Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564148",
    "label": "Transcripts - 08/06/1974, 08/27/1974, 09/04/1974, 09/24/1974",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564148"
}

{
    "id": "118564148",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564148",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 08/06/1974, 08/27/1974, 09/04/1974, 09/24/1974",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564148",
    "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-P04-011-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-011-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-011-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564148",
    "naId": 118564148,
    "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-P04-011-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "1f3166de6db517d8",
    "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 -\n08/06/1974, 08/27/1974, 09/04/1974, 09/24/1974\nBox: P04\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\n9/8\nNEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD AUGUST 6, 1974\nReported by:\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcriptof the Governor's press conference is for\nthe convenience of the News Corps. only. Because of the need to get\nit to the News Corps. as quickly as possible, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I have an opening statement here.\nQ\nHave we got copies, Governor?\nA\nYes, there will be copies available.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 442.)\nQ\nDo you think he shouldresign?\nA\nWhat? No, I believe that this process should go forward.\nI made it clear, I think before -- I always believed that resignation\nis a way in which the issues, many of them, willremain unresolved. There\nwill be constant speculation and I think the only way is through this\njudicial process to determine the whole truth.\nQ\nGovernor, when you say that he go before the Congress, do you\nmean make an appearance before the Congress or do you just - are you just\nurging the impeachment --\nA\nNo, go before the Congress and submit himself to questions.\nQ\nGovernor, are you now convinced that he ought to be impeached?\nA\nWell, if you use \"impeachment\" in thecourse of the process\nof impeachment, not as so many people erroneously do, conviction, I --\nas I have said, I think that process should now go forward. I believe\nit is the only way that we will obtain the truth.\nQ\nDo you think that he should be impeached? Do you think -- are\nyou now convinced that there is evidence that warrants his impeachment\nin the house?\nA\nApparently there is. Those members of the judiciary committee\nthat were opposed said that they -- this, they believe, substantiates one\nof the articles of impeachment.\nQ\nGovernor, what could you do at this point if you were President\nand in Mr. Nixon's situation?\nA\nWell, I never like to answer those hypothetical questions.\n-1-\nFirst of all, it is a hypothesis that I do not agree that I would find\nmyself. in.\nor\nGovernor, with these latest disclosures, do youthink it is\npossible for the President to effectively govern?\nA\nWell, I think that this process should be done speedily.\nI\ndon't believe it is a process, you know, that requires months. If it\ngoes before, and the matter is laid out, I think this should -- this\nshould take place in very short order. Now, on the other hand, if there\nappears to be any difficulty as to whether there is any danger to the\ngovernment while that process is going on, then there is the 25th\nmemdment, which also adds to theprocess, in which he could step down and\nthe Vice President would take over while the process is goingforward.\na\nGovernor, you said that you have done your best to follow the\nprogress of the investigation.\nCould you tell us what that what have\nyou done?\nA\nWell, I mean as you know, trying to read the transcript of\nthe tapes, trying to follow the -- the evidence that was presented before\nthe judiciary committee. I have tried to stay abreast of this.\nQ\nHave you read any of the books? Woodward and Bernstein's book\nor Magruder's book or any other books?\nA\nNo, I haven't read those books yet. I thought sticking to\ntheactual report and the evidence, inasmuch as I could see in the actual\ntapes or the transcript myself was better than reading someone else's\nopinion.\nI\nGovernor, are you thinking in terms of a joint session of\nCongress or -\nA\nNo, I was thinking in the impeachment process that's already\ngoing forward now. Since the decision of the judiciary committee\nappearing before the House --\nQ\nThat he should ---\nQ\nThat he should appear before the House?\nA\nThat's right.\nQ\nAnd the House is considering the impeachment articles.\nQ\nWhen you say go before the Congress immediately --\nA\nYes.\n&\nThey are not at that point in the impeachment proceeding now\nwhere he would go before them immediately.\nA\nWell, I see no reason why the process could not be stepped up\n-2-\nto deal with this as quickly as possible. And I think the people are\nentitled to that.\n&\nGovernor, have you talked to the President?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nGovernor, by not calling for the President's resignation,\nare you implying that you still support him and possibly think he could\nbe found -- or not impeached or found guilty?\nA\nI am staying cosistent with theposition I've held all along,\nthat resignation is not a proper resolution of the issue. There is a\nonstitutional process provided, one in which all the evidence then\nbecomes available and the people have full knowledge of all of the\nevidence. Resignation would not provide that.\nQ\nAre you saying then by this statement that you still stand by\nthe President and support him?\nA\nI'm saying by this statement that I'm deeply disturbed by\nwhat has been revealed now that we know that not all of the truth has\nbeen told or all of the evidence has been presented; that all of the\nevidence should be presented to all of the people and then the impeach-\nment process based on whatever that truth and that evidence is goes\nforward.\nQ\nAre you planning to talk to the President?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nHave you tried --\nQ\nOne of your supporters said yesterday that he felt you were\nholding back a little bit because you thought that if Ford was to become\nPresident your own chances to become President would be much reduced.\nWould you comment on that?\na\nA\nYes, that's/pretty ridiculous idea. I have told you and told\nyou all the truth over and over again. I have said that this is no time\nfor anyone to even be considering that possibility because circumstances\ndo change. And -- no, that would -- that's the farthest thing thing from\nmy mind.\nI\nGovernor, if Gerald Ford becomes President, would you be\ninterested in becoming Vice President?\nA\nNo comment.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nGovernor, if this -- if yesterday's declaration is the worst\nthing that is disclosed by a full laying out of the evidence by the\nPresident, do you think that warrants conviction by the Senate?\n-3-\nA\nWell, there again you are asking me to prejudge something.\nI\nthink that what I'm suggesting is no one should make a decision of that\nkind until all of the truth is told and all of the evidence is there.\nQ\nGovernor, when you talk about resorting to the 25th amendment\nand the President temporarily stepping down, doyou mean that -- you\ndon't - if you go to the 25th amendment, do you consider that --- if that\nwas used would you consider that to be a resignation or just a temporary\ntepping --\nA\nWell, that's a temporary thing in the event that a President\nis incapacitated in any way, so that he cannot manage the business.\nThe question was, what -- if the government was in limbo and could not\ngo forward and perform the services it is supposed to perform while\nthis other - this judging process, impeachment process was going forward,\nso that swhat the 25th amendment is for. That is, in my understanding\nof it, a temporary step down.\nQ\nAre you urging that the 25th amendment vehicle be used?\nA\nI said that should be used and I'm -- if it developed that\nthe -- that during this process of impeachment the running of the govern-\nment was in danger.\nI\nHow have your -- not your, the state's dependence or information\nand assistance or whatever, with the federal government been affected in\nrecent months? Are things getting worse? Is it more difficult to\nget information or help or whatever you need?\nA\nNo, I have to say that that's one thing that speaks well for\nthis system of ours, and I think anyone over here, any of our group\ncould confirm it. No, the business of government has gone on and we have\nnoticed no problems whatsoever with all of the relations that the state\nhas with thefederal government.\nQ\nBut aren't the governors -- when governors meet, aren't they\nforever saying that Watergate's got to be concluded because it is\nparalyzing our relationships with the federal government?\nA\nWell, I don't know -- I haven't heard any of them say it, and I\nknow I couldn't savit because I have to tell you that business is usual,\nthe order of the day.\nQ\nGovernor, Senator Carl Curtis of Nebraska this morning said\nthat Watergate was not serious enough to remove the President of the\nUnited States, but to bring us a situation where both the President and\nthe Vice President would not have been elected by the american people.\nAnd he says that, you know, we'd end up being a banana republic, and\ndidn't think Watergate was important enough for that. Can you comment on\nthat aspect, that under the 25th amendment, if the President were\nimpeached we'd have a President and Vice President who would not have\nbeen elected by the american people. Is Watergate significant enough\nto bring on that situation?\nA\nWell, that's to be determined in the impeachment process and\nbased on all of the truth, all of the facts and all of the evidence.\n0\nWell, the syndrome of what we call Watergate, the whole\nevidence, you know, can that be -- should we consider this factor of the\nPresident of the United States and the Vice President being non-elected?\nYou know, should that be taking into consideration in the impeachment\nprocess?\nA\nI don't quite know how to answer your question there as to what\nshould be taken into account. I would think that everything including\nthe seriousness of the move that was suggested would be a part of the\ndeliverations.\nQ\nWell, that's what I'm getting at, there is a question between\nshould the President be impeached on legal grounds, if there is evidence\nof impeachable offenses, that is sufficient for impeachment and removal\nfrom office or shall we consider what is supportive, and he himself felt\nthat the ramifications on government and our prestige overseas - you\nknow, the political implications.\nA\nWell, again I think this is -- this is a legitimate part of\nthe evidence. I think -- theconsideration, the determination of what\nis an impeachable offense and whether it is an offense that warrants the\nremoval from office of a President of the United States, this is part of\nthe consideration. I don't think that anyone there is contemplating\njust a technicality in finding someone technically guilty of something\nand then doing this. I suppose this is what was back of the suggestion\nthe other day of censure instead. But that -- that has to be a part\nof the consideration.\nor\nGovernor --\n&\nGovernor, I'm still not clear on this. Do you think it would\nbe best for the country if the President were to immediately declare\nhimself incapacitated and turn the powers of the Presidency over to\nGerald Ford?\nA\nNo, I think this is a judgment to be made in Washington as\nto whether the government -- whether there willbe interference in this\n-5-\nprocess, with the normal routine of government. Things that have to be\ndone.\nI'm not in a position, I don't think any of us out here can make\nthat decision, but it is there. It is available if that should prove\nto be true.\n&\nGovernor, since Watergate has President Nixon ever personally\nassured you that he is not a participant in any coverup activity?\nWhy I'm asking. you, of course, did the disclosure yesterday indicate to\nyou that the President had liedpersonally to you about his --\nA\nNo, we have never had any discussion of that kind. After all,\nwe don't have many conversations.\nQ\nGovernor, when you were at the Republican Governor's Conference\nlast November in Memphis, you and other governors met with the President\nand at thattime he told you that there were no more bombs -- or no more\nbombshells waiting in the wings.\nDo you now agree that he's lied to the\ngovernors and you?\nA\nI'm trying to remember that -- that meeting and that conversa-\ntion and what he said. I think he said something that to the best of\nhis knowledge that he didn't know ofany, but I don't think he made any\nflat promise. I think if I recall correctly he indicated at the time\nthat he didn't know for sure that -- what could happen or what might come\nout.\nQ\nWhat was disclosed yesterday, of course, Governor, showed that\nhe knew six days after the break-in and yet he told you a year and a half\nlater in Memphis that there were no more bombshells waiting in the wings.\nA\nIf you want to term that a lie, it is a lie. I don't know\nwhether it was a lie or whether he made a statement in good faith that\nhe didn't think there were.\nQ\nCan you give us yourgeneral assessment at this point of the\nPresident's credibility in your mind.\nA\nWell, obviously his credibility has been damaged very seriously\nby this latest statement. This is why I believe the only answer lies\nin going before the Congress and the american people and telling the whole\ntruth.\n&\nCongressman Wiggins was very upset and was very personally\nhurt yesterday. Do you have any feelings along that now that the\nPresident, it is evident, has not been honest with everyone?\nA\nWell, I understand Congressman Wiggins' position. He fought\nvery hard before the judiciary committee, and obviously he has found\nout now that something not even the lawyers presenting the President's\n-6-\ncase had known.\nAnd it does have a bearing, as me said, on one of the\narticles of impeachment. And as he has made it plain, his vote would\nhave been different had he had this information.\nQ\nMy question is, was his feeling personally, do you take it that\nway?\nDo you feel that deeply personally about it?\nA\nWell, I haven't been in that same position as he was.\nI\nam\npersonally deeply disturbed, shocked and saddened by what is happening.\nQ\nDo you feel betrayed yourself, though? You have supported the\nPresident consistently and now it comes out that six days after this\nhappened he knew some of the details of what was going on, and directed\na coverup. Do you feel personally that you have been betrayed, your\ntrust in him has been betrayed?\nA\nWell, this is -- I think too soon to make any such statement.\nThis is why I'm calling for a full disclosure of all of the facts and all\nofthe truth.\nΩ\nGovernor, I'd like --\nΩ\nIf the President fails to make a full disclosure recommending -\nwhat do you suggest the Congress should do at that point?\nA\nI think the impeachment process should go forward in an effort\nto arrive at the truth, the full truth.\nQ\nGovernor, aren't you --\nQ\nIn light of what happened yesterday, how can you -- how can\nthe Congress believe what the President tells them if they have a meeting?\nA\nWell, I know that's a question that comes up, but now after the\ndisclosure yesterday and with all of the tapes now being made available\nwith nothingheld back, he has no place to go but the full truth.\nQ\nBut, Governor, don't you think he should have made a full\ndisclosure a year ago? What's the difference, you know? Shouldn't he\nhave been making a full disclosure to Congress and the american public?\nA\nYou can call on his own statement for that. He himself has\nsaid that he deeply regrets what he has done. He deeply regrets the\nholding back ofthis and it shouldn't have been done.\n0\nIs there any difference in your position on this now than it\nwas a year ago on this?\nA\nI'm not sure I know what you are asking.\nQ\nWell, you know, didn't you say a year ago or a year and a half\nago that he should make a full disclosure? Haven't you always said that,\nthat he should tell the people the truth? So what difference is there now?\nIn your position.\n-7-\nA\nWell, excep - that a year ago he made a statement that he said ==\nand revealed tapes that he said were the full truth.\nQ\nGovernor, I'd like to clarify what you are proposing now.\nIs it your feeling now that the House should vote the articles of\nimpeachment so that the case goes to the Senate, where there is a trial,\nwhere all thefacts do come out?\nA\nThis is the process of impeachment, but as a part of that and\nprior to the House voting that I have suggested and I feel very strongly\nthat the President should go before the House and make available all the\ninformation that he has and all of the facts and his reasons for whatever\nactions he took and submit to alltheir questions. Then if the House\nels that - that this is supportive of their articles of impeachment,\nhey vote those articles of impeachment and the case goes to the Senate.\nIf there is evidence and thefeeling on the part of the Senate that an\nimpeachable offense has been committed, that warrants removal from office,\nthat should take place.\nI\nBut you are not saying -- you are not saying then right now\nthat you feel that the House should vote for the articles of impeachment\nand send the caseto the Senate for trial? Or are you?\nA\nWell, I'd be a little inconsistent if I asked for someone to go\nand make a full disclosure and submit himself to questions and answers\nbefore the House of Representatives and then prejudge and make their\ndecision for them before he had done this.\nQ\nBut you said --\nQ\nThe President concedes that impeachment by the House is now\ninevitable. Why not let that take its course and let the President make\nhis appearance before the Senate?\nA\nWell, if that should be the decision, I just feel that the\nprocess now -- I would like to see the speediest possible consummation\nof this process. And it is presently in the House and therefore it was\nmy feeling that he go to the placewhere the - where the action is.\nQ\nWould that necessarily be speedier than letting it go to the\nSenate first?\nA\nWell, certainly the people would have a better understanding and\nbetter knowledge of all the facts.\nQ\nGovernor --\nA\nRight now.\n&\nAren't the tapes better evidence than anything he might say at\nthis point?\n-8-\nA\nWell, I think they -- I think they go together. I think just\nto clear a record of a conversation, I think a man is entitled to - if you\nare going to interpret it, to present his side of that, his interpretation.\nI think this all goes together and as I say, the tapes are there for\nsubstantiation or repudiation of anything he says.\nQ\nGovernor, do you think the withholding of evidence is an\nimpeachable offense?\nA\nWhat's that?\n&\nThe withholding of evidence is an impeachable offense.\nA\nWell, again, you --\n&\nDO you personally think that?\nA\nYou are continually pressing me for a decision that I think\nis -- should be made by the House of Representatives. The judiciary\ncommittee has already voted that this, they believe, is true. A number\nof the members who did not think that the evidence that had been\npresented had warranted that have now said that they would change their\nvote, that they do believe it is. true.\nQ\nWhat do you think personally, as a citizen, who has been\nbetrayed - what do you think about the withholding of evidence and what\nyou know about what went on?\nA\nAgain, I would like to stay with my statement, I would like\nto have all of the truth, the full truth, disclosed, to myself as well\nas to the rest of the people and to the Congress.\nQ\nGovernor, what political costs do you think that the congressional\noffenders will pay in the upcoming election?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWhat political costs do you think the congressional offenders\nwill pay in the upcoming election? Do you think the Republican party\nwill be devastated?\nA\nWell, it shouldn't be. As a matter of fact, I have felt for\na long time that the -- that thecoming election should not be based on\nWatergate at all. And no one that's running for office in the coming\nelection had anything to do with Watergate. Whether they are at statewide\noffices or congressional offices or whatever. And I think that the coming\nelection should be based on the people's knowledge of the candidates and\nwhat they represent, what they stand for and the decisions they are going\nto make in the years to come that will affect this nation, and -- and their\nvarious states. How properly is Watergate an issue in that regard?\n-9-\nHow is it going to afrect the people of California? First of all, I\ndon't know of anyone who doesn't disapprove of Watergate. I don't\nknow of anyone who doesn't think that the actions were immoral, that\nthey were illegal. The only question that's been at hand for the last\ntwo years is how many and who were responsible and involved. Who were\nguilty and who were innocent of those deeds. The deeds themselves,\nthre is no -- I know of no question about them. Everyone agrees they\nwere wrong. Now maybe -- maybe we should suggest that in the coming\nelection we put a separate box on the ballot, do you approve or disapprove\nof Watergate, and then let everybody vote. Everybody would disapprove\nand that would resolve that. But this election, as any election, is far\ntoo important for us to be conserned with something that is not pertinent.\nWe are going to select a governor of the State of California. What\nshould be of interest to the People of California is what are the policies\nthat are going to be pursued by the candidates. What will they do or\npropose for the State of California? Now, how can there -- their opinion\non Watergate have a bearing on that?\nQ\nDo you think the coverup of evidence was wrong or just the bur-\nglary itself?\nA\nOh, I think the whole thing. No one can condone breaking and\nentering.\nQ\nGovernor, do you see your statements here this morning, your\nsaying apparently there is evidence to support impeachment -- do you see\nthese statements as backing off from the previous support of President\nNixon?\nDo you see a difference in what you are saying here today and\nwhat you said previously?\nA\nNo, I have held previously what you are calling a defense -- I\nhave held previously and I still hold, that anyone , be it President\nor pauper, has the right to presumption of innocence unless and until\nproven guilty. Now, by his own statements there is additional evidence\nand I believe the only way to resolve this entire matter is determine the\nextent of it, the degree of guilty or innocence is through the constitutional\nprocess of impeachment.\nOr\nGovernor --\n0\nGovernor, I want to get to another subject briefly, but --\nit won't take long.\nA\nYou have a lot of competition.\ntapes\nQ\nIn reference to the states, governor, don't you think the American\neqple have a doubt about whatever the President says now, no matter what\n-10\nthe subject?\nA\nYes, but in that kind ofa hearing and faced with that kind of\na questioning, couldn't that be resolved with the backup evidence of the\ntapes?\nQ\nBut hasn't his tapes revealed yesterday -- admitted that he with-\nheld evidence and if he did that how are the American people going to\nbelieve him, no matter what he talks about, be it economics, or foreign\nrelations or what?\nA\nWell, you are suggesting that the very thing that is a part\nad parcel of any trial, credibility of the people involved and what the\njurors, in this case Congressmen and Senators feel about it.\nQ\nGovernor, --\nQ\nGovernor, you said in your statement until yesterday, until the\nPresident released the new transcripts, you were not convinced that\nevidence of an impeachment offense had been presented in the Congress.\nAre you now convinced that evidence of an impeachable offense has been\npresented to the people, to the Congress?\nA\nWell, I amconvinced that the only way that issue can be resolved\nis now by going forward with the process.\nQ\nGovernor, is it your hope that -- is it yourhope that Congress,\nthe House, would consider a ullconfession and promise not to do it again\nas sufficient --\n(Laughter)\nA\nI have not written any script for what is going to take place.\nI don't really know. I just feel that the time has come that if this\ncountry is to go forward and the people are to be reassured and their\nfaith restored in their institutions, they are entitled to have all of the\nfacts and all of the truth about this entire matter.\nQ\nGovernor Reagan, you are calling on the President to make a full\ndisclosure of all the facts. are you emphasizing all the truth? This\nwould mean you think he is withholding more evidence?\nA\nThat remains to be seen.\nI don't know.\nBut I know the\npeople are going to have to have the feeling, and I want the feeling, that\nI have heard all of thefacts and all of the truth.\nQ\nGovernor, you don't have that feeling now, I take it.\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nYou do not have the feeling now that you have all the evidence\nthat's available?\n-11-\nA\nNo, I don't.\nQ\nGovernor, if there were a presidential election today, would you\nvote for Nixon or McGovern, based on what you know?\n(Laughter)\nA\nIf there were a president -- that's a hypothetical question.\nI couldn't conceive of myself voting for the philosophy that McGovern\nrepresented under any circumstances.\nQ\nGovernor, can you tell us about your conversations with\nLieutenant Governor Reinecke yesterday?\nA\nWell, now, wait a minute, if we are going to change the subject\nhere I got someone ahead of you.\nQ\nI understand you are going to approve funds for the Warren,\nEarl, library project, isthat correct?\nA\nYes.\nQ\nGovernor, do you also approve of renaming the Resources\nBuilding for Earl Warren? It's beenproposed by Bagley.\nA\nI didn't know anything about it. You are throwing one at me.\n&\nGovernor -\nA\nI don't know what the process is for naming buildings even.\nO\nHe's put ina resolution to do that.\nA\nWell, I certainly wouldn't veto that.\n&\nGovernor, why did you tell the Lieutenant Governor Reinecke\nyesterday that you were misunderstood last Friday when you answered yes to\na question about whether or not he should resign now?\nA\nIt wasn't a case of being misunderstood. And I'm sorry it was\nput that way. I pointed out to him and remind all of you, that when I\nwas asked, having just received the verdict from the Attorney General's\noffice, about the problems facing the state, and the Lieutenant Governor\nReinecke's present situation, I said that until I talked to him and found\nout what his own problems were and what word he had from his lawyers, I\nwanted to understand his situation, because the law is very plain, that\nde process involves his not being liable here at the state level until\nsentence is passed, and a conviction is thus recorded. So I made that\nqualification. I said that on the basis of the Attorney Genera's concerns\nfor the -- for thegood of the state and the convenience of the state, yes,\nresignation seemed to be in order. Was in order. But I did make that\nqualification to those newspaper people who were asking me in Los Angeles,\nthat I still wanted saying that was still -- and called to their\n-12-\nattention that I stil_ had to meet with the Lieutenant Governor here.\nNow the Lieutenant Governor told me yesterday of the post-trial motions\nthat his attorneys are making and of their optimism with regard to one or\nmore of those which would conceivably result in a reversal of the verdict.\nNow, if that takes place, then he certainly -- I have no right to ask him\nto step down which is an irretrievable movement. This isn't a temporary\nthing, to have him step down, if that possibility remains. But he assured\nme that before the - - well, in the next few weeks, before the end of the\nmonth, undoubtedly there will be resolution of those and he will know and\nthat he has no intention of holding office if those post-trial motions\nare --- fail.\nQ\nAre you saying that you no longer have any concern about\nproblems that may be created for the state by -\nA\nOh, yes, I do have those concerns. But, on the other hand,\nhe has -- he has the problem that involves the possibility of a reversal\nof this verdict in which he is then not a convicted felon and I think\nthat has to be considered.\nI\nWell, Governor, which do you think should take precedent?\nWhich consideration should be given top priority?\nA\nWell, it doesn't make much difference what I feel about it.\nIhave no legal authority in this matter other than to advise and counsel.\nI pointed out to him the problems that accompany -- accrue to the state.\nHe made it plain that he does not believe in these few weeks before he\ngets a decision on this that thre is going to be any action required of\nhim in any way that would -- could lead to some of these problems.\nQ\nGovernor, what is your intention during this period, are you\nplanning to stay and sit tight in California, are you going to pursue some\ntravels?\nA\nI tell you, I'm reviwing my plans and my schedule right now.\n9\nYou haven't decided whether you will go or not?\nA\nNo, I'm -- as I say, I'm reviewing it.\nQ\nIsn't that kind of tough on the people putting together the fund\nraiser in Kings County?\nA\nI know, and being an old performer I feel very deeply about that.\nI've never -- I've never held with those who lightly -- fail to show up\nfor a -- for a commitment.\n0\nGovernor, how have both the President's situation and the\nLieutenant Governor's situation affected California's government?\nA\nWell, I see no -- no effect other than the obvious effect of the\n-13-\nLieutenant Governor possibly having to step down from office by the end\nof the month. And then under necessity we will appoint another Lieutenant\nGovernor. No, government is going forward, and as I say, in our dealings\nwith Washington, with the various agencies, there has been no change\nmatsoever. Government has gone on.\nI\nBut if the President is impeached or if he resigns, what kind\nof effect do you think California would feel?\nA\nWell, again, I think that the government is -- government of\nours goes along. It proceeds and it goes through elections and then\npresidents stepping down and other presidents being inaugurated and there --\nI have never noticed in the time I've been here there's been any lapse\nin governmental activity or any cessation of activity. Sometimes, in the\nevent of a new president, you might have to wait while a cabinet secretary\nis appointed, but even thre most of the business is fairly routine and\nyou deal with the permanent employees. That's the whole basis of\nCivil Service, the ongoing permanency of the structure of government.\nQ\nHave you had any conversations with Senator Harmer about the\noqsibility of him requesting --\nA\nI have not met Senator Harmer at all, nor have I talked to him\non the phone.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nWhat is your position about speculation that he would be your\nikely choice?\nA\nWell, I think he's one, but I'm not going to speculate now, you\nknow, on that one, fellows. I've never -- I've never speculated on\neven an appointment to staff or cabinet, because I don't think it is fair\nto any of the people who might be considered. So I won't speculate on\nthat.\nObviously he is a candidate to be considered.\nI\nIf the Lieutenant Governor's post-trial motions are not concluded,\nthey are not finished by the end of the month, what will you recommend to\nhim then? If they are still somewhat hanging in abeyance by August 30.\nA\nHere again, I'll have to look overhere to the legal lights\nfor a little advice. I don't believe there is any of those that can\nconceivably delay the August 30th date of sentencing, could they?\nED MEESE: Not that we know of now.\nQ\nSo once he's sentenced, regardless of appeals, he --\nA\nYes, this does not apply to appeals. In appeals -- once he's\nsentenced, that's it. Our constitution is very clear. But what we are\n-14-\ntalking about is post-trial motions that might be ruled upon favorable\nprior to August 30th, that could throw out the last trial.\nQ\nRegardless of the Lieutenant Governor's position, if he's\nsentenced on August 30th you will move to fill the vacancy?\nA\nThat's right, yes.\nI\nGovernor, will the Lieutenant Governor Reinecke participate\nin any cabinet meetings during this month?\nA\nThat's up to him. I don't know.\nI\nIs he welcome to attend?\nA\nYes.\nQ\nYou are not -- as far as any activities in -- connected with\nyour office, you are not freezing him out of any?\nA\nNo, no.\nQ\nGovernor, you said you had not had any discussions at all with\nSenator Harmer about an appointment.\nA\nNo.\nQ\nWe were given to believe last week that you had.\nA\nWell, I know, and this was in error, and it was a legitimate\ne rror, someone in the press section thought that I had talked to him about\nit.\nI had not.\nQ\nGovernor, when the Lieutenant Governor Harmer was in Washington\nbeing questioned --\n(Laughter)\nQ\nCan I have a transcript back.\nA\nYes, I appreciate that we have already won office and it's going\nto make the campaign a lot easier.\n&\nWhen Mr. Reinecke was before the Senate Judiciary Committee\nhe was questioned about whether he had had conversations with Mr. Mitchell.\nNow -- and his tact now is that, well, I thought they were talking about\nface-to-face conversations. But isn't it a fact that he did know --\neverybody had to know what information the commitee was seeking, they are\ntrying to establish because of Mr. Mitchell knowing about the ITT offer\nand everybody had to have known that. What do you think of a person in\nhigh public office who did not contribute the information he knew was\nbeing sought, whether or not the question was asked exactly or not? He\nknew what information they wanted. And he withheld that information.\nNow, what do you think about a man given a public trust who does something\nlike that?\nA\nWell, now, you are talking about the very issue of the trial\nitself, and I'm not ting to speak to that. 1 have said, and I have --\nand I happen to believe that the Lieutenant Governor from all I've known\nhim\n&\nExcuse me, I'm not talking about the trial itself, I'm talking\nabout the semantics and legal technicalities involved, whether or not he--\nconceding that he may have thought they were talking about face-to-face\nconversations rather than telephone converations, he did know that they\nwanted to find out whether John Mitchell knew about the ITT convention\noffer. Mr. Reinecke had personal knowledge that Mr. Mitchell did know\nabout the offer before the ITT anti-Trust case was settled, but he did not\ncontribute that information.\nA\nWell, it is -- you are talking about the very basis -\nQ\nI'm talking about the moral -- the morality of the matter.\nA\nYou are talking about the basis of the trial. On the other\nhand, as he himself testified, he was -- he was reminded by legal\nadvisers when he got there that as a witness you don't volunteer anything,\nyou answer the specific question that is asked. And as he himself said,\nhe had flown all night and given this extensive briefing, he was sent into\nthis -- into this hearing. On the moral question, I just have to say, to\nmy knowledge, over the years of Ed Reinecke, he's a deeply religious man,\nhe is a very moral man and I cannot conceive in my mind that Ed Reinecke\nwould consciously do anything dishonest or immoral.\nQ.\nThen you don't accept the jury's verdict, is that it?\nA\nI didn't say that. I said that he would consciously do\nanything immoral.\nQ\nWell, the jury was ruling whether he did it wilfully, that was\nthe point they ruled on, they found he did do it willfully.\nA\nAll right, this. is what they have ruled, and this is what is\ntilsl in due process, and is being determined now. And I'm not going to\ncomment further on that. I've said what my personal opinion of a man who's\nthat I've known for some years is. If the conviction is upheld, and the law\ntakes its course, there is no question about what happens. But I'm not\ngoing to comment and speculate here on what should have been in his mind\nor was in his mind at the time.\nSQUIRE:\nThank you, Governor.\n000\n-16-\nNEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD AUGUST 27, 1974\nReported by\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished for the convenience of the Capitol Press Corps. Because of\nthe need to get it to the Press Corps. as rapidly as possible, no corrections\nare made and there is noguaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning.\nQ\nGovernor, are you going to sign the bill allowing the Democrats\nto get but of having their state convention this year? It is on your desk.\nA\nI haven't even -- you've thrown one at me here, I haven't even\nseen it or had an opportunity to look at it. I just -- I got in by plane,\nI didn't know they passed such a bill, so I can't comment. Wait till I\nsee it.\n2\nGovernor, can you comment on President Ford's statement that\nhe may be leaning on the question of amnesty, to the draft evaders?\nA\nYes, I think it is -- I think there is a great question as to\nexactly what it was he ad libed in that speech. And what he was sounding\nout on. I'm not sure myself that he was using the proper word \"amnesty\"\nor whether he was talking clemency after someone came back and went\nthrough the judicial process. My position remains unchanged and I think\nthe national position should be. But there never has been nor should\nthere be such a thing as simply a blanket amnesty in which everyone is\ntotally forgiven and returned. I think that anyone who wants to come\nback and go through our judicial process, then I think compassion based\non the individual situation for each individual and compassion -- clemency\nfor fthem, perhaps finding some way of their paying their debt other than\njail sentence, -- this I think all of us could -- could look at because\nthat is in our tradition. Lincoln, for example, gave deserters amnesty\nat the Civil War time on provision that they came back and served out\ntheir enlistment, and they served without pay. There have been other\nsituations the same. But I think that they broke the law. And I do not\nbelieve that we should establish a precedent for just a blanket forgetting\n-1-\nof that particularly when you have so many who are not hesitant at all\nto declare that they have no regret whatsoever about it. They don't\nfeel they did anything wrong in choosing the laws they would break, and\nthat they simply want the country to recognize them as somehow being in\nthe moral right.\nQ\nGovernor, isn't that inconsistent with your statement about\nPresident Nixon--\nA\nNo.\nQ\n--- not being prosecuted?\nA\nNo, no, I think justice is an individual thing in each case.\nWe are talking about punishment fitting the crime, and as I have said\nbefore, I think in this instance it seems the majority of the people\nfeel the same way. I believe that in this instance the punishment\ncertainly is more than adequate for the crime.\nQ\nWhat punishment is that, Governor?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWhat punishment are you talking about?\nA\nIn the --\nQ\nFor the President.\nA\nIn the resignation of the President.\nI\nHe lost his job, a lot of people lose jobs.\nA\nWell, I hardly think that you say this is just losing a job.\nQ\nGovernor, youmentioned that in the case of those people that\nleft the country, draft-dodgers, etcetera, that compassion ought to be\nconsidered after they have gone through the judicial process. Don't you\nthink that compassion could be considered for former President Nixon\nafter he had gone through the judicial process?\nA\nWell, I think to a certain extent he's been through a process.\nThe process provided by the Constitution. But when I speak about these\nand the individual situation, yes, there is the -- you could have a young\nman that came back who did what he did on a moral conviction and he now\nwants to be reinstituted in this country, citizenship, and he's willing\nto come in and admit that he broke a law and you take this into considera-\ntion. On the other hand, you may have a man that literally deserted\nunder fire and left his comrades on either side of him while he took off.\nI think this is a -- this would be a different situation.\n-2-\nQ\nGovernor, have you made any effort to contact Mr. Nixon since\nhe's been back in California?\nA\nI have had a brief telephone conversation with him, yes.\nI\nthought it was proper, welcoming him back to California.\nQ\nWhen was that?\nA\nIt was a few days ago.\nQ\nHow did he seem to you?\nA\nWhat?\n(Nixon)\nQ\nHow did he seem, his frame of mind.\nA\nFine, he seemed to be fine, yes.\nQ\nDid he give any indication to you when he might come out of his\nself-imposed seclusion?\nA\nNo, no, there wasn't any talk of anything like that. Or his\nplans or anything of the kind. It was just --\nQ\nWhat did you talk about?\nA\nPurely a courteous call, and courtesy call.\nQ\nAre you making any plans to visit him?\nA\nNo, I have no plans at the moment.\nQ\nGovernor, while you were in the east this last week-end you\ndropped a hint that if the Republican party moves too far away from your\nphilosophy that you might look with favor on a third party effort. Do\nyou think that now that is your only chance at the presidency in 1976,\nand do you see that happening?\nA\nNo, I didn't do that exactly. A specific question was asked,\nif it came down to a question of being loyal to a party or loyal to my\nown philosophy, which would prevail, and I said obviously being loyal to\nmy own beliefs and my own philosophy. The tone of my remarks, I think,\nthat led to that question and the remarks that I gave publicly was my\nreiteration that this administration, I think, and the government in\nWashington is bound by a mandate of the people given in the 1972 election,\nthe biggest majority ever given, voted I believe on the basis of the\ngreat philosophical difference that was so clean cut, that was laid out\nfor us. More so than in any election that I can recall. And the people\nmade it very clear the direction they wanted their government to take.\nAnd I don't believe that we should forget that mandate or that we should\nallow those in government to forget.\nQ\nWell --\nA\nThat's what I was speaking of.\n-3-\nQ\nDo you have some reason to believe that this new administration\nis or has some -- do you have some indication that they are moving away\nfrom this mandate?\nA\nNo, I didn't say anything of the kind. I just cited the mandate\nand believed that the American people should be firm in this.\nQ\nWell, Governor, some conservatives are somewhat upset that\nthat may be happening, pointing toward the President's statement of the\ndraft, the appointment of -- nomination of Governor Rockefeller. Do you\nshare that concern? I mean are these --\nA\nNo, there have been other things and some Congressmen that I\nknow who are closer to the scene and who I think believe, from conversa-\ntions with people in the White House as to views on upcoming legislation,\nfeel that way. My own feeling isthat this administration should have\nall our support. This administration should be given very opportunity\nto do the job that has to be done. But I see nothing wrong with this\nreminder that they should have the support of the people, also the\nknowledge that the people want this mandate carried out. Nothing has\nchanged that.\nQ\nGovernor, are you sympathetic to the position of the California\nsegment of Young Americans for Freedom in which they said the other day\nthat they would do their best to prevent Rockefeller from being on the\nticket in '76?\nA\nWell, here again, I think anyone starts talking about '76, you\nwait and see what the record of the administration is.\nQ\nDoes that include --\nA\nI seem to be the only person here that's been trying to say that\n'76, we ought to wait for a long time before anybody decides anything\nabout 1976.\nor\nSo you can't at this point endorse a Ford-Rockefeller ticket\nin '76, you want to wait and see?\nA\nNo, I didn't say that.\n(Laughter.)\nA\nI said what's going to happen in '76 depends on what the\nsituation is.\nQ\nBecause the Conservatives are disappointed about the appointment\nof Nelson Rockefeller for Vice-President, do you think that nominates\nyou more of a leading spokesman of the Conservative party?\nA\nWell, you'd have -- you'd have to ask those people in the\n-4-\nRepublican party how they feel or whether they want a leader or not.\nI'm speaking my mind and what I believe is - and has been maintained\nin the polls is the basic philosophy of a majority of the American\npeople. Incidentally, let me just add to your question here. Make\none thing perfectly clear.\n(Laughter)\nA\nI would think that all of us would hope and pray that this\n(Ford)\nadministration in the next twoyears will be so successful that there\nwill be no question about 1976. Because if an administration in Wash-\nington isn't successful the load falls on all of us.\nQ\nDoes it change in any way your political aspirations for\nthe future?\nA\nNo. If you say political aspirations, no, my plans remain\nwhat they always were. I intend starting in January to speak out on\nthe issues that -- about which I feel strongly and express my views and\nto travel the mashed-potato circuit, and that remains unchanged.\nQ\nGovernor, do you have a list of invitations after January of\n'76 over the country?\nA\nNo, no, we haven't made any plans as yet.\nQ\nDo you have any concern at all about Rockefeller's selection as\na Vice-President?\nA\nNo. The President selected him. And evidently selected him\nwiththe belief that he could be helpful to him in his administration.\nAs I said before, I hope that turns out to be correct. No question\nthat Nelson Rockefeller and I at times have differed, but we have had\na very cordial and friendly relationship as governors.\nQ\nGovernor, have you resolved how you'll finance going on the\nmashed-potato circuit next year? What you are going to be doing? How\nyou'll earn a living?\nA\nNo, but usually the mashed-potato circuit at very minimum\nusually takes care of itself. I've had quite a number of years experience\non that and they usually provide expenses.\nQ\nGovernor, when you said you would think that all of us would hope\nand pray that this administration would be so successful that there would\nbe no question about '76, are you saying that you hope that President\n(Ford)\nFord will do a good job and ifhe does you assume that he'll be the nominee\nand that you will support him?\n-5-\nA\nThat will be fine with me.\n&\nGovernor, unless something happens back in Washington in three\ndays, your - Mr. Reinecke will step down as Lieutenant Governor. Have\nyou given any thought yet to a successor?\nA\nNo, I'm not-going to speculate on that. And it is no longer\na three-day situation. The judge as of just a moment ago -- now don't\nall rush for the telephones, has called and said that he himself feels\nthat a complete review is necessary, and he has postponed until October\n1 any decision while he makes that review.\nQ\nDoesn't that now prolong the situation we have had now for the\nlast couple months where there is a question every time you go out of\nthe state as to who legally is in charge of the state?\nA\nWell, on the other hand, we are talking about a man and his\nright to the judicial process. And if the judge who presided over the\ntrial and who is to pass sentence has himself now recognized that there\nmay be some question as to whether this man is guilty or not, the place\nthat he is going to take the next two months plus a few days to review\nthe entire proceedings at the last trial, then I think that resolves the\nsituation between now and October 1.\nQ\nWell, how does it resolve -- I mean aren't we still in the\ncourse -- if the judicial decision --- or if the verdict is upheld and\neven on October 3rd Mr. Reinecke is sentenced, then any of his actions\nbetween the time he was convicted and the time he's sentenced and steps\ndown, if that's what happened, are still subject to the same question\nthey have been this last month.\nA\nI don't think so.\nMR.\nMEESE: No. There is no question about this situation.\nThere is no conviction until sentence is passed. The law is clear.\nAnd therefore he remains the Lieutenant Governor until such time of\nconviction, at which time there is a forfeiture. And there's never been\nany legal question about this.\nQ\nYeah, but the Attorney General suggested he step down, some way\nhe said someone could file a suit that he's not a hundred per cent sure\nof it, that could be overthrown in --\nED MEESE: He's a hundred per cent sure of it, anyone could\nfile a suit any time they want.\nQ\nWhy do you suggest that Reinecke step down anyway?\n5-\nED MEESE:\nTo remove even that possibility. Anybody can file\na suit, but the law is clear.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nIthink at that time it seemed to be only\na few weeks and it looks as if it would be cut and dry. The Attorney\nGeneral -- I found myself having to say yes, it would be more convenient\nfor the state. But under the situation now, where the judge himself\nhas expressed his concern about this, I see no problem whatsoever.\nI\nGovernor, if someone on your staff was in that situation,\nsomeone on your staff had been convicted of a felony by a jury, but is\nawaiting sentencing, would -- what would you do in that case? Would\nyou let him stay on your staff until the sentencing is done?\nA\nNow you are asking a hypothetical question. Without being\nable to go into each individual circumstance, and all, there is a far\ngreater difference between someone who has been appointed by me at my\npleasure and who can be discontinued at my pleasure and someone who was\nelected by the people of the State of California. And to a constitutional\ndfice. Now, we've had instances where even without waiting for a trial\nto be held, but simply because I felt that even the appearance of wrong-\ndoing or the bad judgment could shake the people's confidence, and I have\nasked them to resign. It would depend on each individual case, and what\nwe were talking about. I can't give a blanket answer as to what I would\ndo. I think the record of our administration, the record of what we have\ndone in the one or two minor instances, where there might be a problem,\nis clear.\nQ\nWell, Governor, as you say, that you expressed some concern\nabout the Lieutenant Governor remaining in office before sentencing,\nand now you say, \"I see no problem whatsoever.\" Well, what has come along\nwithin that period of a month or six weeks to have changed your mind?\nA\nThe very fact that in regard -- with respect to a post-trial\nmotion, which we didn't even know about at the time that the Attorney\nGeneral made those statements. And as I say, what we have both said, was\nit would be simpler for the state, yes, and we were talking about a few\ndays. Now the post-trial motion has been made and the judge has handed\ndown a decision, in one sense, that certainly indicates that there is\nstill -- must be innocence until proven guilty. I think it is an\nentirely different situation.\nQ\nGovernor, how did you find out about the Judge's decision?\n-7-\nA\nJust found out by a call this morning.\n&\nDid the judge call you or did someone in Washington --\nA\nNo, the Lieutenant Governor called me because he knew I was\ncoming in here to a press conference.\nQ\nWhat did Mr. Reinecke say to you?\nA\nWhat?\nI\nWhat did he say to you?\nA\nHe justsimply relayed to me that the -- his attorneys had had\nabout\nthis call from the judge/this delay, and I said, \"Is this now public\ninformation?\" And he said, \"Yes.\"\nQ\nDid you discuss anything else?\nA\nNope. Because I was on my way in here.\nQ\nHas he attended any of your cabinet meetings since the jury came\nn?\nA\nYes.\nQ\nAnd you expect him to continue to?\nA\nYes, when he's not busy on some other duties.\nQ\nYou are satisfied then that there is no conflict or no possibility\nof conflict in the remaining -- in Mr. Reinecke remaining in his office\nand acting as Governor during any of your absences?\nA\nNo, the Constitution of California is very clear on that matter.\nAnd I also think that if you look back over the record of several years\nthat record is very clear on that matter.\nI\nGovernor, if that's the case, then why do you set up this special\nhot line when you've been gone out of state lately and why have you given\nus bulletins saying that -- well, \"I'm going to be gone for so many\nhours and there will be a special plane standing by or whatever, to get\nme back in case I have to get here.\"\nA\nBecause there were so many who seemed to be so terribly\nconcerned.\nQ\nThat's all?\nA\nThat's right.\n0\nYou, yourself, are not concerned?\nA\nI was not. And this is what I mean about the record of the past\nseveral years. He has been -- he has filled the duties of Lieutenant\nGovernor, I believe, extremely well, and by comparison better than some\nI -- in my memory.\n-8-\nQ\nGovernor, are you going to continue those precautions if your\nplans take you out of the state between now and October 1?\nA\nWell, --\nED MEESE: We always have.\nA\nYes, we always have. That's what I was just going to say.\nThis is not -- we simply emphasized something that has always been true.\nAnd this has been true from the first day I was in office when Bob\nFinch was Lieutenant Governor, and true since Lieutenant Governor\nReinecke has been, and I imagine that I felt so strongly about this\nremembering a situation in Los Angeles when the Governor was in Greece,\nand nothing happened while Watts was burning down.\nQ\nWas that the Lieutenant Governor you were referring to?\nA\nNo, I didn't -- no, sir, I'm -- you are not going to get an\nanswer to that one, George.\nQ\nWas it Bob Finch or Glen Anderson?\nA\nWell, neither Bob Finch nor I were holding offices when Watts\nwas burning down. We were just straight civilians.\nQ\nCan we go on to another subject?\nQ\nWell, I wanted to ask one more question about the presidency.\nGovernor, if President Ford decides to become - or declares his intention\nto become a candidate for the nomination and seems to have the support\nof the majority of the Republican party, can you conceive under any\n(presidential)\ncircumstances under which you might become a candidate? Regardless of\nwhat aspirations you might have.\nA\nNo, because it has nothing to do with my aspirations. And what\nyou are saying is what I havealready -- what I've already stated.\nWhat's important, I think, in Washington is what is done, not who does it.\nAnd I feel very strongly, as I have said, about the mandate that has been\ngiven by the people and if the majority of the Republican party felt\nthat mandate was being carried out, I'd probably be one of that majority.\nI\nGovernor, on another subject, when you were running for Governor\neight years ago you charged Democratic Governor Brown with, \"appointing hack\ncronies and defeated candidates to positions of high responsibility.\" How\ndoes that jive with your recent appointments of a defeated Republican\nassemblyman to the Adult Authority and also one of your former press aides\nto the Adult Authority, neither of whom has any particular experience\nin correctional systems or law enforcement?\n-9-\nA\nNo, and I think that the -- I think that the record of the\nthousands of appointments that I have made in these several years speaks\nfor itself. This does not mean that everyone who has served in government\nis automatically precluded from continuing to serve in government. But\nI think if you will look at the total record and if you will look at the\ntype of individual who was picked for departmental assignment and for\ncabinet positions over these years, they did not necessarily reflect\nsomeone who was'being rewarded for their party service. As a matter of\nfact, we went out -- we combed the state of California, we had the help\nof a citizen's committee to find the kind of people who could come in\nand we thought lift the level of appointments. And I think we have done\nit. As a matter of fact, my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, made\nno secret of the fact that they think that California has found the\nhighest level of people willing to serve in government of any state\nthey know, and they have asked us how we did it.\nQ\nWell, Governor, along the same line, what special qualifications\n(Adult Auth.\nor expertise do either one of these men have for that sensitive board?\nA\nWell, you could ask that about almost any appointee. I was\nconfident that they could handle this.\nQ\nWhat's different? That's the question. Certainly Governor\nBrown would say the same thing if he were asked in 1966 why he made certain\nappointments.\nA\nI think the answer lies in numbers. And proportions.\nAnd I'll -- if you look at the record of performance, and I say in these\neight years the performance of this administration has been rather\noutstanding.\nQ\nGovernor, is that an adequate answer for someone for -- for a\nprisoner who is coming up for parole, to be told the answer is in numbers?\nHe's wondering about the individuals who are going to be dealing with his\nfate.\nA\nWell, let's look at the record of -- in that particular area up\nuntil now.\n2\nAre you saying this is something different, that now that you have\nbeen appointing qualitative people up to now, and now you have gone back\nto the -- I forget Marty's phrase, but political cronies, hacks and\ndefeated office holders?\nA\nNo, no, I haven't. But here and there there is an individual--\n-10-\nfor example, when some individual who is personally known to me, and I\nould judge his performance by service in some other area of government,\nI had confidence and made the appointment.\nQ\nGovernor, did a citizen's committee have a role in these selec-\ntions?\nA\nWe have a process that -- yes, that involves a great deal of\nchecking throughout the state on every kind of appointment. I don't\nthink there is a time that we just sit up here and make one by ourselves.\nJust as we do - and have a formalized system for the appointment of\njudges, that we follow. And you could talk to Ned Hutchinson about this\nand find out the procedure, but it involves a great deal of checking.\nNow --\nQ\nIt is not a committee as such, it is not a state body, a man\nwho will sit down and consider the qualifications of your possible\nappointments?\nA\nWell, you could ask Ned Hutchinson about how this is done. And\nhe could tell you. But I can tell you that the screening is very\nthorough. But now we have made -- I made appointments to County Supervisor\npositions of two legislators and they seem to have been upheld by the vote\nof the people in both of those instances. It doesn't rule out that every\none who has served in government and served on the legislature should\na utomatically be cancelled out of any considerations. Sometimes you find\nthat there is great value there that we can continue to give to the people\nof California.\nQ\nGovernor, can you tell us what qualifications and background\nRudy Garcia --\nA\nWhat?\nI\nWhat are the qualifications and background for Rudy Garcia's\nappointment to the Adult Authority?\nA\nWell, could you tell me what' particular qualifications and\nexperience or whatever it might be that anyone should have?\nYou have confidence in the human being's ability to judge.\nQ\nGovernor, you also promised to take judges out of politics and\n80 per cent of your appointments have been Republicans over the past eight\nyears.\nA\nOver the previous eight years there weren't any Democrats left.\n(Laughter)\n-11-\nQ\nHaven't you just about exhausted all the Republicans?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nHaven't you just about exhausted all the Republicans?\nA\nThe funny thing is that does not have a consideration.\nOur system of appointing judges has been to take very individual who\nwants to nominate himself, who wants to be proposed by someone else,\nand all of those names go through a screening process, of a committee\nconsisting of the judiciary, of thelocal bar, of their fellow citizens\nndaof the State Board of Governors, 15 of the 16 members of which are\nDemocrats, and when that spread sheet comes back to me with their ratings\nwe pick from the top of the list those with the best rating. And I\nwill challenge anyone here when it comes to judicial appointments, you\ngo out and check with the legal profession of California from top to\nbottom, and they will tell you there has never been eight years of better\nselection of judges or better quality of judges than has been selected\nby this administration.\nQ\nAnd the 80 per cent Republicans is just coincidental then?\nA\nYes.\nQ\nEven though Republicans are like thirty-five per cent of\nregistered voters?\nA\nThat's right.\nQ\nGovernor, are you concerned that the Rules Committee may hold\nup some of your appointments, though, and not pass them along?\nA\nI have been concerned, yes. I think there is a rather unusual\ngame that's beenplayed - is being played. I was encouraged when they\nfinally passed some of them through. There is a gigantic backlog up\nthere. But -- and I think this is again by acts - some individuals\ntrying to change the Constitution.\nQ\nGovernor, Assemblyman Wood, what has he done as a legislator\nnot known for his correctional legislation to distinguish himself to be\nappointed to the Adult Authority? He's known as a rural legislator,\nmostly interested in agriculture.\nA\nYes, but you also know him as a man, you know his abilities.\nHe - before that he had experience in local government in his own area.\nYou are talking about a man who is going to sit there and pass judgment\non a human being on the basis of the man's conduct and so forth, as to\nwhther he can be trusted to go back out on the street.\nVOICE: Gentlemen, for the record, Wood was not defeated.\n-12-\nHe was reapportioned out of office.\nQ\nRetired.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Oh, there was one, Squire -- could I -- there\nwas one that had his hand up when that interruption came.\nQ\nGovernor, can I change the subject? It was reported to U. S.\nNews and World Reports that you are a top choice for Vice President,\nhowever you insisted that President Ford agree to step aside in 1976.\nThe President is reported to have said, \"No deal.\" Can you comment on\nthat?\nA\nYou got to be kidding. I haven't read the magazine.\nQ\nHave you been in touch with the White House?\nA\nNo, I have had not a word with President Ford since he was Vice\nPresident Ford and sat beside me at lunch in the Republican convention in\nSan Jose. No, there was no such thing. I never felt that I was in\nconsideration. There has never been any such contact made and this is\nabsolutely invented out of hole cloth, and I'm surprised -- you said it\nwas United States News and World Report?\nI\nU. S. News and World Report.\nA\nI could have thought some publications that might have -- I\ncan't understand them.\nQ\nGovernor, is there any reason you haven't talked -- turning\nthat around, is there any reason you haven't talked to President Ford?\nA\nI just haven't had anything to say. I guess he hasn't had any\nreason to call me.\n(Laughter)\nOOO\n-13-\nNEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD SEPTEMBER 4, 1974\nReported by\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's newsconference is furnished\nto the members of the Capitol News Corps for their convenience only.\nBecause of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as possible, there\nare no corrections made and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n-\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I have a statement. Last Saturday the\nlegislature made - oops.\nI look better in the dark anyway.\n(Laughter)\n&\nThank you, Governor.\nA\nYou bet. Wait till he turns on his Brownie. All set?\nO\nWait a minute, you got some copies coming along.\nA\nYes.\nYes, the copies are coming out there.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read News Release No. 502.)\nQ\nDo you think that the two year session is a failure or just the\nmembers involved in it?\nA\nWell, a two year sessin has grown out of the full-time legislature\nthat was - I myself supported the idea back in '66, and I suggested\nthat both of these, I think should be -- now that they have had an\nopportunity to work, I think should be reviewed as I have suggested by\na Blue Ribbon Citizens Committee to determine if this is the effective\nway to go.\nI\nGovernor, do you see any redeeming social value in a two-year\nsession?\nA\nWell, on the basis of that one time it does not seem to have changed\nanything.\nQ\nOne of the arguments that Charlie Warren mentioned is, if it hadn't\nbeen for a two-year session he wouldn't have been able to get through an\nEnergy Conservation Bill, in that sense he thinks it is healthy.\nI just wonder if you looked at both sides of the coin.\nA\nI have seen in these several years -- I've seen them come back with\na revised version of a bill and reintroduce it in the very next session,\nif it is something they really want and we need, we manage to do that.\n0\nGovernor, what are your impressions of the gubernatorial campaign\n-1-\nso far?\nQ\nCan we stick on this?\nQ\nI'm sorry.\nQ\nGovernor, I assume you mean the governor -- the next governor should\nappoint a Blue Ribbon Commission, is that what you are talking about?\nA\nHowever this is determined, it is obviously too late in the --\ntoo late for me, and --\nQ\nWhy, but this is not the first time -\nA\nWhether this would be a governor's appointment or whether this\nshould be from the legislature itself, because again we have the\nseparation of powers. So\n-\n&\nGovernor, what's your questions about the full-time legislature\nconcept?\nYou said that should be reviewed, too.\nA\nWell, as I said, the - nothing seems to have - it doesn't\nseem to have the improvements that we were supposed to have from\nthe time when legislators were citizens who came up here to do the\nstate's business and then return to their own businesses andprofessions.\nAnd I would suggest that the commission should take a look and see\nwhether wehave improved the situation or not.\nQ\nDo you think the situation could be improved ever simply by\nchanging the machinery or is there something else beyond that?\nA\nWell, it is worth taking a look at. As I say, there have\nbeen many fine legislators and have themselves expressed concern in the\nlast few years with the way things are going, and I've heard this from\nboth sides of the aisle.\nQ\nGovernor, along with that full-time legislature, bigger salaries,\ndo you think that should be reviewed, too?\nA\nWell, I've suggested a -- I wouldn't like to stand here and\nsuggest to the committee what the committee should come up with or\nresolve. I think the entire picture of representative government in\nCalifornia should possibly be reviewed by this -- by such a committee.\nQ\nWould the governor appoint the committee?\nA\nI just answered that, I'm not sure. It is a separation of\npowers.\nI haven't thought as to who should -- as to whether the\ngovernor should.\nQ\nIt seems it might be contradictory. You are\ntalking\nabout\nbeing isolated in Sacramento, but yet you want them to go on a full week.\nDid you mean if they went on a full week they wouldn't have to be here\n-2-\nso many months, there could be more months at home?\nA\nWas\nit Hugh Burns said that air conditioning in the\nCapitol destroyed the legislature?\n(Laughter)\nQ\nGovernor, you've experienced similar end of session bills in\nprevious years, how come you are just now recommending some sort of a\nBlue Ribbon Task Force, study this proble\nA\nWell, you start first of all with a matter of the separation of\npowers\nthat\nyou\ntry\nto observe. But the second thing is, first we went\nto the full-time and we have - each time you give it a chance to work,\nand then we went to the two-year, and we've had a chance to see it work\nand the same thing has resulted. Wepassed about -- throughout the whole\ny\near they passed out about roughly 600 bills. In the last week they\nhave passed out more than a thousand.\nQ\nDo you know how many you have waiting?\nA\nWhat's that?\nI\nHow many bills you have down there waiting for you to sign now?\nA\nIt will be something more than a thousand.\nQ\nGovernor, you say it cost $52 million a year to run the legisla-\nture.\nHow wasteful do you think that body is of the public's money?\nA\nWell, here again there is no way to know because there is --\none of you, I think, recently received an answer to that question when\nyou asked for some accounting of one of the body's spending and were\ntold that it was no one's business but their own.\nQ\nGovernor, you have the constitutional authority to trim the\nlegislature's budget, why haven't you exercised it?\nA\nWell, very practical considerations. First of all, there is\nthe separation of powers. Second of all, however, there is the matter\nof what would happen to any governor who attempted by budgeting to\nblue pencil when obviously all it would take is a two-thirds vote of the\nlegislature to override that veto, and then open up the whole retaliatory\nthing, the contest, in which they could get even by deleting the\nexecutive branch budget and there isn't anything you can do about that\nbecause you can't override their veto, when you are in this spot.\nWhatever they take out cannot be put back in.\nQ\nCouldn't you veto some of these pension bills that have been\ncoming down and been signed? The ones that cause a lot of controversy\nnow?\n-3-\nA\nWell, as I say, again this -- in the separation of powers I've\ntried to observe that.\n2\nAre you saying that you actually feared retaliatory action by\nthe legislature if you tampered with their -- with their private\nprograms?\nA\nOh, I think this is what practically you are talking about.\nIf you try to use your budget authority between the various branches.\nQ\nGovernor, you have a thousand bills before you, will you be\nable to take care of those before you leave the state?\na 30-\nA\nWell, we are going to be working at them.\nWe\nhave\nday\nperiod --\nSeptember\nED MEESE:\nDecember 30.\nA\n-- in which to deal with these bills. A great many of them\nI'm sure aren't going to take too much time for these. There are\nmany of them minor and technical word bills and those one-word change\nbills and so forth. But I think that -- I understand your question,\nSquire. I'll sign or veto anything that has to be signed or vetoed.\nQ\nGovernor, specifically are you inclined to sign the bill which\nrolls back the smog device program for 1966-70 automobiles outside the\nbasin\nL. A. air base?\nA\nWell, now, don't ask me to comment - start commenting on any\none of those thousands yet, because they have just come down. They\nwill all go through the usual process with the cabinet and staff. And\nI'd rather not get into that. If I start trying to comment or guess\non one of them before we have seen it or studied it, I could be here for\na thousand of them.\nQ\nThe reason I ask you that is that during recent visits to\nRiverside you did state you favored such legislation.\nA\nYes. Now we are talking about a general thing as against\na specific piece oflegislation. I have to also say that in Riverside\nsome of the statements that I made in the informal discussion down there\nthe other day have not been interpreted -- my legislative intent was\nmisinterpreted.\n&\nSo you are saying you are inclined to sign the Holmdahl Bill,\nis that right, is that what you are saying?\nA\nI'm saying I'm not commenting on specific bills.\n(Laughter)\n0\nWould you say when are you going to take some action on it?\nIn the next few days? Because they are meeting on the 11th.\nA\nYes, this is one I think must immediately be taken up, because\nthere are decisions that have to be made as Mr. Simmons has pointed out\na lready. Members of the press.\n(Smog)\nQ\nGovernor, does the fact that the Holmdahl, Bill leaves out the\nBasin\nSouthcoast air base pose a problem for you?\nDo you have. some question\nabout the state setting off the south Coast air base Basin from enforcement\nof this program?\nA\nNo, I think it mentioned about what I said in Riverside, is that\nyou have to recognize the South Coast air base Basin differs very drastically\nfrom Modoc County, or Nevada County or some of the other counties and\ntheir problems. And this has been one of the problems that I have\nthought we should bepaying more attention to, is statewide cures for\nwhat is a problem peculiar to one area.\nQ\nWell, Governor, speaking of - new subject? Speaking of Modoc\nCounty, they say as Modoc County goes, so goes the state. Have you\ntalked to people up there? Are they voting for Flournoy or Brown up\nthere?\nA\nWell, I don't know, the first thing that anyone did to me when I\ngot there at the fairground was to pin a Flournoy button on me, which\nI hadn't brought myself, being a non-political trip. I don't know\nhow\nModoc County is going to go.\nQ\nSo you think they are going to go for Flournoy, is that what you\nare saying?\nA\nThey seem enthusiastic.\nQ\nWhat are your impressions of the race so far?\nA\nOf course I believe he's the best qualified man for this job,\nthre\nis no question about that. You can accuse me of partisanship on\nthat, if you want to, but I think in the campaign so far that his\nopponent has had difficulty making up his mind, whether he really is\nrunning against Hugh Flournoy. I think for a while he was running\nagainst me, but then just the other day, over Labor Day it seemed like\nhe was running against Herbert Hoover. As soon as he settles on an\nopponent we will be able to get a better judgment of how he's campaigning.\nQ\nHe says you are wasting public money by not -- with your freeze\non the building of state -- state office buildings. Wasting $21 million\ndollars by renting building space. What is your response?\nA\nI think there is a point at which you can go overboard in renting.\nI think there is another point, however that you should figure, when\n-5-\nthe state builds it takes land off the tax base at the local level of\ngovernment, off the property tax base. And there are some economics\ninvolved there in both renting and government building, and which I\ndon't think that it is necessary that the state should build every\nsingle space that it needs to occupy. I think this could be wasteful.\nI do think that, yes --- I think there is some building to be done. But\nI don't --\nQ\nYou agree with Mr. Brown?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nYou agree with Mr. Brown?\nA\nNever.\n(Laughter)\nA\nWe differ in a matter of degrees.\n0\nWhat's altered your opinion now about the need for a total\nfreeze on statebuilding, state office building?\nVERNE ORR: Governor, two years ago we put thirty million\ndollars in for legislature building. They haven't started yet. That\nwould remove a great deal of the rental space in Cali- in Sacramento.\nWe added to it this year.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, we haven't had such a freeze. As a\nmatter of fact, we asked the legislature for the use of some money for\nbuilding both north and south earlier this year, and were refused.\nAs a matter of fact, we wanted, if I recall it was the oil revenues that\nwe had wanted.\nVERNE ORR: We asked for an L. A. building and they took that\nout of the budget.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, the new state building there, because\nthe old building doesn't meet the earthquake standards.\n&\nGovernor, there is a study of building space needs in state\ngovernment that's being done by General Services. It was due last\nNovember, and has apparently been held up in General Services, has not\nyet been released.\nWhen will that be made available?\nA\nI wish I knew.\nVERNE ORR: I don't know, either. I see the draft of it, but\nI don't know when it will be ready for release.\n2\nGovernor, the Departmentof Water Resources came out with its\nenvironmental impact report on the Peripheral Canal this morning. What\nis your position on whether the canal should or should not be built?\n-E\nA\nWell, I happen to be one who's always favored the canal and I\nfavor it from an enviromental standpoint, actually, because the present\nsystem of pumping out of the delta in my mind is harmful to the environ-\nment. It has reversed the stream flow in certain streams, the pumping.\nStreams that were spawning streams for fish, for trout, for salmon, and\nFish and Game can account that in some of those streams because of the\nconfusion of the fish, which is supposed to swim upstream to its spawning\nground, and suddenly finds itself swimming downstream because that flow\nhas been reversed by a pump, they just don't spawn. They turn around\nand go the other way. And I believe with proper protection for the\nquality of water in the delta this can be achieved very easily. That\nthis is the easiest and the best way to move the water past the delta.\nQ\nGovernor, had there not been the hassle in the Senate over\nyour appointees, do you think this news conference would have dealt\nwith this today? What I'm trying to say, are you critical because\nof the hassle or had you thought of this before?\nA\nNo, as a matter of fact, I even questioned for a time whether\nI should even leave that paragraph in this statement today for fear\nthat just that, someone might make that assumption. No, I think that it\nwas an unprecedented action. I don't recall it being done before. It\ncertainly has never been done to me before in these several years, and\nI don't - in my memory have any knowledge of it ever happening to any\nther governor, but no, I think that the spectacle of more than a thousand\nbills being passed in sessions that run through the night, that run\ncontinuously for hours in which it is obvious that no one can even read\nthe bills, with amendments being offered that weren't even read - this\n(legislative)\nhappened last year, or I mean the last session before the two year\nsession began. If you will remember then, in one all night session they\npassed down several hundred bills, including hundreds of millions of\ndollars of spending. The stories that have come out of this last\nsession, of men who were voted on roll call votes and at midnight they\ndscover they hadn't been there since morning -- the device of the\nroll call vote, the automatic roll call voting, of taking that vote on\na non-controversial measure and then simply taking number after number\nof a bill up and asking for permission to record the same roll call vote\non it, many individuals not being there and not understanding what the\nbill was about, I just think that it is not the way to do business for\nthe state of California. Maybe they could start one improvement by\n-7-\nreversing it, you know. Do the thousand bills in the rest of the year,\nand 600 in the last session.\nQ\nOn state buildings, do you expect to be doing some groundbreaking\nfor the mansion soon?\nA\nI hope SO.\nQ\nIs there any time of the week, t ) weeks or a month or two\nmonths?\nA\nI don't know.\nVERNE ORR: Bids are due in September 24, is their expectation,\nand soon after that they will be able to award the bid and they will start\nconstruction, hopefully, I guess, might break ground the first week in\nOctober.\n&\nGovernor, will you try to accelerate the mansion construction\nin light of Jerry Brown's comments that he won't live there and might\nturn it into a children's home or something?\nA\nWell, I know that he's concerned and I suppose it is because\nthe house that we planned to build there is too small for him. He\nprefers to go backand live in the one that's 4,000 square feet bigger\nthan the one that's presently being built. But having no family or\nanything, I thought that 12,000 square feet of floor space ought to be\nenough for him out there. He might learn to love it out there in the\nfresh air. I am hopeful that we don't have that problem at all because\nI hope that come January he'll be providing his own domicile some place\nand someone else will be -\nQ\nGovernor, what's going to happen to the residence here you are\nn OW renting or being rented for you?\nA\nI suppose that the owners of it will put it up for sale.\n&\nDo you think they will make it available to the next Governor\nduring the interim, before the mansion -\nA\nYou'll have to ask them, and the legislature. It is between\nthem and the legislature. I must say we have enjoyed it very much and\nenjoyed living there. And it was a contrast with the other place.\nQ\nBack to the Blue Ribbon Citizen's Task Force, I'm just not sure\nhow something like that would operate. You have admitted that you have\ngot a fear of retaliation if you take some action in trimming legislative\nexpenditures. If a task force is appointed by the legislature, won't\nit be just a -- in effect, a white wash of legislative activities? How\n-8-\ncan you get something out that will actually have a meaningful effect\non the legislature?\nA\nWell, on this basis -- look, you are jumping to some conclusions.\nMaybe $52 million dollars is a proper amount for a legislature.\nI\ndon't know. I put in here this is an indication of the growth of what\nhas happened in the efforts going to full time, that going to the two-\nyear session and all, and all I'm saying now is since the problems that\nwe were told these moves would solve are still with us, that maybe it is\ntime to take a look. The Blue Ribbon Commission might decide that\nyou could still have this session and find ways to alleviate the\nproblems. I'm quite sure that some of this last-minute rush would have\nbeen unnecessary if the leadership of the majority party had really\nled the way they should. For example, there are scores and scores of\nbills, hundreds of bills that are technical bills that literally change\none word in the law. It seems to me that author's pride, for a\nlegislator to have his name on a bill, that many of these could have been\ncommittee bills. The whole committee process earlier in the year, the\nwitnesses being brought up here to -- for an open hearing on a committee\nbill, and then finally one or two committee members in attendance\nand then it being put over and so forth -- I just think that we can\nstart -\nQ\nAny more questions?\nQ\nYes, Squire, just one. Governor, have you communicated with\nPresident Ford since your last press conference with us in which you\nremarked about amnesty and some other subjects of national interest?\nA\nNo, I've had no direct communication -- Oh, I've - I've\naddressed one or two letters to the President, but on specific routine\nstate matters that require his attention.\nQ\nMr. Flournoy said that -- or his staff people said he is going\nto fly to New York to try to see some of Mr. Rockefeller's financial\nbackers, to get some money for his campaign. Do you plan to try and\nraise money for Flournoy outside of California?\nA\nNo, I'm committed for all the campaigning I'm going to do, and\noutside of thesstate I will be campaigning for Congressional, Senate\nand Gubernatorial candidates that have been determined in advance by\nthe Republican Governor's Conference, by the Congressional and the\nSenate campaign committees.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\n-9-\nQ\nJust one, have you received any word what former Senator\nKuchel is going to get from the Ford administration? Position.\nA\nWell, no, I thought it was published, though, at one point.\nQ\nThere was a report he was going to become Ambassador to the\nUnited Nations, but that's not official.\nA\nThat's all that I know, is what I've read.\nSQUIRE:\nThank you, Governor.\n000\n-10-\n9/24\nNEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD SEPTEMBER 24, 1974\nReported by:\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the News Corps. for their convenience only.\nBecause of the need to get it to the News Corps. as quickly as possible,\nno corrections are made andthere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nI have a statement, opening statement.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read News Release No. 531.)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Because of this particular issue I brought\nAssemblyman McLennan here with me, and I have to say I hope the people\nof California recognize that it was Assemblyman McLennan by authoring --\nnot only authoring the bill, but keeping this issue alive on behalf of\nthe people. I think that he's responsible now for at least the\npossibility of resolving this issue once and for all. So I have him\nnere with me for any questions that you might have about the particular\nlegislation.\nQ\nDr. McLennan, you are in a very tough race for re-election\nbecause of the reapportionment. Do you think that the Democratic\nleadership is going to let you carry that bill and are yougoing to\ninsist on it?\nASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: Oh, I will certainly endeavor in every\n(pension)\nway possible to carry the bill. I expect there would be some obstruc-\ntive tactics used to try to get it away from me. But I want it for\nthe benefit of the people of the State of California. I'm not doing\nit for any personal glory of any kind, I just --\nSo you have no pride of authorship -- Assemblyman Gonzalves\nwould carry it, that wouldn't bother you?\nASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: Well, it would be a little bit upsetting.\nI'd carried it this long and then it would be turned over to my opponent.\nBut this is not the -- the most urgent thing on my mind anyway, right\nat this time.\nQ\nThank you.\n&\nGovernor Reagan, if the Democratic leadership decides to convene\nand then adjourn and not meet again until Monday so as to observe the\nhigh holy days, would you have any objection to that?\n-1-\n(By Governor Reagan)\nWell, there isn't anything that I could\ndo about it. That is their prerogative, they can do that.\nThe\nonly point that I've made, having had three opportunities to deal with\nthis in the last session and being able to send down to my desk 1184\nbills in ten days, I don't see that there would be any reason or justi-\nfication for not treating with this on Wednesday and getting home in\nplenty of time for the beginning of the high holy days.\nQ\nGovernor, are you being critical of the Democratic leadership\nfor having passed the bill originally or having failed to repeal it\nonce the bonanza features of it became apparent?\nA\nI'm critical of them for not having repealed it once we knew the\nextent of it and what the problem was.\nQ\nGovernor, can you clarify again what you thought the amendments\nto this procedure were a few years ago?\nA\nYes, the original bill when it was passed in '66 was a bill --\nat that time we'd had the one-man one-vote decision and it was mainly\naimed at the Senate. And suddenly men, by this change, this court\ndecision in Washington, suddenly have their careers and their entire\ndistricts just simply pulled out from under them and it seemed like a\nfair bill at thetime. Then a few years ago, in '71, this was augmented\nand changed. I don't think that any one of us saw -- first of all, I\nstart from the standpoint of in the separation of powers, of usually\neaving to the legislature thosematters that are purely theirs. But\nin signing it I don't think that any of us -- and I don't charge that\nthe legislature really envisioned the manner in which it -- now it\ndevelops it can be used.\nQ\nWhat manner is that you are talking about?\nA\nWell, the fact that without any regard to reapportionment, that\nin a reapportionment year anyone can quit or decide to run for another\ndifice and whatever he does, and walk away with his full pension beginning\nat whatever age.\nQ\nYou say it is being abused and interpreted too loosely?\nA\nNo, I'm afraid that we found out that this is what the bill\nactually said.\nQ\nGovernor, you didn't see that when you signed it then?\nA\nNo.\n0\nGovernor, in 1971 Frank Lanterman carried a bill which extended\nthese early bonus benefits and it was very clearly debated in the\n-2-\nlegislature at that time.\nA\nWell, the bill was passed and, as I say, I've observed the\nseparation of powers of the legislature. I haven't intervened in\ntheir particular affairs.\nI\nGovernor, why did you call a special session fifteen minutes\nafter the legislature called a special session?\nA\nWell, I didn't know that the legislature was -- had called one\nin fifteen minutes. I had had the leadership, the Democratic\neadership contacted as to whether it would be worthwhile to call a\nspecial session. I was aware of the public sentiment in agreement with\nit. But there was no point in calling them back when they had refused\nthree times to deal with this during the last session, if they were going\nto do the same thing. So I was informed by them it would be an exercise\nin futility. They had no intention of doing anything about it and it\nwould be useless to call them back into special session.\nNow, the public pressure built -- thanks to Assemblyman\nMcLennan, and built to the place that the word was brought to me that\nthe Democrats were ready now to go into special session, but the talk\nat the time that I called the session was that they were discussing,\nwell, going into a session sometime down the line in the next few\nweeks. I feltthat the people feeling as they did, deserved better\nthan that and, as I say, it is something that could be settled in an\nhour, they could be here and on their way home in the same afternoon.\nAnd I called the meeting for Wednesday, which is the soonest I thought\nwe could.\nQ\nGovernor, for just years, and previous Governors, too, you sat\nidly by while the legislature did funny things with their own operating\nbudget, trebled it, probably. Spent a lot of that money for increased\ncampaign activities by their staff. Took junkets without filing\nmeaningful reports. Did all kinds of things. And you've observed a\nhands off policy. What's so difference about this?\nA\nWell, I don't think that's exactly a fair description. I have\nspoken out and been quite critical of a great many things that the\nlegislature does in running its affairs upstairs.\nQ\nYeah, but you had -- you know, with your blue pencil, you had\nthe opportunity to focus public attention squarely on it, make them\njustify some of the things that they did.\nA\nAnd as I said the other day in here, I was well aware also of\n-3-\nthe limitations of power in the separations of power that the Executive\nbranch could be treated with obstructionism at the same time that you\nattempted to use the budget with regard to the legislative affairs.\nWhile I could take out what they put into the budget, I could not put\nback anything they have taken out. And when you are hanging under\nliterally a blackmail threat of what they could do simply by wiping out\nwhole areas of staff, whole sections of the executive branch, and there\nwoudln't be any recourse under this setup of being the governor of the\nminority party while they are the majority party in the legislature.\nNo, I - I recognize the realities.\no\nGovernor, do you think that a retiring legislator, you know,\nprior to the age of 60, is entitled to any compensation for the -- for\nhis service and the risk he takes? Anything at all?\nA\nThat what?\nQ\nDo you think that a retiring legislator prior to the age of 60\nis entitled to any compensation for the risk he takes or for the service\nhe renders?\nA\nWell, I think that first of all, you know, we have a very\ngenerous pension plan. As a matter of fact, it is extremely generous\nwith regard to the employees contribution. And this plan would be\nunchanged. There is only one facet of it that would be changed and\nthis is the early retirement provision. I saw the justice at the time\nof the whole one-man one-vote change when that took place. I didn't\nhave any particular quarrel with that. But I believe that now as we\nenvision this beyond that point going on to cover just every contingency,\nno, I think that there is no justification for this.\n2\nDo you think it is justified to maintain early retirement for\nlegislators who are in fact affected by reapportionment in the future?\nA\nWell, Bob, would you like to answer what your bill does about\nthat?\nASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: Yes, I see no justification for a\nguarantee just because of reapportionment taking place any more than a\nfreeway coming by and changing the route of traffic for a man running\na filling station. I think this is the risks you take when you become\nelected to office. If you get defeated, regardless of reapportionment,\nI think this is one of the risks you take in serving the public.\nQ\nGovernor, you said that you felt it was justified ten years ago.\n-4-\nWhy is it not justified now?\nA\nWell, I thought it was justified ten years ago does not mean\nnecessarily that I could foresee what would happen andhow it went.\nIt\nseemed a logical and a fair thing at the time. I, as a matter of fact,\nwasn't a part of government at that time. I didn't have any particular\nquarrel with it. Now we have seen this extension of it. The place,\nwhere as I say, they can just choose to quit or be defeated in the\nnormal process of election and they now want protection against even\nthat, the hazard of being defeated when they run for office. This\ncould mean that someone who is voted out of office because he has been\nincompetent and so forth is rewarded for that for the rest ofhis life.\nI can see a great many things that perhaps we did not see in 1966.\nASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: I might add just one thing there, that\nthe salary of the legislators at that time was $6,000 a year when this\nwas voted in '65. And it is a little different than getting $19,000\nthat -- what they are getting now. So I think the circumstances were\nquite different as the Governor has mentioned.\nQ\nGovernor, there's some talk that legislation may be proposed to\nreduce thepension benefit but not eliminate it totally. Will you\naccept legislation if that were the only bill that came to you that\nwould reduce the pension benefit but not eliminate it totally?\nA\nWell, now, you are asking me to comment on hypothetical\nlegislation that might come down and I'd rather not give a hypothetical\nanswer. I'd have to wait and see what it was they did.\nQ\nGovernor, Mr. Brown and others have said that there is in effect\na contract between members and the state, and that it would be plain\nillegal to abort that contract. Or one provision of that contract.\nDo you have legal advice that it can be done?\nA\nI have better legal advice than the Secretary of State.\n2\nOn this issue?\nA\nOn all issues.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nAre you saying it is legal then? Governor, are you saying it\nwould be legal to do so?\nA\nI'll refer to my legal advisers.\nED MEESE: I'll refer to Mr. McLennan.\nASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN:\nWell, we anticipated this, of course,\nand we got a direct opinion from George Murphy himself, who wrote an\n-5-\nopinion by -- with his own research that we were completely on legal\nconstitutional grounds in our efforts to rescind this program.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: That George Murphy being the Legislative\nCounsel.\n0\nYou say -- did you really expect the legislature can dispose\nof this question in a matter of a couple of hours? What do you mean by\na couple of hours, two -- three, what?\nA\nI mean a couple of hours. That gives them time to say hello\nto each otherand tell the latest story they have heard while they are\nhome and everything else. I figure that any legislature could send\ndown to my desk more than a thousand bills in four days, they didn't\ngive a couple of hours to each one of those; they couldn't have, there\naren't that many hours -- so I figure they shouldn't have any trouble\nat all in passing one bill, at say, the same relative speed.\nI\nThe bill would still have to go out to print, apparently,\nthrough the normal committee process. Public Employees and Retirement\nCommittee is still in theprocess of being reconstituted.\nA\nI still stand on it, that this bill that has been before them,\nthis bill that has had committee hearing, this bill that has moved\nthrough the branches of the legislature, that they have had several\nopportunities to do it, there is no reason in the world why they cannot\n(pension)\nbe on their way home after having voted on this bill.\nQ\nGovernor, it is possible that the legislature could call\nitself -- reconvene itself and consider other legislation. Would you\nsay now flatly that you will not sign any legislation that may conceivably\npass in a general session?\nA\nNo, I didn't say that. And I realize they have that power.\nThey always have had that power. They can do that at any time they\nwant to. I would think that it might strike the people strange, the\nexpense of an added session, having rushed through the flood of legisla-\ntion they did in order to meet the adjournment deadline and get out of\nhere, that they now would come back and add to the taxpayer's woes by\ntaking up business after the end of a two-year session. Business that\nvery easily could have been handled. It is significant that they\npassed 1184 bills in ten days and only passed 500 and some bills in all\nof the rest of the two-year session.\nQ\nGovernor, some of the Democratic leadership seems to think that\nyour decision to jump into this thing and call a special session on this\n-6-\none topic is designed to help Hugh Flournoy. Would you comment?\nA\nNo, it was designed for one thing only. Every once in a while,\nfortunately, in this administration of mine, we have had the support\nof the people on something. There would have been no welfare reforms\nif the people -- public opinion had not forced them on a hostile\nlegislature -- hostile legislative leadership that in the beginning\nrefused to allow me to even present those proposals to them. The same\nthing has been true although it too longer in property tax reforms.\nThe same thing was true with regard to implementing capital punishment\nand a number ofthings of that kind. And here again we've had the\npeople making it unmistakably plain how they feel. Now I didn't wait\nnecessarily for that. As I said, I asked -- had our people ask the\nlegislative leadership would there be any useful purpose served in my\ncalling a special session. I was ready to and wanted to and the only\nreason I held back was when I was informed by the majority, and I\ncan't do anything about that majority vote, that no, they would take\nno useful action in such a session. Then, however, when they themselves\nfelt the pressure of public opinion and moved -- indicated they were\n(pension)\ngoing to come back and deal with this problem, I then, to expedite it\nand get it called as quickly as possible, called the special session\nmyself.\nQ\nWell, it is a fact, isn't it, that Mr. Flournoy would benefit\nfrom it all, as it stands now, being --\nA\nWell, I don't know in what way he would benefit. Of course\nhe agrees with me, but then I think -- and he agrees with Assemblyman\nMcLennan, but I think also every right-thinking person does. As a\nmatter of fact, let me make one thing plain, this is not a blanket\nindictment of Democrats, per say, because I have also had communication\nfrom individual Democratic legislators within the last few days begging\nme to call the special session, and disagreeing totally with their\nleadership.\n&\nWho, Governor?\nA\nWhat?\n2\nWhich Democratic legislators have contacted you?\nA\nI'm not going to use their names, who communicated with me, and\ncause them problems with their peers on the Democratic side in the future.\n0\nYou won't reveal your sources then?\nA\nWhat?\n-7-\n(Laughter)\nA\nWell, one is a co-author of this legislation, Wadie Deddeh.\nI don't think there is any question about how he feels and I don't think\nhe'd mind my saying so.\n&\nMay I ask Mr. McLennan, rules have to be waived to have this\nthing heard without the thirty-day waiting period. Does that require\n54 votes in the Assembly? Did you check thatout?\nASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: Yes, in fact the vote on the bill will\nrequire 54 votes because it is an urgency bill.\nQ\nBut to have it heard inthe first place without - or to waive\nthe rules, isn't -- doesn' that require unanimous consent?\nASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: No, not unanimous consent. I think\nit is just a two-thirds - a majority in the Rules Committee would\nhave to vote on the waivering the rules, I'm sure, and then if the\nrules were waivered in the Rules Committee we could hear it immediately\nin the Retirement Committee, and then have a floor vote on it within a\nvery short time. It would require 54 votes in the Assembly.\n&\nGovernor, Speaker McCarthy has intimated you would like the\nlegislature out of town when you do your end of - rather your deadline\nvetoing. Any truth to that suspicion?\nA\nWell, he's part right. I find that a certain calm settles over\nthe Capitol when they are out of town at any time. I have something\nthe feeling a: teacher must have when the students have all fled out the\ndoor at vacation time. But, no, I'm well aware of the fact that they\ncould bring themselves back in any session and if they feel strongly\nenough they will do it. And I'm also well aware that in my calling a\nspecial session they can recess that session and then meet again in\ngeneral session. So I think he would just -- he was just giving voice\nto the political season.\nQ\nGovernor, you said some legislators had contacted you about your\ncalling a special session and many legislators were telling us they\nreceived a lot of heat from their constituents. Had many people written\n(pension\nbill)\nyou or called you, constituents, voters, complaining about it? Have\nyou received much mail on that?\nA\nYes, as a matter of fact, we have had more mail than on any other\nsingle issue in this two-year session. A flood of mail.\nQ\nHow many letters, Governor? Estimate.\nA\nWell, just in the last few days I know that it's topped a\n-8-\nthousand.\nQ\nHow much mail have you had, Dr. McLennan?\nASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: We stopped counting a couple weeks ago\nafter 2500 letters came to our office individually. This was in\naddition to petitions signed by hundreds of people and also calls to --\nover the telephone coming to my -- both my district office and to this\noffice. And I might say that at least 90 per cent of all the questions\nand conversation in any of my appearances has been in regards to this\n(pension)\nprogram that we've been endeavoring to repeal.\nQ\nHow do you feel about this, doctor? You are a freshman\nAssemblyman. You admitted sometime earlier that you didn't know very\nmuch about the parliamentary maneuvering that are involved in something\nlike this. Do you feel like David slaying Goliath?\nMCLENNAN: I've had a crash course in parliamentary procedure in the last\ntwo months, I would say, and I've learned more, I'd say, in this time\nthan I have for many, many months and years in other subjects. But\nit's beeva very revealing thing that the power of the news media and the\npower of the people's wishes can make such a dramatic change that would\ncompletely - the door slammed so dramatically in our face that every\nattempt up here during the session, and when the people became riled\nup enough about a suject they got in contact with their legislators and\nnow we have had a reversal of the interest, certainly, to the extent that\nwe'll have a chance to vote on it and the people can know how their -\ntheir representatives will be voting, SO --\nQ\nDO you feel it is a personal victory for you?\nASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: Well, I - I really don't. I don't\ntake any great credit. I think it's - I've got a staff and an office\npersonnel, and I've got an organization in my campaign down there that\nwon't quit and I have to givemost of the credit to them, plus the news\nmedia. I take no personal credit forit.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I can give you some personal credit. I\nthink that he may refer to himself as a freshman, but I think he stopped\nbeing a freshman when you learn how much can be done not by shedding\nlight but by raising the heat level. And he sure raised the heat level\nin the legislature.\nVOICE: Thank you, Governor.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Thank you.\n000\n-9-"
}