nyouruutmost, everything you can to get withholding through at this\ntime?\nA\nWell, you wait for a little initiative on the part of the\npeople upstairs. After all I'm not the legislature, I'm the\nexecutive, and I don't think there's been any secret about where we\nstand on this. They're well aware of this, we made it perfectly\nplain as I said in my statement a year and a half ago, we told the\npeople of California and certainly the legislature that we were\nputting it into last year's tax reform program, not through\nnecessity for tax reform, but because by this September and October\nwe would have to resort to tax warrants or tax anticipation notes\nbecause the borrowing needs would be greater than the amount we have\nto borrow from.\nQ\nDo you h. 3 a bill in, too, on tax a. icipatinn notes, and\nhow has that moved in some --\nA\nNo, I don't know, I don't understand -- is there?\nQ\nDo we?\nED\nMEESE:\nThere is one in the Senate.\nA\nThere is one in the Senate, yes.\nQ\nHave you talked to Bagley about this?\nA\nWhat?\n0\nHave you talked to Bagley about it, it is his bill.\nA\nIhaven't talked to Bagley recently. I know his bill is\nup there, and I'm sure he must know that he has my support.\n8\nHow much do you think you'll have to raise? Do you have\na late word on how much you have to raise through tax anticipation\nnotes and some other means?\nA\nNo, I haven't -- I think that probably it would be very easy\nto find that out shortly, through the Finance Department, but we do\nknow that we go above the line, we won't have borrowing capacity.\nQ\nGovernor, on the question of personal income taxes, there\nwas a report last week that you because of personal financial mis-\nfortune=and high expenses paid no state income tax for the year 1970,\nis that true?\nA\nYou know something, I don't actually know. Whether I did\nor not. I'd have to check up -- I know I -- I know in the federal\nin the last couple of years or something I got a rebate back.\nBut\nI don't -- I don't know what my tax status was.\nQ\nDon't you have to sign your own return?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nDon't you have to sign your own return?\nA\nYes, but I'm trying to remember here, what I did. I don't\nknow, it is possible. I have a fellow making it out for me, a\nlawyer makes it out.\nQ\nWould you authorize us to ask the Franchise Tax Board?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWould you authorize the Franchise Tax Board to let us know?\nA\nI don't think I should set that kind of a precedent, do you?\nThe next thing I might know you might be asking how the fellows\nupstairs pay their per diem, that would be terribly embarrassing.\nED MEESE:\nWe can find that information out from other\nsources,\n-4-\n8\nGovernor, Mr. Monagan told some of the press corps last\nweek that even if all your tax -- you had, exduse me, your welfare\nreform proposals are enacted, there is still a possibility that the\nState will still need more new taxes in view of new infomation.\nHave you changed your mind that no new taxes will be needed if\nreforms are passed?\nA\nLet me say this, and we submitted the budget in the welfare\nreform, that we had ample leeway in there that welfare reform would\nmean no new taxes. Now, of course we have reports yet to come in\nas come in every year with regard to the revenues and regard to the\npresent year's budget that we are in. Now, those estimates could\nconceivably come in and -- and reveal that we are not -- that we\nwould have a deficit carry-over. My position with regard to welfare\nreform and the leadership -- of the legislature, the Democratic side,\nis simply this, that they seem bent on demanding as a price for any\nlegislation the acceptance by me of a tax increase now before they will\neven discuss the other matters of welfare reform. I saytthat this is\nbackward and that until we have a resolution of the problem of\nwelfare reform there is no way for us to know, and they don't know\nwhether new taxes are needed; and if any are needed, how much.\nNow, if they come back to us and are unwilling to give us the total well\nreform but give us a sizeable portion of it, then we have to readjust\nour figures. And I'm sure this is what Mr. Monagan must have been\nreferring to.\nQ\nGovernor, on withholding, in addition to solving the State's\ncash flow problem it is estimated to raise an extra 180 million dollars\na year. $80 million from those who move out of the state and never\npay, and $1800 million in gearing income to the current year's economy.\nA\nWell, no --\nQ\nWhat will you do with this money?\nA\nWell, as we proposed last year, this would be part of the\nsource of increased revenue that enables you to reduce the home\nowner's tax, the property tax relief. It is -- the same as turning\nto the income tax and giving that amount in an increase in rates, but\nyou gain the extra money. Let me just take exception to your one\nline, I don't think that this state has been losing $80 million\ndollars ayear from people moving out of the state or not paying their\nincome tax. As a matter of fact, we had a very high collection rate.\nThe smallest amount of it, again, is from people who are not now\npaying.or who are avoiding tax. You have principally two sources\nof\nthe\nincreased\nevenue.\nOne, you start paying immediately or\nat the state level the tax immediately on the increased earnings of\nan expanding economy and almost an equal amount is money that really\nis only borrowed in a sense from the taxpayer. We know that there\nis roughly about 70 to 80 million dollars of overpayment by way of\nwithholding and government gets the use of that 70 or 80 million\ndollars before the end of the year, at which time they have to pay the\nrebates to those who have overpaid their tax. In the meantime,\nwhile they are paying that back continued withholding has continued\nto get over-collection so the state is always in a position of having\n70 or 80 million dollars of the people's money to pay their bills\nwith, even though it is an overcharge and is not legitimate revenue.\nSo in a sense you are getting the use of that much money that is\nactually given back to the people and is not a tax increase.\nQ\nGovernor, why isn't that revenue increase a tax increase?\nA\nWell, it is and this is -- before I had to smash the concrete\naround my feet I always said that, that you are taking more money\nfrom the people. Not the total amount. You are taking roughly\nabout half of that total amount, represents an increase in that\nthe people are starting to pay sonner on their increased earnings.\nQ\nWell, as far as what you are doing with -- whatever the\namount is of ongoing increase, isn't that built into your budget\nalready on the assumption that we are going to have withholding\nstarting January 1?\nA\nI think -- I'm just trying to think if we did enunt on that\nfor January 1st date.\nOr\n18\nwe didn't, I don't remember.\nI\ndon't think the budget is predicated on --\nED MEESE:\nI don't think specifically.\nI think thiseis\none of the calculations that was used in the projections but I'm not\nsure that we are specifically counting on this.\nQ\nCan I change the subject?\nA\nAll right.\nQ\nGovernor, relative to the hearing of the Assembly Ways and\nMeans Subcommittee last night, would you be willing to sign a letter\nwhich would allow an appropriation to be approved and advanced in the\nbudget which would finance your department of OEO in the -- in the\namount that you were asking in the budget, but specify that 50 per\ncent of the people employed by the OEO have to be poor people them-\nselves? That's what the subcommittee decided they would do last\n-6-\nnight.\nA\nNo,and I -- I have to say this, I think the administration\nof the State OEO office has fulfilled its purpose. I think it is\nunwarranted criticism that's been made of it. I think in the\ntestimony you heard Mr. Uhler himself say that he had some plans\nalong these same lines with regard to future employment. But I\nthink the smoke screen that's been thrown up is one that confuses\nthe function of the state OEO office with that of the community\naction programs that are actually administering poverty funds. There\nare rules about the involvement of poverty people and people who\nknow at first hand the problems that they are attemtping to solve.\nThe State OEO office is an accounting and an auditing and an investi-\ngating agency to supervise and make sure that the se hundreds of\nmillions of dollars that come into the state for these programs are\nnot abused, not misused, and are honestly accounted for. It is not\nactually a -- as a community action program is at the firing line,\ndealing with the problems of poverty, and it shouldn't be jugged as\nsuch. And what some of the bureaucrabychave termed harrassment I\nclaim is nothing more than the supervision that is more than needed\nfor a program that nationally has prebably had no equal in our\nnation's history for the misuse of funds, the breaking or promises\nand the absolute inability to account for tems of millions of dollars\nthat have just simply disappeared. I'm speaking of the poverty\nprogram nationally and as a matter of fact within this state, and\nmost of the vetoes that I found it necessary to make or the threat of\nvetoes have been over mismanic ment of funds and a large number of\nminorities -- community citizens who are in that hearing before the\nBurton committee yesterday, were citizens from Oakaand who were over\nhere on our side because they say they themselves have been saved\nby our OEO office because the program when vetoed in Oakland was not\nfulfilling its responsibility to the poor.\nQ\nBut if the only way to save the appropriation would be to give\nthat letter to pass the budget, would you do it?\nMR. MEESE: We will have to wait to see what the bill says.\nA\nI'm going to have to wait to see what they -- you know I\ndon't comment on vetoes and signatures of bills before they come down.\nI still think that it is -- I think that it is a kind of harrassing\ntactic that they have suggested and I think that the best description\n-7-\nof it was given 1. he phrase uttered by one Aber of the committee,\nAssemblyman Frank Lanterman, when he said \"hogwash.\"\nQ\nGovernor, Mr. Uhler was asked whether he thought his prime\nresponsibility as director lay to the poor or to the governora How\ndo you think that question is fairly#answered?\nA\nWell, I think it was an improper question. I think that in\nfulfilling jobs he is exerting a responsibility to the poor. I could\nsit here and let that money go by and let the money be misused and say,\nwell, it is not my problem, that's OEO's problem, but I think the\ncitizens have a right to expect that government, when the framework was\nestablished, that the states -- that the governors have not only a\nright but a responsibility to review and vetocif necessary these\nprograms. And the state office is set up for that auditing and\nsupervising process, then I don't think that we can stand here and\nsimply say that we are serving the interests of the poor by letting\nsomeone steal money that is supposed to be going to help the poor.\nQ\nGovernor, what --\nA\nAnd \"steal\" is not too harsh a word.\n0\nWhat examples of mismanggement do you have in the CAP\nprograms?\nA\nWell, now, let me say -- let me interject something right\nhere before I go out here with blanket indictment. I have indicted\nthe whole program on an overall basis. I say it is. That is,\nthis is not to ignore the fact that here and there based on the ability\nof people at the local level add their sincerity there have been\nprograms that have performed brthwhile functions. But I can go\nback to the very first veto that I ever cast on a poverty program\nhere, and that was one that was to put 17 unemployed to work in some\nrather hard outdoor physical labor, and over half the budget was\ngoing to the salaries of 7 administrators to supervise the 17 people\nat work. And I figured that was too many chiefs and not enough\nindiams. And the similar problems of that kind. The complaints\nfrom the one that we have just vetoed in Oakland, I think you have\nfound the entire city -- yesterday you saw evidence that the poverty\ncommunity itself, disadvantaged people who were supposed to be helped,\nall of them were on our side in this because they say that there has\nbeen no real evidence of any ofthis money getting down to help and\nsolve the problems of the poor in Oakland.\nQ\nGovernor, yesterday Mr. Uhler said that it would be inappropriat\n-8-\nfor the state to\non a parady with CRLA int\nhearings in San\nFrancisco. In other words, the state is the people, how is the state\nto be in any exalted position or any position superior to any other\nentity?\nA\nWell, we are not superior and let me just give what I think\nthe situation is, and what he was trying to suggest. And many of\nyou must bevgreatly confused about this whole thing because certainly\nthere's been contributions made to the people's confusion about it.\nNow, the law specifies that a governorncan veto a program and after\nseveral years of trying to persuade Washington to clean up some of\nthe things that were wrong and the complaints that we have been\ngetting from the rural areas about this program, finally I vetoed the\nprogram. This is my right. The law now specifies the obligation\nrests on Washington within thirty days if they believe that my veto\nis not justified, that they are to produce the facts that prove\nthat it was not justified and they then are to override the veto.\nThey didn't in the 30 days, they upheld my veto. Subsequent to\nthat time Mr. Carlucci, the Director of OEO, came to me with a pro-\ngram for a funding of a six-month CRLA program subject to conditions,\nchanges over the previous program that filled about two typewritten\npages. And on this I agreed not to veto, this second program that\nhe proposed. At the same time he also told us that in this six-\nmonth period he was going to appoint legal force, a task force to come\nout and to look at the whole situation in California and then go\nback and submit recommendations to what was the best method of get-\nting legal assistance to the poor. Now, this commission came out\nand as I wrote the members of the commission at the height of all\nof this confusion, and as I have -- am writing Mr. Carlucci, and\nhave already wired him once, but I'm sending a letter to Mr. Carlucci,\nsomeone back there in his shop misinformed this commission that they\nwere sent out here and I think handicapped by the belief that they\nwere supposed to be coming and sitting in judgment on an adversary\ntype of trial over my veto. My veto is a thing of the past. I\nvetoed; it was upheld under the law. Now, our understanding and our\nunderstanding with Mr, Carlucci, was that this team was to come out.\nWe offered them all the help we could give them, we offered them all\nthe lists of the names. We are not the compaainants. We only\nforwarded to Mr. Carlucci in our report the complaints with the names\nof the people in California who had complained about this program.\n-9-\nNow they are free to go any place in this state to question these\npeople or to bring these people to wherever they are, to ask their\nstory firsthand 1f they don't want to take our report of it as the\nfinal word. And then to question CRLA, to question us. We have\nnever hesitated to question -- all wehave said was we were never\nsupposed to be involved in a trial over our veto. If that was to have\ntaken place it should have taken place in that first 30 days before\nthe veto was sustained. And so we are not going to do this and\nwe think that what we are the victim of and what the commissiontis,\nis the victim of a bureaucratic trick brought about by some of the\npeople back there in the OEO headquarters.\nQ\nGovernor, is -- I have a new subject.\nA\nHe has a new subject. Is yours an old subject?\nQ\nOne last on the old subject. As you stand here today\nand from what you know of Mr. Uhler, subsequent investigations,\nwould you be inclined to veto a grant beginning July 1?\nA\nGrant beginning July 1. Oh, I would want to see the\nterms, I would want to see what it is that Washington -- they have\na -- have a program, have a law, and -- for providing rural legal\nassistance. And so in July 1, they will have to come up with a new\nrecommendation for an OEO program, and on the basis of that program\nand what it is they propose to do we will make a determination as\nto whether I uphold it. Now, if that program goes inand I don't\nveto and it then falls into the same pattern and we find the same\nsins being committed in the last one, then the next time around I'd\nhave to veto.\nQ\nSame subject.\nA\nSame subject.\nQ\nGovernor, do you have any idea who the bureaucrats are\nin Washington that perpetrated the trick and why do you think they\nwould do such a thing?\nA\nNo, they are numerous and it is -- I have found that when\nyou take on the bureaucracy you don't take on a silent foe. They\nstrike back. And we are getting an unusual amount of attention\nin California these days.\nQ\nWhy would they perpetrate such a trick?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWhy would they perpetrate such a trick?\nA\nBecause they would like nothing better than to go back and\n-10-\nala\nfight the war over again and get my veto overruled. They did not\ntake kindly to what I did.\nQ\nAren't these Nixon bureaucrats that you are talking about?\nA\nNo, when you talk about the permanent structure of govermment\nyou are talking about a bureaucracy that has been there for the last\nfew Presidents and as I have spoken out publicly on many occasions\nthey seem to have a shop of their own, a government of their own\nand what?\nQ\nWell, these evaluators, these federal OEO evaluators, are\nthose the kind you are talking about?\nA\nI haven't drawn any line between who does it or who back there\ntuerinformed these three commissioners to what their task was. I\nonly know that their task as they came here and as they understood\nit was completely contrary to the understanding that we had with Mr.\nCarlucci.\nQ\nGovernor, do you feel you were deceived on the part of three\nSupreme Court Justices as Commissioners instead of field investigators?\nA\nNo, he told us at frst he had spoken of lawyers. And judges\nare lawyers, and so I guess he's still within that framework. The\nonly place there -- and we haventt complained about this -- the only\nplace where there was a beginning disagreement with what they had said\nwas they told us that they would do their best to find people that\nwould be mutually agreeable. Now, at no time did they ever say we had\na veto over who they chose fior did we ever ask such atthing, but\nthey did say that they would let us know and hope that we could\nmutually agree upon the team that would come here.\no\nDid you expect --\nA\nAnd they didn't do that, they just simply named these people\nand sent them out.\nQ\nDid you expect three middle-aged or elderly judges to go\nout and do field investigation instead of sitting as a court as they\nare doing?\nA\nNo, they could bring the people to themselves. All I know\nis they knew the agreement and then it is up to them to provide whatever\nwas necessary to help those gentlemen do their task.\nQ\nGovernor, are these people -- these judges apparently are\nstarting to go out into the field now.\nA\nYes.\n-11-\nQ\nAre you more satisfied hnw with their approach?\nall\nA\nYes, they started going out into the field, I think, the\nnext day after our last press conference.\n0\nWas this a result of your comments at your press conference?\nA\nI think this is just sheer coincidence.\nQ\nGovernor, you are then satisfied with the panel while you may\nnot have been consulted as to the makeup of the panel?\nA\nOh, yes, I agree, three distinguished gentlemen, I'm not\ngoing to criticize them at this point, I have no reason to. I\nsimply interjected that as just the first indicating that somehow\nwhat had been agreed upon and what we had been told was not going\nto be carried out. Now, are you changing the subject?\nD\nYes.\nA\nNo, he's -- he gets to change the subject first. Wait a\nminute, he doesn't want to change the subject.\nQ\nI just wanted after your news conference last week, Mr.\nChurchville, I think, a Mr. Carlucci's spokesman in Washington,\nsaid Mr. Carlucci had approved the method that the three judges were\nusing here in California and I believe the Judges themselves had\na message from him approving -- approving their method. Now, what\nbureaucrats are there other than Mr. Carlucci in that situation?\nA\nWell, that's why I'm writing Mr. Carlucci a letter.\nD\nThen the face -- then the bureaucracy that you are talking\nabout includes Mr. Carlucci?\nA\nWell, that's what I'm trying to writing the letter, to\nfind out if it does.\nQ\nCan we have access to the letter.\nPAUL BECK: When it is out.\nA\nNow he wants to change it first.\nQ\nGovernor, after tonsideration of the Supreme Court rulings\non the death penalties, will the moratorium be continued in California?\nA\nNo, although I don't expect any immediate action because\nthere are a great many of the people presently on death row who have\na number of appeals and so I suppose that the process will begin.\nThey have given a decision, also there is no guarantee that there\nwon't be other legal groupsthat might continue on, say, some other basis\nto demand such a thing. We have towait and see whether that will\ncause any further moreatorium of the kind that we just had. But\n-12-\nfailing that I imagine that the legal processes will go forward as to\nappeals for those who have them, through a variety of courts and --\nand then of course, as you know, the case has to go back to the original\nlocal jurisdiction or local court for -- setting of the penalty and\nthe date.\n8\nYou feel that the court should rule in the crual and punish-\nment facets of the case?\nA\nNo, I happen to support the idea of the death penalty. It\ndidn't make me happy seeing that, and I don't think anybody is happy\nabout the thought of it or the need for such a thing, but I happen\nto believe that no evidence has ever been produced that refutes the\nidea that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I've used the\nexample of -- of course, of a roundup I had on my desk of 12 murderers\nin California who served prison terms and were subsequently released\nand then went out and killed 22 additional people between them.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\nQ\nYeah, I've got one.\nA\nHe had one.\nQ\nGovernor, do youssupport Assemblyman Bagley's bill now to\nrepeal the Wakefield Act? Anti-busing?\nA\nRepeal the what?\nQ\nThe Wakefield and -- the State's anti- school busing.\nA\nOh. You've finally caught me with one I have no answer\non.\nQ\nYou signed the bill last year and now there is a movement --\nA\nI just have to say I haven't even paid any attention to\nwhat he's doing -- I've paid so much attention to the fact he's got\na withholding bill in. Mr. Bagley moves in fast.\nQ\nOne of the issues the legislature grappled with is the\nsoaring costs of car insurance and one of the recommendations is a\nno fault concept insurance. How do you feel about no fault insurance?\nA\nWe are still studying that, have been studying it and having\nsome cabinet meetings on it. We haven't a position as yet because\nit is a very complex thing. We have been watching very closely areas\nlike Massachusetts where they are trying it.\n0\nGovernor, do you have any reaction to what happened in\nWashington, D. C. yesterday? (war protestors)\nA\nYes, and I think we should all have some -- should take some\n-13-\ngreat pride in it. First of all, I have not been in sympathy with\nthe demonstrators or what they were attempting to do, and influence\ngovernment in that manner, but I think in the face of an outright\nthreat they said they were going to bring the government of this\ncountry to a halt and the government of this countrypproved it wasn't\ngoing to be brought to a halt, and I take a great deal of pride in\nthat.\nYou hope it will be ever thus.\n8\nDo you agree with James Restan's column that the fewer people\nthat are at work would make the efficiency of government that much\ngreater?\nA\nWell, we have proven that here in the state government\nas the work load has gone up and the size of the state has increased\nand we have not increased the size of government. So you might\nsay proportionately we have reduced the size of government.\nAnd\nI can point to department after department. I think in our whole\ncorrectional institution, the very fact that rehabilitation is working,\nour probation system is working and the field of mental health, where\nwe have reduced from 31,000 to 11,500 in the hospitals, all of these\nthings in a number of departments prove that Parkinson was right,\nthat you can get government so big and top heavy that it becomes\nits own excuse for being.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\no0o\n-14-"
}