Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564122",
    "label": "Transcripts - 04/05/1972, 04/20/1972, 05/11/1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564122"
}

{
    "id": "118564122",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564122",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 04/05/1972, 04/20/1972, 05/11/1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564122",
    "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-P03-014-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-014-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-014-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564122",
    "naId": 118564122,
    "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-P03-014-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "f4c7f7c614cfb1f0",
    "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 -\n04/05/1972, 04/20/1972, 05/11/1972\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\n4/5\nBRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD APRIL 5, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(this rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their con-\nvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no00\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release #185)\nBudget\nQ.\nGovernor, the Democrats are only up there by 190 million\nand the Republicans went along with them in the Ways and Means\nCommittee. It is 190 million over what you asked for.\nA.\nThat's right, I think some of the objections, as I say\nhere, this is one. Some of the other objections are things that I\ncan't -- couldn't do anything about. Because I cannot put back what\nhas been taken out and the changestthat they have made in the\nExecutive Department's ability to run its own affairs are even more\ngrevious. But in the committee I think you'll find that the same\nthing followed, that I have just said will follow on the voting on\nthe floor, that there is no sense in trying to win the battle there.\nThe thing to do is to move it along and get it to the eventual\nprocess of conference committee.\nNobody else?\nWell--\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nIs that it? --\nQ.\nGovernor, can you give us an example of the kind of material\nyou deal with that requires putting into a shredder after you finish\nwith it so no one can see it?\nA.\nNo, all I know is that this has been a standard procedure and\nI guess in most government offices, and it has been in ours.\nI\ndon't even know where the thing is, I just know what I want to throw\nin my waste basket I only have to tear in tiny pieces, that it is\nall destroyed that way. And as I say, it's been standard operating\nprocedure as long as I know of.\nQ.\nGovernor, on a political matter, this week-end Republican\norganizations are going to meet and I understand that you have had\nsome of the leaders in to urge them to endorse Nixon, is that true?\nA.\nI haveehad some of the leaders in as Chairman of the Nixon\ncampaign to tell tem that -- yes, I'm campa ning for him and that\nI discussed with them what I think is some of the problems and urged\nthem to face this issue in the importance of --\nQ.\nHave you any --\nA.\n-- supporting the President.\nQ.\n-- you might not get 60 per cent?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nHave you any fear that they might not round up 60 per cent\nof the delegates to endorse Nixon, thereby defeat what you are\ntrying to do?\nA.\nI don't know, I'm quite sure that there are people tn that\norganization who have different views, but I know also it takes\ntwo thirds, I think, Squire to -- to endorse, and I don't know\nthe count intthere.\nQ.\nBut you have discussed with some of the leaders the necessity\nof this?\nA.\nOh, I've discussed with as many Republicans as I can get\nin -- of activists in leadership groups this way, the necessity for\nhaving unity in the party and going forth in support of what I'm\nsure is going to be our nominee.\nQ.\nGovernor Wallace has said that -- in advance of the Wisconsin\nprimary, and also he thought that he did well, and the effect of that\nwould be to get President Nixon to change the policies of the\nadministration that are existing.\nDevernor Wallace did very well\nin Wisconsin. Do you think that President Nixon ought to respond\nto that showing by altering his policy?\nA.\nI don't know that the President needs any counsel or advise\nfrom Governor Wallace. I think that any President needs, certainly\nwithin his own party -- needs counseling, and the opinions provided\nto him from every facet. This has been one of my criticisms of\nthe so-called conservatives in the Republican party, is that we haven't\nand I ude me because you put me in with that group anyway --\nwe haven't expressed ourselves on many issues, either in support\nor in criticism as mush as we should. For example, the President\ntold me that with regard to the Amchitka blast, which I'm sure a\ngreat many people felt should have gone forward as a necessary part\nof our defense, that all he heard was pressure from those people who\nwanted it cancelled. He didn't hear from any of the people who\nsupported it and believed it should go forward. And I think\njudging by my own position here, it is nice to know sometimes that\nthere is -- when you are facing a controversial issue. that all of\nthe pressure is Y\ncoming from just one gro\nthat wants it one\nway, that you can turn and weightagainst that the opinion of other\npeople.\n&\nGovernor -- the point Governor Wallace was making is that he\nwasn't going to advise the President that he did well; the people\nin Wisconsin would be sending a message to the President, do you\nagree with that?\nA.\nWell, the only message so far that I've gotten out of the\nWisconsin primary is it confirmed what some of us are saying for\na long time, that the leadership of the Democratic party is in\ncomplete disarray.\nQ.\nGovernor --\nA.\nHeresand then there.\nQ.\nGovernor, are you saying that Governor Wallace is showing --\nperhaps is a valuable counterforce to the more open and more obvious\ncomments of the liberals?\nA.\nNo, I was trying to get away from the question of Governor\nWallace advising anyone and get it back to our own f- our own team\nadvising. No, although I think anyone in public life watches\neverything of this kind as a measure of public opinion, what people\nare thinking and what's on their minds. You wouldn't be in public\nlife very long if you didn't.\nQ.\nGovernor, speaking of advising, given the current situation\nin Vietnam, do you think it wouldobe politically wise for the\nPresident now to resume the bombing of the north?\nA.\nWell, we have around a hundred thousand Americans still left\nin Vietnam. All that is between those hundred thousand Americans,\nthe majority of whom are non-combat groups, all that's between them\nand being overrun and captured or killed by the enemy is the\nVietnamese ground forces and our own air force, and I would think\nthat the commander in Chief, in our country, would do whatever has\nto be done to protect those hundred thousand men. In the process\nof vietnamization, I think I said this to all of you a long time\nago, when this program started, that we were well aware that as we\nstarted to withdraw we would come to a point at which the American forc\nleft would be SO outnumbered that they would be endangered unless\nthere was some protection for them and this was the purpose of Viet-\nnamization, to guage the -- its increase and our withdrawal, to\nmake them proportionate.\nNow, we know that Vietnamization for\nsometime to come is based on American air support, that we -- it\ntakes a little longer to build up their forces and their capability\nin the air; the *raining that's required, the organization and\nso forth, as well as the providing of planes. So I think the\nPresident has no choice but to do, as I say, whatever has to be\ndone to protect our men.\nQ.\nDoes that include bombing the north, Governor?\nA.\nThat includes yes, bombing the north.\nQ.\nDo you think the offense in the last few days indicate that\nvietnamization is failing?\nA.\nI think it is a little too early to decide. I know sometime\nago -- we have been expecting the offensive since the first of the\nyear and I know in a briefing sometime ago in Washington to some\nof the Governors, it was explained that when this came there was no\nquestion but that like any massive offensive drive, it would have some\ngains, it would even capture some cities. This was expected. But\nthere was confidence then that the South Vietnamese would in the\nlong run be able to stop them and while they bend, they wouldn't\nbreak, and they would stop the enemy and blunt this drive. And I\nthink in just these first few days, as the offense was lauched,\nthis is no time to make a judmgant. I think also there is a tendency\nto report some of the doings over there the way the Tet offensive\nat Hue mifew years ago was reported, which militarily was a disaster\nfor the N rth but which still was hailed in many areas of the media\nas somehow a great victory for North Vietnam.\nQ.\nNew subject.\nQ.\nGovernor, excuse me, you say hailed, why would you use a\nword like \"hailed\" by media as a victory for Vietnam?\nA.\nMaybe that was a bad choice of word, at least it was announced\nas that. As a mtter of fact, iteprobably was one of the most\nsignificant things with regard to the previums President, his dealine\nin popularity.\n. :\nDo you see the President in a kind of dilemma in the election\nyear, political dilemma because of the current situation in Vietnam,\nbecause on the one hand he faces criticism for stepping up the war\nand criticisms in another quarter for not acting on it. Would that\npresent a dilemma to him politically?\nA.\nI think you've got a dilemma, there is no question. The\nyears are just going on in a war which two previous presidents wouldn't\nattempt to win and apparently couldn't end, build up a place where\nthe man who occupies the White House knows that there is no great\npublic support for wars of containment at this time. And he has to\ndeal with that. At the same time he has the responsibility of the\nmen who are still here. And It may be. the there are some who\nwould write off those hundred thousand men and who will be blind\nto the fact and refuse to see the danger to those men. We hear\nthose voices all the time. And quite a bit of that kind of talk.\nBut I think -- I don't have any question but the President will\nfulfill his responsibility as Commander in Chief even though it\nmight be unpopular with some.\nQ.\nGovernor, you say you hear these voices all the time that\nare willing to write off the hundred thousand men over there.\nWho\nare some of these voices?\nA.\nWell, they don't say write off the hundred thousand men.\nThey simply say accept the enemy's word that he won't do anything\nto these men and that he will release our prisoners and so forth 1f\nwe will just simply lay down our guns and wait on the dock for the\nboats to bring them home. And I just don't think that a President\ncan take that chance. Now, most of the Democratic candidates\nhave urged this policy. The President can't take -- as long\nas there is even a thousand to one chance that there is danger to\nour men, the President can't be as reckless as some of the would be\npresidents are.\nQ.\nOn a Califonia matter, Governor.\nA.\nAll right.\nQ.\nWhen the question of Perry Mulligan's firing or the point\nwhen you asked his resignation to be withdrawn -- when you asked him\nto resign, you deflected a lot of questions on that subject by\nsaying your office was engaged in a continuing re-examination of\npotential conflict of interest cases, and that this would probably\nbe available to reporters because of your administration. What is\nthe status of that re-examination?\nA.\nWhat 1s the status of that re-examination?\nMR. MEESE: Agency secretaries and department heads have\nvery carefully gone over the situation with all appointees, both\nfull-time and part-time and are reviewing with these people any\npotential or possible conflicts or incompatible activities.\nQ.\nSo, would it be possible to find out about these specific\ncases, about the various outside employment situations and that kind\nof thing?\nA.\nWell, we are in the process of review now. It isn't some-\nthing that's done overnight.\na.\nBut it would be made available to the press?\n-5-\nMR. MEESE\nThere is some question a\nut whether a\nperson's business affairs will be made available in its entirety.\nUntil we see them, I don't know, so I don't think we could answer\nat this point.\nQ.\nGovernor, can you tell us how soon you expect to have\nthose findings.\nMR. MEESE: It is not a matter of finding, it is going\nthrough with each individual person their situation. Mostly for\nthem to be aware of potential conflicts so they can avoid them or\nhandle the situation. As yet we know of no resignations or changes is\nstatus because of this process.\nA.\nThe possibility remains that a person may not be aware that\nsome ownership he has or some activity he has constitutes --\nQ.\nIs there a uniform policy, Governor? Do you have a written\nstated uniform policy in this area so that your appointees know\nwhat they can do and what they aan't do?\nA.\nWell, a general policy, yes. And certainly everyone has\nbeen pinned down on this. Then you may find that some individual,\nas I say, doesn't even realize that something constitutes a conflict\nof interest.\nQ.\nGovernor, Mr. Mulligan said yesterday that if the truth were\nknown that most of the state department heads would be guilty of\nmoonlighting, and he said he's aware of one state official who\nis on an annual retainer with a private company, in the same field\nin which his statutory responsibilities lie. Have you any comment\non that?\nA.\nYes, if what he says is true, frankly I -- I think there\nmust be some exaggeration on that because I don't think we are that\nblind to what all has been -- that happens with our various depart-\nments. But this is the type of thing that the cabinet secretaries\nare seeking to find.\nQ.\nGovernor, Mr. Mulligan also said that he wanted to meet with\nyou again after you returned from your vacation this week to talk\nabout his situation. Has he contacted you or do you intend to grant\nhim an appointment?\nA.\nWell, I'll certainly grant him an appointment, if he asked,\nbut he hasn't contacted me.\nQ.\nGovernor, just so we can put this in proper context, could\nyou outline briefly what your stated policy is on this conflict of\ninterest with the department heads.\nA.\nT think it is the obvious thing\ninterest explains what it is right there. That a man accepting the\nposition must -- must give up anything which he could conceivably\nmake his other interest or his outside interest or private investment\nprofit from his position in government.\nQ.\nUnder the circumstances --\nA.\nAnd very frankly I would be inclined to doubt that there was\nanything more than here and there some inadvertent and unknowing\nconflict of interest.\nI think there are very few people that come\nand\ninto government/willingly give up what they have to give up to\ncome into government, that would attempt to do this. I think the\ngovernment is far more honest than most people are prepared to\nbeliefe.\nQ.\nMr. Mulligan told some of us that he accepted an airline ticket\nto Hawaii on behalf of E.S.I. and is that the reason that Mr.\nMeese's suggestions -- well, Mr. Meese reported to you at that\ninterview. Was Mr. Mulligan's acceptance of the airline fare,\ndid that figure in your call for his resignation?\nA.\nYes, I said it was a mistake in judgment, I think, for a\nman to go at the request and on the expenses of a company that was\nattempting to -- to arrange a contract with our own state which\nhe would be involved, to go and act as a kind of salesman for that\ncompany and attempting to sell them to the city of Honolulu. I said\nit was a mistake in judgment. I said also I didn't believe that\nthe -- that it was deliberate on his part, that he wasn't aware--\nthis is one of those cases where he hadn't seen through this as the\npossibility of it being viewed as a conflict of interest and I made\nit perfectly clear it had nothing to do with the later charges which\ncame uprregarding the meeting in Honolulu and which I am delighted\nto say now verify my original statement about Mr. Mulligan, that they\nhave been dropped, those charges have been dropped.\nQ.\nGovernor, under the circumstances could you consider appoint-\ning Mr. Mulligan to some other state post?\nA.\nWell, so far there's been no request to do such a thing and\nI wouldn't know what that post would be right now.\nQ.\nWell, theoretically, could -- under the circumstances and in\nview of this conflict of interest which you say is there, could you\nappoint him to any state post?\nA.\nWell, I'd question that, whether I could or not, yes.\nBecause, as I say, a mistake in judgment was made.\nQ.\nMr. Mulligan sent in a letter to your office asking that your\nresignation -- his regisnation be withdrawn. When was the letter\nsent and what was the nature of that letter?\nA.\nI don't remember the exact dates, but I had already accepted\nhis resignation and he and I had met personally.\nQ.\nWhat was the general thrust of his letter? Why was he asking\nyou to -- to withdraw that resignation?\nA.\nWell, he just -- simply felt that -- I suppose changed his\nmind and felt that he shouldn't have resigned at my request.\n&\nGovernor, you think -- seem to think that anything that may\nbe going on in the Executive Branch along this line is asa.result\nand\nof\ninadvertence. What do you think about the legislature/conflicts\nof interest?\nA.\nWell, I think they have the same problems there. The legis-\nlative branch, and I'm not going to get over into their -- crossing\nover the lines of -- even though they may be willing to violate\nthe separation of powers, I don't want to -- I think the legislative\nbranch from its past has some problems that they themselves have\nbeen looking at in these last couple of years, and must look at\nin that they have come to a virtually full-time legislature from\na past in which it was so part-time that you obviously expected\nyour legislators to have their own private businesses or employment\nor whatever it might be, and they only served a few months at a\nvery nominal salary as state legislators. It was a side-line\nactivity. Now you also come up to the national situation in which\nobviously Congressmen, Senators, are full-time employees of the\nfederal government but there has never been any restriction on them\nhaving businesses or being partners in law firms and that sort of\nthing. There again I think your conflict of interest is not so\nmuch over holding the job as ensuring that you never participate in\nanything that -- as a legislator, that has to do with some outside\ninterest of yours. Obviously it would be a conflict of interest if\nthe Chairman of a committee was handling the legislation that would\naffect favorably his own personal situation.\nQ.\nGovernor, on the legislature, but another subject. Assembly\nFinance Committee this week cut your $150,000 request for the\nmansion to $25,000 in order to assure it wouldn't be used as an office\nas well as a home. What is your reaction to that?\nA.\nWell, my reaction is, once again they shot from the hip,\n-8-\nbecause if they' have picked up the phone a called they would\nhave found out that I am on their side as never wanting the\nGovernor's residence to be a combination residence and office, a la\nthe White House, or the Capitol of -- the Governor's mansion of\nGeorgia or some others I can name. Now, the great opposition, as you\nknow, to the site and the plans that have been agreed upon at one\ntime under Governor Brown for having it across the street from the\ncapitol here was that they were going to construct not only a home\nbut it was going to be the Executive office suite of the Governor.\nI don't agree with that. I think the Governor should be here in\nthe Capitol and all of the advanced plans of the citizens who had\nstarted out to raise money for a Governor's residence had been\npredicated on the fact and that's why they bought that land way out\nthere on the American River -- it would be a residence. Now,\nadmittedly, it has to be a residence of a little more capacity than\nthe average home because of the official entertaining that must be\ndone. It is pretty hard to get 120 legislators at a dinner in a\n30-foot living room holding the plate on their lap. At the same\ntime you try not to build some vast hotel that when you are not\nentertaining leaves you rattling around in it. And I think that\nthe -- that the people who had started the idea of contributing\na mansion to the state had some very fine ideas in that regard.\nYou have to add enough bedrooms to recognize the fact that pelple\nin politics are getting younger and you may have, as we have had in\nthe past, a Governor with several children. I think there have to\nbe guests accommodations in a structure of that kind. But this\nis the thinking and there is no office suite included in anyone's\nplanning or anyone's thinking and maybe the Senate now, ifyou\nFellows will harrow this far and wide, will see their mistake and\ncome rushing back in to put the money back in the budget.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you see the forthcoming primary in California\nshaping up as any kind of pivotal point or major election in this\nelection year?\nA.\nAs any kind of what?\nQ.\nOf a turning point or watershed in this election.\nA.\nWell, I don't know which of the 19 primaries might wind up\nbeing considered the watershed with the Democratic party is\nconcerned or whether the decision is going to be made there.\nI\nthink in the Republican party it is pretty well confirmed who our\ncandidate is going to be, the encumbent President. So I\nthink\nwe just have to wait and see and I don't know. There are\n19\nprimaries yet to D. And some place along e line someone is going\nto emerge or they are going to come into the -- to the convention\nin Miami, the Democrats, with Ibestill a wide open race to be decided\nat the convention. So I wouldn't -- I would think that California\nis one of the last of the primaries you could tag now as predicting\nthat will be the watershed.\nQ.\nGovernor, what do you think the impact of the acquittal of\nthe Soledad brothers would be on the state penal system? What did\nyou think of that jury's decision?\nA.\nWell, I think it was another evidence of the fact that our\ncourt system does work and you do get justice in our conrts. And\non the basis of the evidence the jury decided that they -- they\nwere not guilty, and that's our system.\nQ.\nGovernor, the track record of so-called social revolutionaries\ninvolved in alleged crime has not been too good in terms of\nprosecution, the Pit River Indians hung up in a jury. Do you\nsuppose prosecutors are going to court too soon with insufficient\nevidence?\nA.\nThat's possible. I don't -- I don't know, I've never\nanalyzed all of them. I know that a very healthy percentage of\nthe -- all of the cases to the rash of violence in the Black\nPanthers, the overwhelming majority of those were either\ndismissed or found not guilty or resulted in hung juries, and this\nwould indicate to me that some place they evidently couldn't tie\nup their case beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you think Congressman Ashbrook should withdraw\nfrom the race?\nA.\nWell, of course on the side I'm on I thought he shouldn't\nhave entered.\nQ.\nBut do you think the handwriting is pretty well on the wall\nnow, that he's creating maybe divisiveness between the party?\nA.\nNo, if he is -- if he is still of the mind that -- when he\nentered this race inthe first place, to indicate that there was\ndissatisfaction with some of the procedures of this administration\non the part of some elements of the Republican party, I think he's\nmade his point. Back there.\nQ.\nThere have been some reports that your administration is\nconsidering removing Mr. Hearn as the head of the department of\nIndústrial Relations.\nWhat is the status of Mr. Hearn at the present\n-10-\ntime?\nA.\nNo, there is -- there's been no decision of any kind on\nthat. I suppose rumors of that kind come from the fact that as we\nmove and as some of our people returnsto civilian life, and so forth,\nwe review first our own shop system, as utilizing our own personnel\nor transferring or moving them into some other department. But I\nknow of nothing of that kind.\nQ.\nGovernor, did you have a state income tax liability for 1971?\nA.\nWell, maybe on the basis of the orders that I've sent to my\ntaxman, that I've got to have a state tax liability. He hasn't\nsent it to me yet, so I don't know.\nQ.\nGovernor, what is your reaction to the federal government's\nannouncement that they will expand the use of furiding of methadone\nwithin the next year?\nA.\nWe ourselves are expanding this as we have gone forward under\na controlled program and to identify, classify as correctly as\npossible those people. We are continuing to research it and so I\nwould think that would be fine. I think that every branch of\ngovernment is involved in this whole problem of the dope culture --\ndrug culture, and --\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\nA.\n-- and support it.\nQ.\nYes. Governor, in supporting-the Senate Rules committee\nkilled the equal rights amendment, the fedemal use equal rights\namendment, what is your reaction to that?\nA.\nFirst, I've heard about it is what you have just said, so\nI have no comment here. I don't know what the reason was.\nQ.\nYou don't have a position on that amendment on the equal\nrights issue.\nA.\nI just -- I'm not even familiar with what was in the bill or\nin the amendment. I don't know.\nQ.\nEqual rights for women, that's the bill.\nA.\nWell, the one thing is I would hate to have to see them\ngive up their superiority. I've always liked that kind of --\nseems kind of comfortable this way with leaving them on top, I'd\nhate to have them come down to our level.\nQ.\nGovernor, would you comment on the merits, if any, on the\nbaseball strike?\n(Laughter)\n-11-\nA.\nWell, I r ret to see it and I -- I ! ehow think it was --\nI think it is 111 advised.\na.\nGovernor, the State architect has suggested that the whole\nan\ncapitol building maybe in some imminent danger.\nNow,/Assemblyman\nwith some background in the field has suggested that this building\ntoo is unsafe. Do you feel any apprehension? You are sure you\ndon't want office space in the mansion.\nA.\nNo, but VIu want to tell you, I haven't felt very safe in\nthis building since I came here.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nBut I don't know that it has anything to do with the founda-\ntion or the walls.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you still plan to sponsor a coastline bill\nof some sort?\nA.\nYes, I think there will be legislation from us within --\nwith regard to this line.\nQ.\nAny timetable?\nA.\nNo.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\no0o\n-12-\n1/20\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD APRIL 20, 1972\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 the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, we have some journalists here,\nI understand, some students from Contra Costa College. Maybe\nafterward we can have a few questions from them, when you finish.\nWelcome, observe and think of some questions yourselves.\n&\nGovernor, tax reform has become somewhat of a small\nissue again in this session of the legislature. There is a bill\nthat the Speaker and the county supervisors are pushing. What\nare your plans insofar as tax reform this year are concerned.\nA.\nWell, we have been -- we have been having meetings on\nthis and we have some continued meetings we hope that we are going\nto come up and we want to come up with a proposal ourselves. It\nisn't a case of lack of interest. It is a -- I suppose this happens\non both sides in the legislature, it is a case that over these three\nyears we have run into so many road blocks, so many things, that\nseem to be insoluble that the problem gets more complicated, not\nless. The more we learn the more things we know are unacceptable\nto -- to some sides and some people in this. We hope we can --\nwe feel now that it's been complicated that you could not discuss\ntax reform without taking into consideratinn the possibility of\nthe Serrano decision and the change in funding for education. This\nhas complicated things very much.\nQ.\nGovernor, you don't have a tax -- there is no program\nfor tax r€form, nothing yet for no fault insurance. Where is your\nlegislative program?\nA.\nWell, no fault insurance, there are five bills right now\nin the legislature. And all of those bills contain Incone way\nor the other the -- some or all of the six basic principles that we\nwe outline. We are watching very closely and working with the\n-1-\nlegislature on this\nAnd we are quite positive\nthat\n:\nwhat\nthe\nadministration is seeking in no fault insurance will be on the floor\nand will be presented to the legislature, whether incorporated in\nthese bills or whether in a separate bill of our own.\nQ.\nDo you think it may be impossible to have tax reform at\nthis session?\nA.\nWell, the -- the one thing that I think isvvery important\nabout tax reform here, how cauld you ask me to predict and be\noptimistic about tax reform in view of the close calls we have had\nin the recent years, the strenuous attempts that we have made and\nthe failure to achieve tax reform. We can't be optimistic. But\nI do think that the legislature has a responsibility that they\nshould meet before the balloting, and that is with regard to the\ntax structure that they would foresee the tax structure the State\nwould have to have accounting for more than three billion dollars\nin revenue if the Watson amendment should be passed. I think the\nPeople of California before they vote on that initiative are\nentitled to know exactly what the tax structure will be in California\nif they should vote affirmatively, because I think they will be\nsurprised at what a tremendous shift that is going to be when you\nstart shifting to the State level some three billion dollars in\nrevenue.\nQ.\nCan you respond -- I got the impression you do think it\nis impossible to have tax reform.\nA.\nNo, I just said that it was impossible to be optimistic\nin view of the attempts and the failures that we have had.\nApparently both sides still believe in tax reform, but approaching\nit from two different angles and we are still working on it.\nAs a matter of fact, we have another meeting scheduled today with\nregard to our own studies and findings.\nQ.\nGovernor, how could it be solved this year if it does\nindeed, as you say -- I'm not trying to argue with you on that at\nall, but with the connection with the Serrano decision, when there\nis no finality on that at this point.\nA.\nWell, there is no finality, but the principle that has\nbeen enunciated is to find an equalization:factor and the Serrano\ndecision seems aimed in one way in a general direction at what has\nalways been the basis of tax reform, the need to have less reliance\non property tax, particularly the homeowner's tax.\nQ.\nGovernor, with regard to no fault auto insurance,\nvarious sources had indicated that you had attempted to sway the\nState Bar from taking their no fault auto insurance bills to\nSenator Moscone, is there anything to this?\nA.\nNo, uh-uh.\nQ.\nGovernor, to get back to taxes, who were you working with?\nYou say you are working with people. Who are you working with?\nA.\nWell , people in our own Finance Department and our own\nstaff and that have been involved in the proposals that we have\nmade and have come up with the programs that we had over the last\nfew years.\na.\nAre you talking todany Democrats, like Moretti?\nA.\nNo, we haven't gotten over to anything like the 16 day\nexperience yet.\nQ.\nGovernor, areyou now taking a position for or against\nthe Moretti tax proposal?\nA.\nWell, I think our Finance Department testified against\nit yesterday, yes. The Moretti proposal, as far as I can see,\nis very similar to what was advanced on their side of the table in\nour attempt to find a compromise agreement. And lacking two --\ntwo points. One, it is a massive tax increase contained in a\ntax reform and two, it still does not present any control to prevent\nthe homeowner from -- from having his taxes increased right on back\nup to where they are, after the reduction is given.\nQ.\nChange of subject, please, Governor. What efforts is\nyour office making, if any at all, to try and save the Republican\nconvention in San Diego?\nA.\nWell, actually this is in the hands of the national\ncommittee. All we did was advance California because there was more\nthan one city interested in it -- advance California as the site.\nWe would hate to see the convention removed from California and all\nI know is whate I have read in the papers. I have not been contacted\nin any way. If I was called upon and had an opportunity with\nregard to this, I, of course, would favor the retentinn of California.\nAnyone who would rather spend August in Florida than August in\nCalifornia has got to be out of his mind.\nQ.\nGovernor, if you had a bet right now, where it would be,\nhow would you bet?\nA.\nI'm going to bet on California.\nQ.\nThe White House has given you no assurance one way or the\n-3-\nother on that?\nA.\nI have heard nothing directly. All I know is what I read\nin the papers.\nQ.\nGovernor, what's your reaction to the treatment accorded\nLieutenant Governor Reinecke by the Senate Judiciary Committee?\nQ.\nMay I ask another question on this.\nA.\nAnd then we will come back to you.\nQ.\nYou say there is some other California cities interested,\nare there any other cities interested attthis time?\nA.\nNo,\nnot\nnow. Once the decision was made,\nQ.\nWell, if San Diego --\nA.\nThen San Diego had our support and backing, of course.\nQ.\n-- San Diego can't put on the convention, which other California\ncity would you suggest?\nA.\nI doubt if that would happen. You know, every four years\nthere is a great pressure put on by your own employers in -- oh,\nmainly the electronic media, great pressure, and I can understand it.\nThe mechanical -- the mechanical advantage and the economic advantage\nto the electronic media, particularly to have the conventions in\nthe same city where they don't have to duplicate facilities and\nrebuild in another area, the scheduling problem that doesn't have\na three-hour time difference when you switch from one convention to\nthe other, all of these are advantages that -- I don't know what\npart that's playing and I don't know what -- what are the problems\nthat are causing them concern. We have always known that San Eiego\nwas going to be stretched to the -- to its utmost capacity with\nregard to hotel rooms and so forth.\na.\nIs your office doing anything, though, right at this time\nto try to keep the convention in San Diego?\nA.\nNo, because no one has asked us to.\nQ.\nDo you think your administratinn fears anti-war demonstra-\ntions in San Diego?\nA.\nOh, heavens there have been the same threats made to the\nDemocratic conventinn in Miami. I have a hunch if you are going\nto have those kind of demonstrations they are going to happen wherever\nyou hold the convention. Chicago didn't turn out to be exactly\nShangrila, a few years ago. No, we have no fear at all, and we have\nno question but what order can be maintained and any crowds that\nhave any other ideas can be controlled in San Diego. We have perfect\nconfidence in our people to do that.\nQ.\nGovernor, are you going to try to in iate action in\nyour office to find out what the trouble is in San Diego if these\nreports you have been reading are true, you may lose the convention.\nA.\nNo, as I said, we did -- we were not involved in the\ndecision to be there other than to do the usual Chamber of Commerce\ntouting forth, and if we are asked for any help with regard to\nthat we will do anything we can.\nQ.\nWhat: was your usual Chamber of Commerce touting about?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nWhat was your usual Chamber of Commerce touting about?\nA.\nWell, the usual Chamber of Commerce talking, I think that\nis anything that is planned any place in the country can be done\nbetter in California than it can any place else.\nQ.\nColleges add universities are closing down all across the\ncountry because of American escalation of the war in Indo-China.\nIt looks like the same thing is going to happen in this state.\nIf it involves state colleges and universities, what action would\nyou take to keep them open or keep them closed?\nA.\nI don't know, you are talking about decisions that, of\ncourse, are going to be made at the campus level. Ifrit comessto\nthe university, I'm not a governor there. I am 1/24th of the\nbody of the Board of Regents. I am a Regent. If you want my\nopinion as to whether they should close down or not, I think that\nit's been a mistake in past years and it would be a mistake now.\nNo one can speak for the university as a whole. There is a great\ndiversity of opinion among students, aamong faculty, alumni,\nadministrators on a campus and for a university orea college to\nchose to speak officially to some -- to any public problem of this\nkind is a prostitution of the -- the very purpose of the university.\nAnd it is a disservice to a great many people on the campus.\nQ.\nIf they close down would your office provide pressure to\nopen them back up?\nA.\nI would just have to see what the circumstances are and\nwhere the -- where, in any way, the state government is involved in\nthat. What -- you know, what would call for official state action,\nI would do nothing that was simply an interference on the part of\ngovernment or politics in the running of the university or the\ncolleges, but I would hope that they'd have better sense than that.\nAs a matter of fact, I still say that this is a time when any thinking\n-5-\nperson should be ? ding his support to what' going on. There\nare a hundred thousand young Americans there. The omemy has come\nacross the border as its reply to the -- to the President's peace\nplan. For anyone to suggest that there is no threat, no risk to\nthose hundred thousand young men who have no -- nothing between them\nand the enemy except the Southern Vietnamese with our air support,\nI think we should be urging the President to do whatever has to be\ndone to protect every single American there and to continuo bringing\nthem home as he has been bringing them home. And I think the\ntragic misinformation, stupidity and ignorance of those who would\ncall this aggression instead of a defense of our -- our own young\nmen is just reprehensible, and I -- I can't expross my contempt\nfor those that would do that.\nVictnam\nQ.\nWhatever has to be done, Governor? Would you include\nnuclear weapons, that kind of thing, that's --\nA.\nOh, come -- I know, isn't that always the question.\nRon Zeigler, I think, gave the answer the other day, you are talking\nto an enemy and I think you should say to the enemy, we don't make\nany qualifications, we will do what has to be done.\nQ.\nYou are not concerned, Governor, about the alleged dangers\nof bombing Haiphong?\nA.\nI am not a bit concerned. And I think the California\nSenator who is so fearful that we might be winding up to World War\nIII is talking through his hat.\nQ.\nWhich one?\nQ.\nAre you concerned --\nA.\nSenator Cranston.\nQ.\nAre you concerned about Russian vessels being hit at\nHaiphong Harbor, what this might do to Soviet-American relations?\nA.\nI figure if you are in a saloon when a fight starts between\ntwo drunks and you stand too close, you got to expect to get your\nnose bobbed.\nQ.\nGovernor, do youthink it is inappropriate, though, for\nthe President to go to Russia when the Soviet Union has been supply)\ning the North Vietnamese?\nA.\nWhat's wrong with going and talking with somebody about it.\nMaybe that's a good thing to talk about when he gets there.\nQ.\nBut you don't feel it is inconsistent to have open diplo-\nmatic relations of this nature between heads of state when you are\nfighting against the --\nA.\nI think he's made it very plain to the Russians how he\nfeels about their irt in this invasion and this naked aggression\nthat is taking place, and he's the one who has access to all the\ninformation. If he feels there is an admantage to the United\nStates in his going there, then I'm sure he'll go, but I think --\nI think his trip was planned with the best interests of the United\nStates in mind.\nQ.\nWhat about the civilian populations, Governor, in cities\nthat are being bombed in North Vietnam?\nA.\nWhat about the civilian populations in the cities that\nare being shelled by rockets from the north Vietnamese, that have\nalready killed scores of civilians when they were obviously not aimed\nat any military target at all.\nNow, you hope to limit your bombing\nto military targets and I think our country!s had a good record of\nthat.\nYou regognize there is a margine of error and you recognize\nthere are tragedies to civilians who are caught in the war zone\nand this has been true of every war that has ever been fought.\n&\nTo return to the question that started to be asked --\nQ.\nLet him finish one subject here.\nQ.\nWell, you interrupted the question about Reinecke and\nGillenwaters' treatment --\nA.\nWe still will get back to that.\nQ.\nWe are on the war here.\nLet me ask one more question\non the war, would you favor reintroducing more American troops,\nground troops in Vietnam?\nA.\nI don't think it is necessary.\nThe President -- the\nPresident based his withdrawal of troops when he started it on the\nvietnamization program, which was to bring the ground forces of\nthe Southern Vietnamese up to the place where we could withdraw\nproportionately as they increase their ability. At all times it\nwas made plain that we could not in this same span of time prepare\nthe Southern Vietnamese to take over the air support and naval support\nand so forth. These highly technical branches would take longer\ntime. But it was also made plain that this was a part of our\nVietnamization, that eventually they will take that over for them-\nselves, too. The President warned the North Vietnamese, he said,\n\"Don't interfere with our taking the men out.\" He recognized there\nwould come a point in which our forces would be so far outnumbered\nthat they would be vulnerable to attack as they are now. And he\n-7/\nwarned the North Vietnamese, he said, \"We are taking them all out.\nIf you let us do it, but if you interefere and you start an action\nthat endangers them, he warned them months ago, he said, \"We will\ndo whatever we have to do to protect our men.\" And I think he\nis duty bound to protect even as long as there is only one man there.\nQ.\nI've got one other question. Have you been in personal\ncontact with the White House or any of the defense department on this\nsubject in the last week or two?\nA.\nNo. Uh-uh.\na.\nGovernor, on that same subject. Four years ago the\nPresident campaigged on the promise that he had a plan to end the\nwar. Do you feel that those who have lost faith in that are being\nimpatient?\nA.\nHe's been there -- less than three and a half years.\nA\nfew months less than three and a half years. In that time he has\nbrought the war down from a casualty -- from a death toll of 500\na week American death toll to an average of two a week. He has\nrefuced, I think the figure now is about 85,000,bby May it is to\nbe 69,000 -- from 542,000 at peak. He brought home about 2 and\na half million tons of supplies along with the men. There is\nanother -- about a million and a half tons to -- still to come.\nIt's been orderly, it has been a withdrawal. The ground fighting\nhas been turned over to the South Vietnamese. I would think that\nhe's making very good on his promise. And again, as I have heard\nrecently, these charges that he is guilty of escalation, and that\nthis is not a defenseive move in the protection of our own men,\njust betrays a complete lack of understanding of the problems of\nlogistic and the-- first of all, the problem that in the disengaging\nfrom an enemy, whether it is in a patrol action or in an army, is\nthe most difficult military action and maneuver that there is.\nAnd he's been doing it.\nQ.\nGovernor, on that same subject, do you think that the\nabandonment by the President of his present course of action would\nbe too high a price to pay to assure that the Moscow Summit would\ngo on as scheduled?\nA.\nI don't think the Moscow Summit is as important as the\nhundred thousand young Americans and the war prisoners that are there.\nNow, we have tried President Johnson -- I don't recall whether\nany of the bombing halts were under Kennedy, I think they all came\nunder Johnson -- I think there were 18 different bombing halts were\noffered to the ene in which we voluntarily opped the bombing\nand plead to the enemy to come down and sit at a table and legitimately\nnegotiate for peace. All 18 of them were failures. This President\nhas now said in defending these men, I think has indicated to the\nenemy that if he wants the bombing stopped it is very easy, stop\nthe invasion and come sit down and once and for all talk peace.\nQ.\nGovernor, when you say you have nothing but contempt for\nefforts of a students strike, are you implying that their concerns\nare not legitimate?\nA.\nI am concerned that they have been fed so much misinforma-\ntion that they honestly -- a great many of them sincerely believe\nthat our men could suddenly now just wherever they are in their\nvarious places, drop their arms and stand there looking at the sky\nwaiting for American plans to take them home, and that this enemy\nwho has broken every rule, who has broken every humanitarn rule,\nwho has violated his word back all the way to the 1954 accords,\nthat that enemy would do nothing to our men, would not capture them,\ntake them hostages or kill them. He's lobbed rockets into their\nbases, right now, and he knows that the bulk of them are non-combat\npersonnel. I think this is just stupid, to accept that this is a\nchance that a President could take or a chmmanding officer could\ntake with regard to his men. I think you have'to face what is the\nworstthing that could happen to these young men and you must guard\nagainst that. And this is all that I think the President has been\ndoing and I think the American people ought to let him know that\nthose young men are that important to us. We are not a country\nthat's been in the habit of writing off thousands of men for the\nconvenience of the rest of us, because the rest of us might fear\nsome trouble. We have been based back through our history on a\nprinciple that if there is one American unjustly imposed upon some\nplace in the world, the rest of us will go to his rescue and I\nthink we ought to keep that principle.\nQ.\nGovernor, what if the President could safeguard our men and\nget our prisoners back, but at the same time face the prospect of\nSouth Vietnam falling to Communists, do you think that would be worth\nit?\nA.\nWell, this, or course, is the -- the victory that apparently\nsome in government and some out of government seem to really be\nhoping for. I think that if a great many of them when they talk peace\n-9-\ntoday, really are talking North Vietnam victory, but I think in\nthe program of Vietnamization I think the course we are following\nis a proper one, and honorable one. And ifwyou mean a double cross,\nthat if some way the enemy would bargain with us, we will give you\nback your men, you let us dump the South Vietnamese, no, I don't\nthink we could do that. On ther other hand, once the withdrawal\nis completed, if Vietnamization is not a success, I think it's been\nmade plain that that would not be our problem.\nQ.\nWhat's your response to Pete McCloskey's position and\nwould you rather than continually discussing the subject in this\nkind of situation, consider a debate with someone like Congressman\nMcCloskey?\nA.\nNo, I don't think there would be any point in it. And\nbesides, he's a Congressman and he's in the federal government and\nthat's where the war policy is made, I've been expressing some\nopinions of my own here. California can't stop the war, we didn't\nstart it. It is a federal problem, sobe's acting as a Congrssman,\nI suppose. I think he's tragically wrong. And I -- I think he\nshould know better. He knows and has had experience in the military\nhe knows that many of the things he asks are totally impossible. If\nhe wants to continue for whatever personal advantage he sees in it\nto carry that torch, why, that's up to him.\nQ.\nMay we return now to --\nA.\nNow, if it is the other subject, he had his hand up first.\nQ.\nThe hearing before the --\nA.\nWhat's that?\nITT\nQ.\nThe Lieutenant Governor and Mr. Gillenwaters got a pretty\ngood going over at that hearing, especially from the Senator\nperjury\nin which the term/was used. I wonder what's your reaction to that.\nA.\nI think it is pretty obvious that this entire matter and\nwhat took place the other day is political harrassment and I have\nperfect confident in the Lieutenant Governor and in Mr. Gillenwaters.\nAnd I know that they were speakingthe truth. And I know that\nthe stories that came out that admittedly have to be briefed down\nover the many hours that were spent there, do not reveal the just\nover and over and over again boring questioning from every angle\ntrying to find some meat to stay on the front page. I think this\nhas been revealed a long time ago as purely political. I think\nthe Lieutenant Governor was telling the truth, absolutely. I\nhaven't been to W: ington as many times as r. has, because he has\nbeen there representing California and brilliantly, in some of the\nsuccesses we have had in aerospace contracts and things, but even\nin the limited times that I've been there, if you suddenly ask me\nat which meeting did I meet with the President or the Secretary of\nState or the -- the Attorney General or whoever it might be, I would\nnot without actually looking at records -- I would not be able to\ntell you. They all run together when you have that many trips,\nand I think the Lieutenant Governor tried to make this plain to\nsenators that know he was telling the truth, but it is profitable\nto them not to admit it.\nQ.\nGovernor, it seems --\nA.\nNow, wait a minute, Iosaid he could be next.\nQ.\nActually, that was my question.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nSame question, it seems that by the Lieutenant Governor\nITT\ntelling the truth, it seems the Attorney General was not. Because\nhe said he never talked to him about it at all.\nA.\nI remember the first question that was ever asked of the\nLieutenant Governor on this weeks and weeks ago, and the Lieutenant\nGovernor described accurately that at the close of a meeting on other\nproblems with the Attorney General he made some remarks about this,\nthat he thought the Attorney General might be interested in hearing.\nAnd at the time he was asked what was the Attorney General's reaction,\nand he said, \"Well, there wasn't any reaction, he listened to me,\"\nand this hashhappened to me also in meetings in my own office, if it\nwas something that was not particularly in the Attorney General's\nmind I'm quite sure that he could legitimately and honestly not\nremember that in the closing remarks of a meeting he held that this\nreport was given, and the Attorney General never pretended this was\na discussion in any way calling for give and take with the Attorney\nGeneral.\nQ.\nGovernor, you said if you were suddenly asked to recall\nsuch things as what did you talk about, how many times did you go\nand talk to John Mitchell and so on, that you couldn't recall.\nWell, suddenly we have been asking those questions for about a month,\nsuch basic questions as how many times did you talk to John Mitchell.\nThose are pretty fundamental questions.\nA.\nWell, it is a pretty fundamental answer, and I've been very\n-11-\nITT\nconsistent. The Lieutenant Governor had two visits there in April\nand in -- in September. All right. Asked offhand did heever\ntalk about this, he said yes, and they said in May. He was --\nhe had believed the April visit was in May, when he saw the Attorney\nGeneral. Now, when he checked his records he found out no, that\nwhat he was talking about was a meeting that took place in September\nbut yes, he was there and the meeting was not in May, it was in\nApril. Now, this was a perfectly legitimate correction and one of\nthe Senators questioned him -- questioning him had great lapses of\nmemory about an incident that involved him sometime ago, and I think\nshould be well able to understand that -- that a man can forget\nthe details of one meeting to the other.\nQ.\nAre we going onto another subject? Can we go onto\nanother subject?\nSQUIRE: Wait a minute, one back there on this thing.\nQ.\nYes, Governor, there's been a number of demands recently\nthat you fire Mr. Carlson. This morning you said --\nQ.\nWait a minute --\nA.\n-- Mr. Hall. Do you anticipate any further departures\nor shakeups in welfare and is there any chance that will hurt Mr.\nCarlson?\nA.\nWell, it is a shakeup in welfare only to the extent that\nit is a great loss to this administration, Mr. Hall's leaving. It\nis a thing that's happened in several occasions in the past in\nthis administration. The young men that have come in and contri-\nbuted these several years to us had great opportunities on the outside.\nThey are not men who want government careers and Mr. Hall has\nsuch an opportunity. He has discussed it with me, we have discussed\nit at great length. He's staying through June with us. He is\ngoing to be very -- very difficult to replace. As far as Mr.\nCarlson is concerned, Mr. Carlson was equally involved in the\nsuccess of the welfare reforms that we have had. I -- there is no\nlimit inmmy confidence in Mr. Carlson and Mr. Carlson is going to\nbe staying there and doing that job just as long as I can possibly\nkeep him there.\nQ.\nGovernor --\nQ.\nSame subject. Governor, on the same subject, welfare,\nwill you sign legislation to reduce the old age security payments\nback to their original amount before welfare reform, relative to\nresponsibility contributions that were increased.\nA.\nOh, that's a --\nMR.\nMEESE: Legislation hasn't come down yet.\nQ.\nIf it comes down and it is already on the floor of the\nAssembly, will you sign it?\nA.\nNow, again, you fellows know I won't comment until that\nthing gets there and I see what they have finally done with it\nand what they have in mind.\nQ.\nDo you have any comment about the controversy that is\ncaused among the relatives who are having to pay more? They have\nwritten you and communicated with you.\nA.\nI'm quite sure that there are people who resent and resist\nand perhaps here and there as in any major program there are\nindividual cases of injustice that should be corrected. But I\nfor one find it very difficult to be sympathetic to people who have\nthe means and who would throw the support of their own parents or\ngrandparents on the taxpayers when they have the ability to at\nleast contribute to that support. I'm thinking of one recent lawsuit\nsome -- well, recent, some months ago, ofta young man who actually\nsued the county to avoid paying $20 a month to the support of his\nmother and his own income is $800 a month. An unmarried young man.\nI don't feel sympathetic to someone of that kind.\nQ.\nGovernor, can we go to smog for a minute?\nQ.\nStill one more on welfare.\nA.\nWe havehhad smog in here all --\nQ.\nWhy would Mr. Hall be so difficult to replace when you\nhave Mr. Uhler standing right there.\nA.\nWell, beaause Mr. Uhler is already doing an important job.\nI -- there are a great many men that would be hard to replace and\njust shifting them around like checkers on a board does not make\nup the fact that you have lost one in manpower and in very excellent\nmanpower.\nQ.\nIs Mr. Uhler sort of indispensible: where he is?\nMR. MEESE: I would think that we don't comment on\npersonnel matters.\nQ.\nGovernor, on your speech on environment at Long Beach\nrecently you said you would probably submit to the legislature next\nyear a program for mandatory automobile inspection of antismog devices,\n-13-\nfollowing the recc endations of the task for that you just\nappointed. Now, does this mean that you would be -- that it would\nbe un -- that you would disapprove any action on this subject by\nthe legislature this year as the Assembly has already done by putting\nten millionodollars in the budget.\nA.\nI didn't specifically -- specify mandatory inspection.\nI said that following the report of the task force we would -- we\nwould undoubtedly present legislation. This is -- this is a compli-\ncated problem, mandatory inspection, for smog. It is dependent upon\nthe cost of the inspection, the ease with which it can be done.\nIt is also in California, we found, that the Highway Patrol feels\nthat on a spot basis the theory being that if you stop every \"x\"\nnumber of cars and check them the rest of the people without waiting\nto be stopped go in and have something -- some corrections made\nwith regard to their vehicle, that this has enough ratio of\nsuccess that it -- it would be the law of diminishing returns if\nyou switched from that to total mandatory inspection. Now, whether\nthat's going to apply all the way through to smog and do the job\nthat we want it to do, that remains to be seen. Whether the added\ncost is worth total mandatory inspection or not.\nQ.\nBut basically do you oppose any action this year by the\nlegislature until your task force report has been made? That's\nmy basic question.\nA.\nWell, let me say --\nQ.\nBecause there are bills moving now on that.\nA.\nLet me say that every one of those bills will be looked\nat carefully and if it is a bill that we believe is -- is based on\nincomplete information and that we might have more knowledge later\nwhen we get all the information from the task forces, then I think\nit would make good sense to not accept legislation based on --\nQ.\nAnd also the ten million dollars added by the Assembly\nfor starting its mandatory smog control program in the Los Angeles\nbasin, would that be unacceptable?\nA.\nWell, let me look at that when it comes down to my desk.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you think the legislature should ratify the\nwomen's equal rights amendment?\nA.\nThe women's equal rights amendment. Let me apologize\nto you.\nThe lastrime\nwhen you asked that I didn't realize that\nwe were talking about the California senate, I was confused, thought\nwe were talking about something taking place in Washington. I made,\n-14-\nI'm afraid a facetious reply. As I understand it, the problem with\nthis legislation is not an opposition to the concept of women's\nequal rights, everyone is in favor of it, but it is a little bit\nlike when we passed that citizenship role at 18, age 18 and then\ndiscovered a great many technical problems that hadn't been foreseen.\nIt is my understanding that this was what was of concern here to the\nsenate, that they would suddenly have problems that would be problems\nthat would actually discriminate against women that would be created\nby just such a simple single line amendment. Now, whether those\nproblems can be signed by additional legislation as we are trying\nto do in the 18 year old thing, that's up to thellegislature to\nfind out. But I don't think anyone is in disagreement with the\nconcept. Iftthere are inequalities in the treatment of women,\ncertainly those inequalities should be erased. On the other hand,\nI think there is some privileges that accrue to women that all of\nus would like to see retained. Special privileges to sick leave\nfor pregnancy and so forth. I don't think you are gaining anything\nin equal rights if you cancel some of those things out.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nQ.\nNo, no.\nSQUIRE: Are we going to stay here all day or not, what\nis it.\nYou have a chance, get in there, damn it.\nQ.\nThe other day --\nA.\nWhat?\na.\n-- at a news conference Senator John Burton was asked how\nmany law makers he thought smoked marijuana or have smoked it, and\nhis reply was, he heard some stories down in Malibu in the old days\nabout some of the guys down there were some of the movie stars\nthat are now in the Capitol.\nA.\nOh, boy. You know, I always think that I have probably\nof John\ngot my opinion as low/as I can get it, and then you come up with\none like that. I don't even smoke the other kind of cigarettes,\nand haven't for years and years -- well, as a matter of fact, I never\ndid smoke them -- cigarettes of any kind. So, as a matter of fact,\nsome of the kids have found a poster of me advertising a cigarette.\nAnd this wasoback in the days of Warner Brothers when they had it\nin your contract that they could use your likeness for endorsements\nof products. And you'd be interested to know that that cigarette\n-15-\nin that photograph was painted in. They just took a picture of\nme, I never had one in my mouth for the picture.\na.\nYou've been seen with a -- photographed with a pipe in the\nold days.\nA.\nYears ago I smoked a pipe.\nQ.\nGovernor, maybe Mr. Burton was talking about another former\nmovie star that works in the Capitol, who might that be?\nA.\nI don't know. I don't know, are there any former ones\nup here? Well, there is Charlie Conrad, and I don't think Charlis\nhas ever been suspect of that.\nQ.\nA couple of would be --\nA.\nNow, for whatever you want, you dan do what you want to do\nbut I said that I thought the young people out there ought to have\na few minutes of ghrowing some questions at me.\nQ.\nThe California marijuana initiative is trying to get on the\nballot.\nTrying to get enough signatures to put the petition before\nthe voters, to have marijuana use decriminalized. What is your\nstand on that?\nA.\nWell, I'm in opposition. I'm in opposition because right\nnow, and to some of the legislation introduced, because right now\nCalifornia has some of the most flexible penalties of any state in\nthe nation, giving a judge wide discretion as to what he does about\nit. I'm also opposed because I -- I do not believe in the legalizing\nof marijuana, and I think that there is an increasing body of\nevidence with regard to its -- its harmful effects and I think\nuntil the jury really totally comes in on this that we should err\non the side of caution and not on the side of recklessness, and in\na time when we are having virtually an epidemic drug problem I\nalso resist anything that psychologically would seem to be endorsing\nany leniency in this regard when we are marshalling all our forces\nto fight the total drug problem.\nQ.\nEven after all of the evidence from the past studies, the\nstudy that MayeruhaGuardia had in New York and all the other studies\nthat tend to indicate that marijuana is not harmful or not addittive\nthat your stand is still against=\nA.\nWell, you see --\nQ.\n-- decriminalization?\nA.\nYou see, this is it. You take some body of evidence and\n-16-\nproven there is some, and we study that as well as the other. But\nsomehow so many of you seem to ignore that there is an -- as I said,\nan ever increasing body of evidence coming from the other side that\nis refuting this. Now, if you have got these two bodies and\nreputable men on both sides, I think that as long as there is that\nmuch controversy we still should, as I said, err on the side of\ncaution instead of just saying I'm going to accept this fellow's\nopinion and not that fellow's research or his opinion, and he may be\nright. We are being a little foolish now, I do know this, that\nin almost every country and I think every country in the world --\nto my knowledge, I may be wrong, there may be some little countries\nhere or there in Asia, the Orient, or Africa, but every country\nthat down through the centuries has had this legalized has in recent\nyears turned the other way and has gone far beyond anything that\nwe have gone in its strictness, including the capital -- the\ndeath sentence foreven the selling of marijuana, because over\nthe centuries they said they found it terribly destructive and\nharmful to their people. Now, why should the United States with\nall our ability ab research until we have a final answer -- why\nshould we fly in the face of those nations that have had a century\nof experience or centuries of experience with it and who have now\nfinally outlawed it. Anybody else?\nQ.\nYou stated, I believe, that you have nothing but contempt\nVictnam\nfor students who participate in the students strikes and you felt\nthey were misinformed. And that perhaps they didn't care for the\nwelfare of the United States soldiers, is this what you were saying?\nA.\nWell, I think --\nQ.\nThat they don't care.\nA.\nIf I was, I -- I know I used some strong language there.\nI suppose my real anger and contempt is for -- for those who lead\nand organize and inspire this type of demonstration. My -- I have\nequally strong feelings whether they are that harsh or not, about\nstudents who have accepted one viewpoint on this problem without\nlooking at the other side of the question. And as I was asked\nthe other day by a student at UCLA, do I think you have a legal\nright to stage such a demonstration. Yes, you do. Legally you\nhave that right. Morally I question whether you have the right.\nI question whether anyone, if there is any doubt at all, has the\nright to take an action that lends comfort and aid and encouragement\nto an enemy that a the moment poses a death threat against our\nyoung men. And I would think that all of us should do whatever\nwe can to say if there is any risk to even one young man we are\nnot going to take that risk. Now, the enemy has made it very plain\nthese are going to be greatly encouraging to him. These demonstra-\ntions. These are going to encourage him to continue this aggression,\nthis invasion of South Vietnam which is endangering our young mon.\nAnd therefore I would think that young people morally should stand\nback and say, \"Do we have all the information that the President\nhas.\" I would think that young people over a long period of time\nin a search for truth would say here were three presidents, Kennedy,\nJohnson and now Nixon, totally diverse views. No: two of the three\nwere in agreement on a great manythings or philosophy. And yet\nthese three men having access to all the information and all the\nfacts all felt it@seeential for the United States to be involved as\nwe have been in Vietnam. And I would think this would that\nthis should cause all of us to think a little bit and say unless\nwe have all the facts they had how can we say that all three of these\nmen were wrong. Now, I critizized President Johnson greatly,\nnot for involvement in the war or escalating it. I did not know\nthe things he knew when he said it is now necessary to increase\nthe number ofumen. I never criticized President Kennedy for sending\nthe first combat soldiers in there. My criticism was, however,\nthat once in there and once you are going to ask young men to fight\nand die, then I think that the cause should be worth winning. I\nalways was critical of asking our mcn to fight with one hand tied\nbehind their backs in which they were told, \"You can defend yourself\nbut you must do nothing to end this war or go forward and through\na victorious drive end it.\" But now this President, and I think\nsusceptible to the influence of the people and the war weariness of\nour people, has made it plain that he believes that our role in combat\nshould be lessened, we should get out and he's trying to do that.\nBut, again, he knew there would come a time when the men left there\nwere so far outnumbered they could be overwhelmed. And he knew that\nwe had to be prepared if that time came and the enemy showed an\nindication to do this, to protect them. Well, how much does he wait\nfor? They crossed the border with tanks and artillery support in\nan all-out full scale invasion. They left only one division of their\nentire military force in North Vietnam on guard duty, the rest is in\n-18-\nSouth Vietnam in V1 lation of everything that ey themselves have\nclaimed all these years. He can't ignore that and say that our\nmen are totally safe, that no one is going to touch them. Again,\neven 1f they lay down their arms and stand there they are in the\nposition of that fellow I mentioned in the saloon fight, in danger\nof being killed.\nQ.\nHow do you feel about legalizing black holidays for the\nentire State of California, Martin Luther King Day.\nA.\nLegalizing the black holidays?\nQ.\nYeah.\nA.\nOh, I think we are talking again -- I think we are talking\nof something at a national level, aren't we, in recognizing those\nnational holidays.\n:\nI mean just for California.\nA.\nWell, then it would have to be a statewide holiday. I'd\nprefer it: national and we have a history in this country of\nrecognizing people who have made great contributions to this country,\nand I would think that certainly there are people who deserve the\nsame recognition. In the meantime I don't think there is anything\nwrong with -- with people of various ethnic groups and backgrounds\nfrom having their own holidays, such as the Scandinavians recognizing\nand celebrating a day for Leif Erickson, whom they credit with\ndiscovering America instead of Columbus. So this can go forward.\nBut I'm -- I have no -- no opposition to such a thing.\nQ.\nGovernor, how do you feel about space exploration?\nA.\nAbout what?\nQ.\nSpace exploration as a priority over --\nA.\nWell, I think that in government and I know from our own\nexperience in state government, you do assign priorities. And\ncertainly our priority in the area of social reforms has been\nestablished. It is the number one spending item in the whole nation.\nI am in disagreement with thas e people what say we shouldn't explore\nspace. They somehow remind me a little bit of the same people that\nstood on:the dock and told Columbus that he was crazy, that he\nshouldn't try it. When you stop to think, if you want to make\na selfish analysis, the actual value of the spinoffs from our space\nresearch, in medicine, in construction and transportation and every-\nthing, have been -- I think far outweight and certainly in their\nfuture outweigh any expense that we have made. But there is some-\nthing even beyond that. That here we are on this one little marble\n-19-\nthis spaceship an every bit of scientific 1( we have tells us\nthat some day a generation of human beings is going to face\nextinction because this spaceship is either going to freeze to\ndeath when the sun goes out or it is going to blow up or have a\ncollision with someone, and for the first time we have established\na lifeboat. The first man that set foot on the moon said -- now\npotentially just as when Columbus set foot on an island in the\nIndies down here, we have the start of the ability for human kind\nto go some place else if this earth should require our going there.\nIf it should disappear and I -- I think it is such an adventure that\nall of us ought to thrill to it and to be glad that we still can\nproduce young men who are willing to go.\n:\n:\nthSQUIRE: If we are going to see the next fellow step\non the moon, we getter get out of here.\nA.\nThat's right. I think we are going to have to. I wish\nwe had more time. Thank you. Some good questions and I enjoyed\nanswering them.\noOo\n-20-\n5/11\n/\nPRESS DNFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONA\nREAGAN\nHELD MAY 11, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to themembers of the Capitol press corps for their con-\nvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly\nas possible after the conference, no corrections are made and there is\nno guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning. I think I speak for\neveryone of us in here. How sorry we are to heat of the very untimely\nBeaudry\ndeath of Rod Bowdry (phonetics) of the Capital Press Corps. We\nalways have sympathy for his family, and as I say, I know the sorrow\nwe must feel over this. I have some statements here that will be in\nprint a little later, or some words here, on the failure in the Senate\nwith regard to the -- two votes of the initiative with regard to\ncapital punishment.\n(Whereupon the Governo read Press Repease No. 285.)\nAnd so I would hope that these petitions would get the\nrequired signatures and so that this could be on the ballot for the\npeople's decision.\nWe have as visitors here in the press conference this morning\njournalism class from Consumnes River College. Welcome and maybe we\nwill have a minute or two when this is over and all of these gentlemen\nare rushing for the phones, yelling \"Stoptthe press,' that you can ask\na few questions.\nCyrus\nQ.\nGovernor, Saurus (phonetics) Johnson, the Ventura Republican\nState Precinct Chairman, was quoted as saying that the Republican party\nlast year decided not to go after the 18 to 20 year old vote because\nthey are not our kind of people. That was the quote attributed to\nhim, and they are of no advantage to us. He also said that the\nRepublican party had not gotten into bipartisan vote registration\ndrive because they help the Democrats more than they help the Republi-\ncans. Can you comment on that?\nA.\nYes, if that's a correct quote and he said those things,\nhe wasn't speaking for the Republican party. He had to be speaking\nfor himself. First of all, with regard th the 18 to 20 year olds,\nI have said repeatedly that if they would open their minds and take a\nlook at the philosophy of both parties and what both parties actually\n-1-\nrepresent, I think the 18 to 20 year old young people would find out\nthat the Republican party has been in favor of much of what they have\nbeen in favor of for a great many years. That ours is the party that\nwants more individual freedom and less government control and dictation\nand less gigantic impersonal government. And therefore my own desire\nhas been, and I've been trying to implement it in the last few weeks,\nis to try and carry the message to as many young people as we can,\nAs to registration, of course we want them registered. We want all\nthe people registered regardless of which way they are going to register.\nThe only way to make this system of ours work is when you have a\ngreatest percentage possible of eligible voters voting. So there\naren't any people that I rule as not our kind of people with regard\nto politics.\nI think as I have said before, there is a great philosophical\ndifference in the land today and on one side is a determination to\npreserve and enhance individual freedom, and on the other side are those\npeople that have lost faith in the citizenry and who believe that only\na few geniuses in state and national capitals can make all the\ndecisions on behalf of the people. And I'm opposed to that.\nQ.\nGovernor, were you urging the citizens to sign this death\npenalty initiative, does that mean that you have given up hope that --\nor given up working for passage of the Deukmejian bill in the Senate?\nA.\nOh, no, it just means that if I get on a boat I'm going to\nmake sure they got lifeboats. No, I hope that -- K know that this\nis still open up there for reconsideration. And I hope that they can\nget the votes, save a lot of time and trouble. But with a deadline\ndate for signing the petitions, you just can't take the chance.\nQ.\nAre you doing anything to help him out?\nA.\nWhat, upstairs?\nQ.\nYeah, Deukmejian out.\nA.\nWell, so far I -- I have a meeting scheduled with Senator\nDeukmejian. You know, usually you wait to find out if there is\nsomething you can do and let someone who is on the scene conducting\nthe fight tell you what it is and then of course I'll be glad to\ncooperate.\nQ.\nWill you personally sign a petition, Governor?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nHave you personally signed apetition yourself or do you\nintend to?\n-2-\nA.\nI'm trying ti cemember, you know, I get onfused. I'm\ntrying to remember whether when they first started I signed one of\nthose some place, and if I didn't, I bet I'll sign one at home because\nNancy greeted me with one last night, but I don't want to -- I don't\nwant to suddenly be hailed as a cheater who signed twice, and I'm\nwracking my brain trying to figure out did I sign one of those some\nplace along the line or not.\nQ.\nIs your wife circulating the petitions, Governor? Is\nyour wife circulating the petitions.\nA.\nShe's managed to secure a few friends that agree the people\nshould have the right to vote on that.\nQ.\nGovernor, using the line of reasoning that you did on the\ncapital punishment initiative, that the people should have a choice\nat this point or be able to decide for themselves, will you apply\nthat same standard to marijuana initiative, that they should have their\nchoice?\nA.\nLook at everybody signal for that. I told a group of\nstudents in a high school yesterday afternoon that yes, if something\ncame to my desk that -- I don't know whether that's the course that\nwould be followed, to require this to become an initiative on the\nballot, I would sign it from the standpoint of permitting the people\nto vote, but I made it very plain to the students the way I would vote\nmyself on that initiative.\nQ.\nYou would sign it to get it on the ballot?\nA.\nYes, I respect the people's right on an initiative vote.\nE.\nGovernor, you mean you would sign the petition or you would\nsign a bill putting it on the ballot?\nA.\nSignaa bill, that's what I mean.\nQ.\nGovernor, Senator Deukmejian was hoping that the -- that\nhe would have Senator Biddle'with him today and -- to help him with\nthe death penalty thing. He doesn't have Senator Biddle or anyone\nin that scene. Are you going to go down and help Mr. Biddle in\nthat runoff campaign and also in the Assembly Pete Schabarum?\nA.\nI'm going to do everything I've done in office here, as far\nas time from my duties will permit, I'm going to support all the\nlegislative candidates of our -- of our party.\nQ.\nGovernor, where would you draw the line on where the people\nshould decide these issues that come up? Should they decide every\nbloody issue that comes from the Legislature?\nA.\nNo, I think there is -- there are a great many things that\nshould properly be decided by legislation. But when the Legislature\nitself takes the action of putting something on the ballot with regard\nto a constitutional provision, then I think that decision has been\nmade by the Legislature. I think that there is a danger, yes, that ---\ntoo many times things that are being considered by the Legislature\nforce us to start to work to put them on the ballot. I think Proposi-\ntion 9 is one of those examples, andI think there are thirgs of this\nkind that -- aur representative government can handle. But I think\nwe were talking about in these instances here -- we are talking about\nconstitutional amendments that can start with the Legislature.\na.\nWell, if I may just pursue that one more step. For example,\nthe majority of the present pro tempore of the Senate suggested a\npopular vote today to determine if the Legislature should ratify the\nproposed women's rights amendment to the constitution. To the federal\nconstitution. More and more we seem to see legislators and other\npeople in public office saying, let's let the people decide. Well,\nare we going to have representative democracy or not?\nA.\nNo, but I think the idea of the initiative and the idea of\nthe people, in the general referendum, has always been that when --\nit is again one of those safeguards in oursgystem -- that if government\nfails to resolve someissue or solve some problem to the point of\naggravation of the public and it begins to look hopeless, then the\npeople have the right of regress. They have the right\nto take the action themselves.\nOn the other hand, our changes on our constitution, such\nas this death penalty referendum, this of course has to be done by\nthe people.\nQ.\nGovernor, the Chairman of the United Republicans of Califor-\nnia resigned, saying that the organization was taken over by the\nmembers of the John Birch Society and of course your office has\nendorsed Congressman Ashbrook. Is there an internal problem of some\nproportion developing within the Republican party because of John\nBirch activity?\nA.\nNo, not at all, and I would not think that -- UROC is a\nrecognized volunteer group within the party. I wouldn't suggest that\nthat is representative of any gigantic split. Actually, I question\nsome of the statements that have been made abounethe size of it. I\nthink we are talking about a very few thousand individuals who have\nbanded together under that particular charter. I was a little surprised\nmysèlf about the whole thing of the Birch Society. It's been so\nlong since I heard the word I thought they'd gone the way of the buffalo.\nQ.\nGovernor, on ongressman Ashbrook's chal nge, he said in\nSan Francisco the other day, \"Governor Reagan is like Zsa Zsa Gabor's\nfifth husband, he knows what to do but he doesn't know how to make it\ninteresting.\nIf\nA.\nYou know something, I shall rest on Zsa Zsa Gabor's answer.\nShe said she found me very interesting.\ny\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nGovernor, just for to point of clarification, would you support\nthe people voting --\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nWould you support the people having a public vote on equal\nrights amendment for women to the federal constitution as was proposed\nthis morning by Senator Mills?\nA.\nNow, what I'd like to do, I'd like to sit in the office with\nsome of my legal advisors and get refreshed, again,non what it requires\nto change the constitution of the United States. I'm not a lawyer\nand of course as a citizen I know I should be totally familiar with\nthat. But this again reveals that many of us don't know all we should\nknow about the govermment. I can't actually remember what it takes\nto -- to amend the constitution or at what point it goes to the\npeople.\nMR. MEESE: It takes ratification by three quarters of the\nstate legislature. But in this case what Senator Mills is proposing\nas I understand, is that because the legislature appears split on it\nthat they get an advisory vote of the people of California as to how\nthe legislature should act.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Then this is the legislature's problem.\nHere's one in which the representatives of the people, at leastoone\nof them, is suggesting that the legislature does need the help of the\npeople.\nQ.\nDo you agree?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nDo you agree?\nA.\nSeparation of powers.\nAsk Senator Mills and ask the other\nlegislatores on it. I disagree with enough things they do.\nQ.\nOn separation of powers, you freely talked about your position\non capital punishment, and that doesn't -- didn't seem to bother you\nas far as separation of powers.\nA.\nWhy --\nQ.\nOriginally there seemed to be some conflicts here. One,\n-5-\nwhen you objected to the Supreme Court's decision\ncapital\npunishment.\nYou said your felt that they had gone from the judicial branch into\nthe legislative branch.\nA.\nYes.\nQ.\nVery clearly you've expressed your position on the bill\nthat's now before the legislature on capital punishment. Also\nyou have expressed yourself about the initiative position which is\nsupposedly for the people to be devoide of the executive branch of\ngovernment.\nA.\nNo, I don't -- I think you are coming to an assumption that\nis not quite correct. The bill before the legislature is not one\nwith regard to capital punishment, it is one with regard to allowing\nthe people to make that decision. And you had to have an initiative\nthat says one thing or the other. So an initiative that calls for\nit will be placed, ifthe legislature decides, and if not by petition\nof the people will be placed before the people, which is the only way\nyou can settle this in the State constitution. And I don't see\nanything wrong with that. I expressed my belief, there's been no\nsecret of how I feel about it from my own experience and the knowledge\nand information that comes to me in my present position, I happen to\nbelieve that capital punishment is a deterrent. I happen to believe\nthat it is a protection of the law abiding citizen, and I have taken\npositions and campaigned for or against initiatives prior to this time.\nAnd if I tried not to I think any of you would recognizo that you\ncouldn't possibly have an election campaign that every candidate for\noffice is not asked by the voters to express himself, and take a\nposition on -- on the issues that are -- that are on the ballot. This\nis why sometimes in elections there are people runing for office\nthat wish sometthings weren't on the ballot, they don't 2ant to\npublicly have to take a position.\nQ.\nGovernor Reagan, would you then take a position on equal\nrights for women? What is your position? What do you believe?\nWould you --\nA.\nWell, I have to tell you that with all that's been going on\nI have been aware and you asked the first question, and the first time\nyou asked it I thought you were speaking about the United States Senate,\nnot the senate here, and so I didn't give a very intelligent answer.\nI don't know that I have one now. I haven't paid too much attention.\nI realize just from the little I've read that there are some actual\ntechnical problems, the same kind of problems for example that we ran\ninto with the 18 year O. situation when we discove that by making\nthem -- giving them full citizenship we had ignored certain problems\nlike the matter of member of the family on welfare and so forth, that\nhad to be corrected. I recognize I don't know what all those\ntechnical problems are. I also recognize that there are still\ncertain discriminatory things that have come down from the past with\nregard to women working overtime and that sort of thing that could be\ncorrected. Now, whether this requires a constitutional amendment,\nmiinclined to believe that we could legislatively correct the\ninequities and not go through the process of passing a simple consti-\ntutional clause, and then ha fing to go back and legislate to correct\nall the things that we didn't intend to change with that clause.\nQ.\nGovernor Reagan, that usually happens aftermmest legislation.\nYou can't anticipate all the problems.\nQ.\nWould you be in favor --\nA.\nNo.\nQ.\nSenator Mills says Congress copped out when they sent it\nto the states. Do you think they did?\nA.\nWell, I think that that's where the legislation could have\nbeen developed to correct the things that are still inequities. And\nto insure that the things that should be presented are preserved.\nYes, they could have done that. And again, that's all I say. I\nthink that to approach thas from the constitutional angle is again\nto putosmmething in a constitutionathat is a single line that is open\nto interpretation by courts, a dozen different ways, and could lead\nto a chaotic condition, and would lead eventually to the kind of\nlegislation we should have right now, the states that waild then say,\nwell, this particular thing with regard to the difference in sexes\nstill prevails, this one still prevails and so forth. The same kind\nof mish-mash that we got into up here with, as I say, our 18 year old.\nCo\nDo Be they have corrected 18 year old vote inequities, haven't\nthey?\nA.\nWell, I don't think we have, or whether we have caught up\nwith all of them or --\nED MEESE: There's still legislatinn.\nA.\nThere is still legislation pending.\nQ.\nGovernor, has your office made any plans or received any\ncourt requests for law enforcement as a result of anti-war demonstrations\nin California?\nA.\nHave we received any requests with regard -- no. No.\nYou mean like calling out the Guard or anything? No, no, there's been\nno such requests.\na.\nYou weren't here yesterday when several thousand young people\nstreamed by your office.\nA.\nI was down in Santa Barbara where several thousand young\npeople -- it was several hundred here and only about a thousand down\nthere.\nQ.\nI'd like to hear what you would have said had you been here\nand I'd like you to assess the political effect on Mr. Nixon's campaign.\nin California because of it.\nA.\nWhat I would have said, well, I was saying it down in Santa\nBarbara at the same time. First of all, I think that a great many\nof those young people are tragically misinformed, uninformed. I\nthink they have a very incorrect perspective on the history of this\nentire tragic situation that has been going on now for virtually a\ndecade. I think that a great many of the young people are misinformed\nand they are misinformed by some in their m dst who are not misinformed\nbut who are professionals who know what they are doing and whose\ninterest is not peace, but it is =- their interest is the good fortune\nthat they hope the enemy will have. I think the President took\nthe only course he should have taken. I think if an American Presi-\ndent had taken that course several years ago the war would have been\nover a long time ago. Now, this nation has every right legall and\nmorally to be involved. Whether -- first of all, South Vietnamese\nand the United States never signed the Geneva Accords of 1954. And\nthey did not sign them precisely because the South Vietnamese were\nasking that any election to determin the future government of South\nVietnam be internationally supervised by the United Nations. And\nthe North Vietnamese refused this and it refused such international\nsupervision to this day. But I don't know the reasons why President\nKennedy put troops in there on combat in the first place. It was\nin violation of the American policy that we would not get ourselves\ninvolved in manpower in a land war in Asia, again. But he put the\nfirst combat troops in. He alone has access to all the information\nthat is necessary to make such a decision. So I can't -- I can't\nquestion, I can't challenge unless I have that same information. When\nJohnson found it necessary to escalate the war and send in more troops,\nagain, I can't fault him on that. I have criticized President Johnson\nbecause once having done that, once having subjected young Americans\nto dying for their country, I think he and the rest of us had a moral\n-8-\nobligation to turn the loose, to get that war OVE with as quickly\nas possible and he didn't do it. It was fought over the years to\nno purpose. And this was one of the things that has caused the great\nlack of morale now and tge spirit that we have in this country. We\nare not used to sending young men out to die when there is apparently\nno -- no end purpose and no goal in sight. And the President, I\nthink, has taken an action after 18 appeasing gestures that have been\nmade by previous Presidents of halting the bombing and asking and\nbegging the enemy to come and sit down and settle this across the\ntable, and now he has taken this action. I think it is proper. And\nI think the young people out here in the sunshine and ease of California\nare staging these demonstrations and thinking, for example that they\ncan settle the war and influence people by breaking the windows of a\nlittle restaurant and the book store and a few offices and buildings\nup and down Telegraph Avenue, and other places, are ignoring the fact\nthat 60,000 of their own age group plus the prisoners are over there\nat the scene of danger and I would liketto ask them if they have given\nany thought to what they'd do if they are wrong in their idea, and\nif indeed those those men would be endangered by capture or death\nif we did not take the action we are taking. And I think that the\nPresident, as Commander in Chief, has that responsibility. I think\nhe enhanced himself politically because I think the bulk of Americans\nhave wanted for a long time to have some decisive action taken that\nwould bring this to a halt.\nQ.\nGovernor, you said you thought the youths were led by\nprofessionals that know what they are doing. Are you speaking of\nwhat, communist agents?\nA.\nI'm speaking I don't know whether they are communist\nagents, I think e- just think there is something phoney about a peace\nmarch that usually takes place carrying flags of the enemy instead\nof peace flags. But I think that men like Mr. Dellenger who can\nhardly now in his 50's be called a student leader, and yet who's one\nof the men who has been in the permanent organization of this peace\ncoalition and others like him, I think thesemmen are not really\ndedicated to peace.\nQ.\nGovernor --\nQ.\nGovernor, each time the President Johnson or President\nNixon have escalated and they have promised that this is going to be\nit, this is the way we get our boys home, and it never works. Now,\nwhat happens what do we do next if this doesn't work?\n-9-\nA.\nWell, I thin to lump the two of them together and say\neach time they escalateu, that this is what's happened, this is an\nunfair teaming or pairing. As I said, my criticism was that under\nPresident Johnson we got up to more than a half a million Americans\nthere, and yet those half a million Americans were prevented from\never doing anything but standing on defense waiting for an invitation\nand waiting for attack and fighting them off when they came. They\nwere prevented from assaulting the enemy. Now, we did bomb enemy\nsupply lines and installations north of the demilitarized zone under\nJohnson. But 18 times under Johnson he called off that bombing\nand said to the ememy, \"All right, I'll call it off, I'll show you\nthat we have no aggressive intent.\" We have made it paain we will never\ninvade. The enemy has been able to operate from a sanctuary .\nHe has no one left at home on guard. He knows that his home territory\nis safe from any inchon type of landing such as we had in Korea, and\nit is just -- it is unfair to ask men to fight and die under those\ncircumstances. So I've been -- I've been critical of that. Now,\nPresident Nixon came in and discovered that there was no plan whatso-\never, not one plan to -- to ever get our men home. There was no\nplan that would -- to make the South Vietnamese able to replace them\nand defend themselves. And he started the program of vietnamization\nand he informed the enemy that as the South Vietnamese were able to\ntake over our troops -- proportionate numbers would be withdrawn.\nWell, the proof is in the numbers. He has brought home more than\n500,000 men. We are down to 60,000. He urged the enemy to let's\ndo this and he said on the other hand, if our forces are so reduced\nthat they are vulnerable that they have nothing but a South Vietnamese\nbetween them and being overrun, there is no defense for our men to\nstand there and say, \"Hey, fellows, I'm just waiting for a boat home.\"\nHe said if the North Vietnamese make any move to interfere with\nthis withdrawal and to jump on our backs, then he said we'd have to\ntake action and would take any action to defend our men. And this\nis exactly what's happened. Their response was this invasion. And\nI think that as long as there is one man there he is the one person\nin the United States, the President, who has the responsibility for the\nsafety of that one man.\nQ.\nGovernor, as I understood the thrust of the question was\nthough, if this doesn't work what are the next options for the Presi-\ndent?\nIf this thing does not work.\n-10-\nA.\nWell, I don't think I'm in a position to we able to answer\nthat and I'm quite sure that the President if he -- that the President\nwould not answer it because, again, this was one of the previous faults\nof this war. We literally told the enemy our location and our inten-\ntions and what we would do, where and when. And gave him an advantage\nthat he shouldn't have had at the cost of American livos. And I\nwould think that the President would be well within his rights to keep\ntotally to himself and to his advisers what future steps he will take\nin the defense of our young men. But he's made one thing plain, that\nwe are going to defend those 60 thousand men while they are coming\nhome and we are going to get our prisoners back and we are going to\ndo whatever is necessary to accomplish that.\nQ.\nGovernor, when you talk about people who are tragically\nmisinformed, can you explain what you were talking about? a is couple\nweeks at your press conference in this room, when you said that the\nNorth Vietnamese had violated the Geneva agreement by\nand\ncertain kind of order, do you remember that?\nA.\nYes, if someone will only take the trouble to read in\nsuccession the events that have taken place since 1954, even before\nfor that matter, they will discover the the Geneva Accords were\nnothing more than an agreement that the military forces headquartered\nin Haiphong, the Ho Chi Minh forces which was the only army in North\nVietnam, that that army and the French, neither would increaso thoir\nforces, that in a two year period of '54 to '56 the French would with-\ndraw and by 1956 the people of Vietnam could by election detormine\nthe government that they wanted to have. But they also drow a\nseparation recognizing that Vietnam has not been a unified country,\nthatSouth Vietnam for 2500 years has never come under the rule of\nNorth Vietnam. Actually, they maybe should have made two divisions,\nbecause Vietnam's history shows that there is a North Vietnam, a\nCentral Vietnam and a southern Vietnam, and all three have been pretty\nmuch autonomous and separate. They drew the line right through the\ncenter. They then said that for 300 days the people of North or\nSouth of that line would be able to go either way, wherever they wanted\nto live. Under Ho Chi Minh in the north or in the South Vietnam\nwhere a government was to be created to replace the French rule as\nthe French took two years to dismantle and get out. And a million\npeople went from the north to the south. But before the 300 days\nwere up, because of that exodus, the North Vietnamese inviolation of\n-116\nthe accords, they signed, they set up barricades, the own kind of\nBerlin wall and turned back any more people that were trying to\nescape North Vietnam who did not want to live under communism. The\nsecond violation was that the North Vietnamese left in the south\nseveral thousand of their own regular army units, to foster and promote\nthe Vietcong activity in the south. Now, all of this is a matter of\nrecord. It is a -- the whole record of Ho Chi Minh is there and\nplainly for everyone to see, and if there'asbeen a violation, that\nhas been the violation. And there could be no violation of those\naccords by South Vietnam with regard to elections, they refused to\nsign unless and until the North Vietnamese agree that there would be\ninternational supervision. The only election the North Vietnamese\never held was an election in which you voted on the street corners\non the sidewalks, on the tables, with no secret ballot and the tables\nwere manned by members of Ho Chi Minh's army.\nQ.\nO, K., then you remomber -- I assume you read the Geneva\nAccords, right? I should ask that question first.\nA.\nLet me say I've had to read them as they have been presented\nin various documents. I have not actually read verbatim the\nAccords.\nQ.\nO. K. Then President Nixon -- President Eisenhower was to\nhave you know, said that there -- there were not going to be elections\ninvolved two years later because he felt Ho Chi Minh would be elected.\nA.\nWell, this has been taken out of context a great many times.\nWhat President Eisenhower -- when he made that remark was referring\nto was the fact that without international supervision was one thing,\nand this was one of the reasons we didn't sign, but the second thing\nwas to hold an election early and I don't think he specified by '56\nwas the fact that the only person on the scene for the South Vietnamese\nas yet was the puppet emporer Bao Dai, and he had no illusions about\nit. They knew that Bao Dai had to go. He said no one would vote\nfor this man who has been the puppet of the French for all these years\nwhile they have been free, fighting for freedom of the French. No\none is going to vote for him. So the only other character on the\nscene would be Ho Chi Minh.\na.\nGovernor, can we get back to a state matter. What is\nyour\nreaction --\nA.\nI just like giving you a history lesson there.\nQ.\nWhat is your reaction to the State senate holding up three\nof your four nominations to the state college board of trustees on\n-12-\nthe charge that they dc ot accurately reflect the population?\nA.\nWell, I think that here again that the Senate -- here's\nanother violatinn of the separation of powers. The Senate confirma-\ntion of Governor's appointees is supposed to be based on the Senate,\nif it discovers some evidence of wrongdoing or something that I had\neither overlooked or was ignoring. Now, malfeasance of some king,\nmoral terpitude and that reason the Senate could refuse confirmation.\nBut here is a simple case of the Senate now for the first time that I\nknow of in the history of this State, some senators refusing my\nnominatinn -- my nominees because they agree with my philosophy and\nnot theirs. Well, I didn't think I got elected by the people to\ncome up here and find out just what it was that the opponents wanted\nand give them everything they wanted.\nQ.\nYou are not going to withdraw or make any changes in those\nnominees then?\nA.\nNo.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you have any comment on the -- the Republicans\nwho are asking you to withdraw the name of the appointee -- Hubbard\nto the Board of Education because he's for busing?\nA.\nThere have -- I have satisfied myself as to Dr. Hubbarid's\nviews and have met with him for some hours. And this holds true\nfor him as well as for others. I am satisfied with the appointment\nand I know that there has been -- there have been some people who\nout of the bitterness of the controversy in Pasadena after that court\ndecision a few years ago are disturbed by his nomination. But I\nam satisfied with that and that he would be a goodmember of the Board\nof Education.\nQ.\nGovernor, some of these people are getting ready to leave,\ncan you get one more and out of here.\nQ.\nOn the coastline, are you going to have a bill or ar eyou\ngoing to support one of the bills that are up there or are you just going\nto wait for something to come down?\nA.\nWell, we have legislation that we are going -- we are either\ngoing to amend into or have someone carry it on a pre-spot bill, our\nown coastline legislation.\nQ.\nDo you know how soon that will be?\nA.\nAnybody got a date?\nED MEESE: Depends on how things develop upstairs.\nA.\nWell, depends on how things develop upstairs. That can\n-13-\nleave it wide open.\nQ.\nGovernor, I was wondering, last week in Los Angeles at a\nmeeting you made some comments concerning underground radio, saying\nthat perhaps it lead people down the path to revolutionary action or\nperhaps drugs or something like that. I was just wondering, where\nyou got your information. I was a little concerned because you live\nin Sacramento and the station I work for is the only station of that\nparticular format here, and whether or not you thought that was some\naction that AZAP was involved in or the stations you listened to.\nA.\nI didn't identify any. It is kind of a national phenomena\nand I was talking to a national radio and television group, the\nheadsoof independent stations and I was pointing out again that there\nwere these stations that were going beyond the bounds of what most\nradio and television stations go, in the electronic media with regard\nto pornography, open advocacy of the drug culture and revolution.\nAnd I said that I thought that through their association that the\nindustry should take upon itself the responsibility of gelicing itself.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\nQ.\nGovernoe, do you support the proposition on the ballot in\nJune which would require the State Senate to approve the appointments\nto the Board of Regents, this is in reference now to the State --\nA.\nNo, I think this is unnecessary from the simple fact that\nwhen we starttoying around with this -- that system has worked for\n90 years and it has created -- how many disagreements you may have --\nhas created the greatest public university system in the world today.\nThe highest prestige, and I -- if we were faced with some kind of\nbreakdown and failure at the university level, then it might make\nsense, but I don't see any reason to start toying around with the\nmanner in which this great institution has been built up.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nQ.\nNo, one more question. One more question.\nSQUIRE: Get it in early.\nQ.\nGovernor, in your speechldast week on the bias in the news\nmedia, you failed to spell out any names. Who are these people who\nare biasing the news with arched eyebrows and skeptical expressions?\nA.\nWell, I tell you, I didnt point out any names because I\nohly had 20 minutes to speak, and I didn't want to just stand there and\nread off a list of names.\na.\nAre you now prepared to do so?\n-14-\nA.\nNo, because S. 're says that this meeting S over also.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nNext week. Come in next week.\nA.\nListen, you young people back up there, you fellows can\nrush for the phones -- you young people, you don't mind, I don't have\nvery much time, but would you like to fire away with a question or two\nthat you might have now. Student journalists.\nQ.\nYou said that -- you said when Nixon mined the harbor\nthat he enhanced himself politically. Don't you think this is what\nhe was trying to do? To enhance himself politically?\nA.\nNo, no, I think that if -- you want to make a case for\npolitics, of course, getting out of the war would be political\nexpedience. What I think is that he had the courage to make the\nstatement he made and take the action he has taken. We are discovering\nthat it did indeed enhance his chances, that the people of this country\nwere waiting for and wanted that kind of decisive action. I think\nthat he probably had -- in fact I'm sure he had political advice to\nthe contrary. That he had a great many people politically urging\nhim that this was a dangerous thing to do and yet he ignored that\nadvice and did what heknew he had to do.\nQ.\nO. K. If President Nixon's latest actions in North Vietnam\nfail, would you support his use of nuclear weapons at all?\nA.\nThis question always comes up and again it is a question\nthat really -- no one can answer exceptithe man in charge who has\naccess to all the information, what is the danger to the United States.\nI would have to say, and I'm sure the President would agree, I don't\nthink there is any reason or any need for nuclear weapons in Vietnam\nand I'm quite sure that the President and no one else in the world\ntoday wants to see them used. And what I have said many times is\nthis, though, I've said again that I don't think you ought to go out\nof your way to assure the enemy that you won't. I think that if you\nare -- if you are fighting with someone, if he's -- if he's apt to\nget nervous and worry that you might do something like that, let him\nbe nervous and worry, it is not a ping pong game, it is a war.\nQ.\nYes, sir, Governor. I read where the utilities are getting\nanother raise. How come people like the State workers and teachers\naren't getting raises?\nA.\nWell, all the State employees this year, beginning in July\nare getting a five per cent raise across the board. We now are sure\nthat we are going with the savings that -- unexpected savings that\n-15-\nwe have made in ourwelfare reforms that we are going to have some\nexcess funds. Our only reason for holding down raises to state\nemployees has been money, no disagreement about their deserving them.\nWe have said repeatedly, simply not having the money. Now that we\nare recovering and we are getting more money we have been meeting with\nthe State Personnel Board and we are going to -- once we know the\nfigure we have we are going to start on a program not of broad across-\nthe-board raises over and above the five per cent, but using the\nadditional money we have to correct some inequities that have grown\nup over the years. We have certain departments that are more out\nof line with their counterparts in, say, the federal government or\ninprivate industry than others. And we are going to try to bring\nspecific departments up and one of those top priorities are those\nfew hundred employees in the water system. That because they are\nway out of line with people doing the similar kind of work.\nQ.\nGovernor, -- t =\ntat'\nA.\nAs to teachers, of course, that's local. If you are talking\nabout public schools, these are -- these salaries are determined by\nthe local school boards.\nQ.\nMr. Reagan, have any dates been set for the raising of\ntuition fees in state colleges and universities, yet? This is of\nconcern to allot of students.\nA.\nNo the State university, there's been no talk of any increase\nin their tuitions. The state university has a $300 for a three-\nquarter year tuition. The state colleges trustees cannot -- the\ntrustees have voted that there should be a tuition at the state\ncolleges. This however, in their case, must be voted on by the\nlegislature and the legislature so far hasn't done that. We think\nit is out of balance to have the universities with a tuition and\nthe state colleges without. But generally the thinking of the\ntrustees was a tuition that would be roughly about half what it is\nat the university, labout $150, because the comparable cost of educa-\nting a student at the state college is roughly about half what it is\nat the university. Not because there is any lower quality, but\nbecause the university prorated out has much more costly graduate\nprograms. So that would be the extent of the tuition. But I\nwould think -- I know my own vote as a trustee would be that wish\nsuch a tuition must come the same provision that we succeeded in\ngetting at the university, that any student who has real need and for\n-16-\nwhom that would be a h: Trance to his getting an e cation, that that\nstudent should be allowed to defer all or part of his tuition until\nafter graduation and pay it back in his earning years.\na.\nGovernor, you say that President Nixon's action is supported\nbecause he has a moral obligation to the 60,000 remaining in troops.\nDoes he have any moral obligation to all the people that life there\nas ending the conflict as soon as possible?\nA.\nYes. The Vietnamese people have been at war for more than\n2,000 years. Fighting one conqueror after another and fighting\nwithin themselves, as I said before, south resisting domination by\nthe north Vietnamese. And in spice of all the propaganda to the\ncontrary, people have tried to point out the South Vietnamese, 17,000,000\nif them have made it plain they do not want to live under communism.\nA million of those 17 came from the north to escape. living under\nHo Chi Minh's military dictatorship. Now, I think the reason that\nAmerica was invited in the first place, when I said it was legal as\nwell as moral, was because Vietnam was adjoined in with SEATO,\nSoutheast Asia Treaty Organization. And they asked for the help of\ntheir fellow treaty signatories which included the United States,\nAustralia, the Phillipines, Korea and all those other countires\nfurnished manpower for this conflict to aid them. And I think when\nyou -- the thing that seems to be ignored by so many today who are\nso hostile to this war is the great record of brutality and murder\nof innocence by the Vietcong and by the North Vietnamese in their\nattempt to terrorize.\nNow, I know that difference -- at your age, in just several\nyears, and that back at the beginning of this war I doubt that you\nwere of an age where you were really concerned with it, and therefore\ndim in memory are the repeated atrocities that were coming out of\nVietnam back in the beginning when we only had a few hundred men in\ncivilian clothes there helping the South Vietnamese try to organize\nfor the first time an army. But the terror in which school playgronnds,\nschools, movie theaters were the target, just for indiscriminate tossing\nin of bomhs, the killing of children, school buses were the target\nmore than anything else for the bombings and the killings. Village\nleaders elected in their village form of government, in the night\nthe leader -- anyone who dared accept the election to headership and\nthe teachers taken out and usually they were tortured throughout the\nnight so the people in the village could hear their screams and then\n-17-\nin the morning they were found there in the village with their heads\ncut off, as the end of the torture. Just this morning's paper carries\nthe story that evidently well authenticated -- that as the North\nVietnamese advaned they have already crucified two catholic priests\nthat they found in one of the villages who refused to leave and who\nstayed with their parrish in this village. Now, it is -- it is\nall easy to feel sorry and say that someone may be killed by a bomb\nin North Vietnam, but somebody has -- is being killed very horribly.\nRight now the total civilian casualty in South Vietnam, in this invasion\nalone, in the last two weeks, is 20, civilians, just by the indis-\ncriminate shelling by artillery. Believe me, the rolling barrage of\nartillery can still make the air force pump to try and equal it.\nQ.\nBecause these atrocities have been committed in the past\nand are being committed now, this makes it morally all right to\ngo ahead, just keep on going then because all it does is prolong the\nwar, right?\nA.\nNo, the President's plan from the first has been to prepare\nthe South Vietnamese to the place where they can choose and have the\nability to defend themselves, so they can make a choice as to the form\nof government they want to have, make their own -- their own decision\nin that regard. And I think that there is a -- I think this is\nhighly moral on the part of the United States, to help them do this.\nWe have seen the idea of North Vietnam, they conquered Hue in 1968.\nThey held it for two months before we drove them out, and after we\ndrove them out we found the 5700 people who had been executed during\nthat occupation, purged, many of them buried alive. Now, I think\nthis is an indication of what's going to happen if the 1700 are\nsuddenly just turned over to the North Vietnamese. There will be the\nsame kind of blood bath that has followed the takeover, whether it\nwas by the Nazis or by the Communists in Russia when they entered\nPoland and Czechoslovakia.\nQ.\nDo you feel, Governor -- you made reference to, you know,\natrocities by the North Vietnamese. Do you feel that as far as the\nAmericans are concerned, the American's atrocities are basically isolated\nincidents and what do you feel about American atrocities because we\nare also guilty of this.\nA.\nI suppose you are talking about a My Lai type of thing.\nNo one denies that in war and when men are in combat and in war that\nthings happen and men behave in some instances in ways that they shouldn't\n-18-\nBasically they have be isolated incidents, inció ts in a great\nfever of emotion. I wonder how many of you who have read the accounts\nof My Lai have read the book by the war correspondent there who\nwrote fromaanother side and wrote how inevitable My Lai wasbecause\nhe described what had happened to this particular outfit and how in\nreality that outfit should have been pulled out of the line because\nthey were in normental frame of mind to be normal. That they had\ngone through quite a horrible experience and a blood bath themselves.\nThey deserved to have been replaced in the line and that -- it was\nin that emotional frame that they hit My Lai. But these are limited\nas are individual cases of rape that takes place in war. Things of\nthis king. Thisis a little different than a planned policy of\nterrorism in which an enemy officially with government sanction says\nthis 1s going to be our policy. At least you have to say this, in\nevery war for the United States army, we have the utmost in severe\npenalties for men on our side who practice atrocities. We do our\nbest to keep war as civilized if war can be civilized as it can be.\nQ.\nGovernor, with the mining of Haiphong Harbor, how do you\nthink it will affect Nixon's trip to Moscow and relations with Russia, --\nwith Russia in general.\nA.\nSo far it hasn't been called off. I tell you something\nyou probably find har d to believe. I have believed for a long time\nand I think that I've done a certain amount of studying in this\nparticular subject, ranging all the way from having been a member of\na Board of Directors of a few Communisty Organizations and --\nin earlier years, from then on up into Russian practices -- I believe\nthat when it suits the Communists to have a confrontation with the\nUnited States, when it is to their advantage to have one, they will\nhave it, whether we do any provoking or not. It won't depend on\nanything we may chose to do. If they are not ready, and it is not\nto their advantage to have that, there is nothing we can do in provoking\nthem to do it. And therefore, I don't believe they are ready for that\nconfrontation right now. And I may be proven wrong, but it is just\nly hunch that the meeting will be held and there will be no -- there\nwill be a lot of rhetoric in Pravda and Tass about this. But I don't\nthink there's going to be any nose-to-nose or threat of nuclear holocaust,\nI know we are runing out of time, I have to take some who haven't spoken.\nQ.\nWhy this 2,000 years of fighting between the North Vietnam\nand the South Vietnam have the North Vietnam not yet conquered the\nSouth Vietnam?\n-19-\nA.\nIt's been bac and forth, it is not only ust between them.\nThey have been overrun by the Chinese. Southeast Asia has been\na target for conquerors down through the ages. The history of South\nVietnam in these 2,000 years is very fascinating and most people who\nhave ever gone into it -- I can't claim that I have, I haven't had the\ntime to do that, although I'd love to -- but from the little that I do\nknow, I know that most people find that you can understand much better\nmuch of what's going on if you understand this -- this history. For\nexample, Ho Chi Minh under a different name back in 1925 was an\nemployee of the Russian Consolate in Canton, China. And the Soviet\nConsolate, and in that capacity he used to invite nationalist leaders\nfrom Vietnam to come up there for indoctrination and for training and\nso forth, supposedly for help. And then getting them there he would\nsell them to the French Secret police. He was eliminating the\nnationalist leadership that even back in 1925 was fighting for freedom\nfrom the French. And when he finally had -- was responsible for so\nmany deaths that they no longer -- they were onto him, he died.\nOfficially died under the name that he had. And then a few years\nlater he reappeared as Ho Chi Minh, which was his real name, and his\nrecord has been one of the similar kind of thing.\nWhen he finally came back into North Vietnam he formed a\nnationalist coalition, but once he formed it then to get control of\nit from whibhin he purged. He had one incident very similar to what\nthe Soviet Union did in World War II to the Jews in the ghettos of\nWarsaw. I don't know whether you've had it in history, but when the\nRussians were ready to retake Warsaw they got the word into the\nghetto and they said, \"Rise up, sticks and stones against the Nazis\nand we will come in -- you keep them busy and route the Nazis,\" and\nthe Jews in Warsaw and the ghetto did, they fought with their bare\nhands and the Soviet sat outside, and never made a move until there\nwas no more fighting. Then they came in and drovethe Nazis out, but\nthey didn't have any Polish leadership to worry about. Well, Ho\nChi Minh with young people your own age, several thousand of them that\nhe put into Hanoi to fight the French, and promised that he would\nbring his army in to help them. And he sat on the outskirts of the\ncity until all of these young men were killed off. Andthen his army\ncame on in and drove the French out.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you think that any President or any leader of\nour conntry will be able to stop this fighting after the -- after the\n2,000 years?\n-20-\nA.\nI think what the President is doing makes so much sense.\nWe have tried the other way. We have tried to hold out the carrot\nand get the enemy to talk peace with us. Pretending ormaybe believing\nthat the enemy really wanted peace as we wanted peace. Now, there's\nonly one way to get him to that table. You have to make it so painful\nnot to come to the table that he will come and sit down. And your\nquestion about nuclear weapons, let me point out something. When\nPresident Eisenhower became President of the United States, we were\nstill having men killed by the thousands in Korea, and yet they had\nPanmunjon\nbeen sitting there for twoyears at Pan Mun Jonh (?) supposedly in a peace\nconference. Now today it can be revealed that Eisenhower planted with\nKrishna Menin at the United Nations, an Indian who was anti-American --\nhe leaked some information that Krishna Menin thought he had found for\nhimself and the information was that the President of the United States\nwas considering the use of nuclear weapons in Korea. Now, this was\na deliverate keak of false information. Within 48 hours the North\nKoreans said, \"o. K.\" The two years of this useless talk is over,\nlet's really settle it and we ended the war in Korea. We ended it\nwith a threat that they could not count, a threat they couldn't face,\nand I don't think the President had any intention of dro pping any\nnuclear weapons, but who said two years ofttalking peace is enough,\nit is time to get down to basics.\nB.\nHow long do you think the United States can continue to play\nworld guardian to small countries like Vietnam?\nA.\nI don't think -- well, in a sense, when you say world guardian,\nwe are guarding ourselves. I realize that today it is unfashionable\nto pretend that there is some kind of an international chess game going\non. But there is. And I will never forget standing or sitting in\nan audience in Los Angeles and hearing Golda Meir when she came here\nlast year from Israel and hearing Golda Meir tell this audience of\nCalifornians, she said, \"Don't talk to me about the danger from Egypt. \"\nShe said, \"The enemy is in Moscow where he has always been.\" Now,\nifthe United States just bugged out and let the 17,000,600ebe taken,\nwhat a tipoff and a signal this would be to the Soviet Union that they\nthey could proceed by way of Egypt to Israel. I think West Berlin\nwould disappear in a minute, and a half. You could shose the spots\naround the earth that would disappear. And then you've got to go back\nto Lenin's strategic plan in which Lenin said -- and he said, \"We will\ntake Eastern Europe, we will organize the hoades of Asia, then wewwill\n-21-\nmove on Latin America.\" And he said, \"Eventually the United States,\nthe last bastion of capitalism will be surrounded a we won't have\nto take it, it will fall intovour outstretched hand like overripe\nfruit.\" Now, those who have the intelligenteinfsrmation, those who\nhave all the facts are those who advise and have advised three\nPresidents of the United States with regard to Vietnam. And three\nPresidents who have nothing in common. Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon,\nObviously had nothing in common with each other. And yet faced\nwith the facts all three of those Presidents felt that it was necessary\nfor the security of the United States that we be involved in Vietnam.\nAnd I would think that this would give less-informed people pause\nto think. If it had been a succession of one philosophy of President\nthat had followedthrough on this plan, you might say that philosophy\nwas wrong, let's try something else. But three men, once they had\nthe facts and the fnformation have made this decision. And I don't\nthink any of us can actually say that our decision would be different\nthan a President's decision unless we knew the facts upon which me\nmade that decision. And it is not a case of policing just the world\nout of great generosity. We made a lot of mistakes out of our\ngenerosity, but I think it is a case that we are in a world that\nis not at peace. You young people and all of those who demonstrate\nfor peace, there is you think that we don't love peace? Do you\nthink that those of us who went through World War II and that blood\nbath did not come out with an all consuming desire for peace? But\nit takes -- it only takes one to start a war unless you are willing\nto become enslaved. And if the young people would direct their\nattention not at us, as if we are against peace, but if this genera-\ntion could start directing itself to the young people their own age\nin the other countires, then we might have a chance forppeace. But\nthere is no chance unilaterally to say the United States should fly a\ndove up here and be the only peaceful one when in China, in the first\nfew elementary grades they are teaching kids how to throw hand grenades\nand use a rifle and bayonet, and when in Russia young people are\nbeing indoctrinated in school to believe the noblest thing they can\ndo is give their life for their country. And why don't we start an\ninternational type of thing? Why is it always the United States' that\nmust lay down its arms. What about those other fellows putting theirs\ndown, too, and this could be quite a garget for young people in the world\ntoday. He's going to kill me if I don't go.\nQ.\nOne more question from somebody.\nA.\nWell this young lady right in front of you.\n-22-\nc\nConcerning tl. equal rights amendment.\nIdn't your own\ncommission on women recommend its passage?\nA.\nYou know, I can't remember whether they did or not.\nED GRAY: I don't remember.\nA.\nI don't know.\nDelieve me, I -- if you are trying to\npin me down onequal rights for women, I happen to be one who thinks\nalready that you are so superior I'd kind of hate to see you come\ndown to our level. Now, if it wasn't for you, really, we'd all\nstill be carrying clubs.\nED GRAY: Thank you.\nVOICE:\nThank you, Governor.\n000\n-23-"
}