Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564116",
    "label": "Transcripts - 10/26/1971, 10/27/1971, 11/17/1971, 11/22/1971",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564116"
}

{
    "id": "118564116",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564116",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 10/26/1971, 10/27/1971, 11/17/1971, 11/22/1971",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564116",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-011-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-011-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-011-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564116",
    "naId": 118564116,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-011-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "82000ccd19661c18",
    "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 -\n10/26/1971, 10/27/1971, 11/17/1971, 11/22/1971\nBox: P03\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nRed China to UN\nOctober 26, 1971\nGOVERNOR'S STATEMENT IN CABINET ROOM TO PRESS - 11 a.m.\nGood morning. Some of you were downstairs and when I came\nin this morning and I made a statement and it just seemed to me to\nbe fair that I ought to give the rest of you a crack at it. The\nreception, of course, had to do with the vote of last night at the\nUnited Nations, ousting the Republic of China and seating mainland\nChina in the UN. I was asked my opinion and I said and will repeat\nto you that I was deeply shocked as I think most Americans were last\nnightby that vote. I was also disgusted and very frankly I think\nthat it confirms the moral bankruptcy of that international organization\nQ. Do you think we should get out of the United Nations?\nA. I don't think it is for me to say what the options are and I think\nthat would be an extremely drastic move because there are several\nservice organizations to the UN who are doing many worthwhile practical\nthings particularly in the less developed parts of the world. But I\ndon't think the United States should simply sit there and take this\nwithout some kind of action and just take it as another vote on an\nissue and one which we were disappointed with the outcome. I don't\nthink the American people will hold still for that.\nl. What action do you recommend?\nA. Well I think there are other alternatives than to outright leaving\nof the UN. I think for example we could sit there and continue\nmembership but not participate in the voting, which would be one.\nQ. Withdrawal of financial support, do you think Congress ought to\ndo that?\n- 3 -\nI think there should be a review of the organization of the\nUnited Nations to see whether you could not place more power with\nthose who actually have the responsibility for the course of the\nworld\nthe major nations. It just doesn't make sense any more.\nFrankly I used the term this morning and I still stick to it---\nit is a kind of kangaroo court.\nV\nOctober 26, 1971\nGOVERNOR's REMARKS TO NEWSMEN IN BASEMENT\nQ.\nWhat is your reaction to the vote in the UN to admit Red China?\nA.\nI was deeply shocked and I was disgusted and I think it confirms\nthe moral bankruptcy of that organization.\n2.\nWeren you asked what reaction you had received to the Two-China\npolicy?\nA. I know we are going to have a press conference tomorrow.\nAnything or any discussion on the trip before we get into it and\nopen it up is\nit's an entirely too long a subject. Why don't\nwe wait until tomorrow.\nQ.\nHow do you judge the reaction of a two-China policy among the\npeople you met? Have you made some comment already?\nA. There was a great understanding in most of the countries I was\nin as to the reasons for the trip to Peking and there didn't seem to\nbe any upset about the tour, they seemed to think that was inevitable.\nQ.\nThe vote last night did not come as a surprise to you then?\nA.\nOh yes it did. I was convinced, as I am sure everyone else was\nthat while it was going to be close the U.S. we thought would have\nthe votes to go for the two-China since we couldn't prevent any\nlonger Red China coming in we didn't have the votes to do that.\nBut the mood of the U.S. had been to assure them of the continuation\nof Taiwan, so this was a great shock and I think they saw a chance\nfor a parliamentary maneuver when they made that first vote. No one\nexpected the vote to come that early.\nV\nwas 2 -\nA.\nWell I am quite sure that Congress has some ideas of that kind.\nThey have made that known already that they have been considering,\neven before this vote, they have been considering the somewhat\ndisproportionate share the United States seemed to have been paying\nfor the support of that particularly when some nations such as France\nand Russia are so far behind in their support.\nQ. President Nixon said he had the vote. Why do you suppose he\nwas so far in error?\nA. Well, I have sat downstairs here myself with the legislature\nupstairs and thought we had the votes on some issues too. I don't know\nI do know that we knew it was going to be close but I know on my own\ntrip that I had no hesitation about relaying the confidence that we had\nthat we were going to be sustained in this. We have come to a point\nin which the United States knew it no longer had the votes to prevent\nthe seating of Red China. This was just a fact of life, and we had\nto face it. The United States then made an effort knowing that to\ngarner the votes for the second which was for the two-China policy,\nthe seating of Taiwan and Red China. This was what changed our positio\nfrom what it had been over the last twenty years. As I say everyone\nwas confident and I am quite sure it came as a great shock to everyone\nconcerned.\n2. The new direction in which the UN is voting?\nA. I don't know if there is a new direction or not. I think the\nUnited Nations had in its beginning organization plans for a subsequent\nperiod in which they would review the structure of the United Nations\nhaving set it up to begin with they recognized the possibility of\nerror, the possibility of changes being needed. I think it is high\ntime they review an organization in which nations totally less than\n10 percent of the world's population can actually make decisions\naffecting the entire world.\n- 2 -\nQ.\nAnywhere in your tour did you try to influence their thinking\non the two-China policy to get votes?\nA. Yes, I discussed that. Even a non-member of South Korea was\nworking very hard to persuade nations to support the U.S. position.\n/of\nl. Do you think your trip, in part, was to persuade some these nations\nA. I was not under any orders but knowing the attitude of the U.S.\nwhen I saw an opportunity I took it.\nQ. Do you think it seriously weakens what our support should be\nfor the U.N. concept?\nA. I certainly think the U.S. should give very serious thoughts\nto what its position should be because this is nothing but a\nridiculous debating society--- it has been for some time.\nl. Do you think we ought to withdraw financial support to the U.N.?\nA. That is up to Congress, from all indications they are certainly\ngoing to do something.\nQ. Do you think we should withdraw from the U.N. itself?\nA. I don't know whether to withdraw totally from the adjuncts of\nthe United Nations. You know the service organizations surrounding\nit are doing good work. I don't know whether it calls for that but\ncertainly I do not think the U.S. should be still there and go on\nbusiness as usualafter a slap in the face by what was nothing more\nthan a kangaroo court.\n10/27\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD OCTOBER 27, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capital press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections.are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no0o\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nIt'isn't time to get up yet in Tokyo.\nI haven't gotten back on this schedule yet, so don't take advantage\nof me today. Let me just say before I start, there is a copy of\na telegram or a cablegram being passed out to you which I sent to\nPresident Chiang Kai-Shek and Madam Chiang yesterday, and that the\nUnited States -- United Nation's vote, a copy of it.\n8\nGovernor, this is not on that subject if anybody wants to\nask on that.\nA\nNo, I just wanted you to knww that that's what was going\ndown the rows.\n0\nYesterday Los Angeles Chief Davis was highly critical of your\nadministration with respect to your administration's Corrections\nin the aftermath of the shooting of the policeman that was on 72-hour\nfurlough. As I understand it, the Chief said that long-term\nincarceration has been virtually eliminated and that because of the\nprison population has declined under your administration there's\ndangerous inmates being turned loose in California. Can you respond\nto that?\nA\nYes, I can respond. I read that Chief Davis found it\nnecessary to send such a letter and I'm sure upon reflection he'll\nrealize that he hasn't been exactly factual in this. No one regrets\nthe death of a policeman, any policeman, more than I do or any other\ncitizen who is murdered. And this administration has done more than\nhas been done in a great many years in this state to try and give\nthe local law enforcement officers more tools with which to work.\nAt the same time we have been very progressive in our approach to\nrehabilitation. Now, in the 72-hour furlough or pass, this is\ngiven in the last 90 days that a man is in prison before his release,\nin order to help him get re-adjusted to go out and have time to find\n-1-\na job and so forth, and it's been in effect since 1968. I could\ntell you that just in 1970 and '71 there have been and are projected\nby the end of this year some 24,000 of these. More than 20,000\nalready have these passes, have been granted, and this was the only\ncase of this kind, the only murder, back in 1968 there was a case of --\nof vehicle manslaugher with one who was on furlough. Obviously\nyou can't be perfect, and I think the Chief himself has admitted that\neven in the selecting of his own personnel you can't bat a thousand\nper cent and be perfect. But we have been -- we are leading the\nnation in rehabilitation. We have reduced the rate of parolees\nwho commit crimes and go back to prison. We have cut it in\nhalf under our present procedures. Naturally we are going to take\nthe Chief's letter and we are going to refer this to our people who\nare in charge of these things and of the probation system to see if\nthere is anything we can do to improve the situation. But I think\nit is decidedly unfair of the Chief to suggest that this administra-\ntion has increased the danger to his personnel or to any other citi-\nzens. As almatter of fact, we have passed more than 40 anti-crime\nbills in the last few years and in California more than in most other\ncertainly in all other major states the rate of increase in crime\nhas been drastically reduced.\n8\nGovernor, another kind of reform, the other side of the\ncoin that some people talked about, is the high cost of trials\nbecause of all these pre-trial motions and so on in the Angela\nDavis trial, for instance, as a prime example of it, do you have\nany thoughts about doing anything to tighten up on this sort of thing?\nA\nYes. As a matter of fact, we have asked the Chief Justice\nof the Supreme Court and he has been conducting a study and there\nare studies and proposals for experiments on hand right now that\nare going on with the idea of speeding up justice. This is a very --\na very real problem and I think probably one of the great problems\nthat has to go with crime is the lack of swift and immediate and\ncertain justice.\n0\nHave you any thoughts as to how you might tighten that up,\nmake them swift?\nA\nWell, Ed, I don't know what reports have come in from the\nChief Justice.\nED MEESE: We have two groups, the Commission on Trial\nCourt Delay in the judicial area, and the Attorney General is doing\n-2-\nresearch on this LASO, so we have two sets 01 reports which have not\nyet come in.\n2\nWhen were you first aware of the tentative recommendations\nof the K#1dgordereport?\nA\nWell, what you call a first tentative recommendation is --\nwell, I couldn't pinpoint the date at which I knew. What has --\nis being called the Kildgord report aretthe work sheets or the reports\nof paid consultant firm and from more than one individual which\nwere then turned over to the Board of Corrections and they in turn\nhave not come back to me or have any finfinished their study of\ntheir own consultants' work and their reports. And there has been\nno changing or alteration or difference as has been charged by some\nin any of these reports.\nWhat has happened is someone got their\nhands on one of the consultant's reports, the consultant himself\nhas stated on several occasions that there has been no falsification\nor no alteration of his recommendations. But these are now being\nstudied by the Board and later this fall they will come -- they Will\nfinish their summation and their report.\n8\nGovernor, the question was along the lines of when did you\nfirst get wind of some of the recommendations coming from those paid\nconsultants? June?\nA\nWell, as I said, I don't -- I don't recall anything other than\nAt a casual knowledge of it because I knew the process, and I --\nI'm waiting for the report from the Board.\nD\nWere you surprised with some of the recommendations that you\nheard, such as doing away with the parole board or vittimless crimes\nand that kind of --\nA\nWell, with all that's been going on, as I say, you have to\nkind of compartmentalize things in your head here and you wait until\nyour board comes in with thesummation and the recommendation and\nthen we will take it up as a matter of business. I've been dealing\nwith other priorities.\nQ\nGovernor, another kind of reform, tax reform. I understand\nthat you've been priefed by your staff on what's happened during\nyour tour and that you may be meeting with Assemblyman Gonsalves on\nhis latest offer. Can you tell us about that?\nA\nWell, I'll met with Assemblyman Gonsalves, I would with\nanyone else on a piece of legislation who wants to consult with me.\nWhatever he wants to propose, I'm quite sure he wants to discuss his\n-3-\nbill. He must know by now having participated in those 16\ndays of discussions pretty much what my stand is and what I think is\naceeptable. And I'll be very happy to meet with him or anyone\nelse on this subject.\n8\nIt was not planned to meet with him anyway?\nA\nI don't know if it's been scheduled as yet, but we are\ngoing to have the meeting.\n8\nGovernor, Speaker Moretti said after he was defeated in the\nassembly last week he thought the tax reform in this session was\ndead.\nDo you agree with that?\nA\nWell, I have to say that my optimism has been cooled quite\nconsiderably. There was no question but the outcome of all of the\nnegotiations that we had revealed that there was a great difference\nover our belief that if you were going to have tax reform you had to\nhave guarantees wirtten in that the individuals who have their\nproperty tax reduced and who in turn, along with the other citizens,\naccepted increases in other taxes, to pay for that property tax\nreduction, that that reduction was going to be guaranteed, that it\nwould be permanent. And we were shocked to find that there was\na differente of opinion on this and we -- we think we have had a\ncouple of experiences that teach us that unless you write in such\nguarantees tax reform is meaningless. When they -- the first sales\ntax was passed in California, it was passed on the promise that it\nwould reduce property tax. It did nothing of the kind. Property\ntax, of course, is many times higher than it was at that time -- at\nthat point. When we gave the $750 exemption, tt only took 18\nmonths for local government to raise property taxes up above what\nthey would be and it does little good to say to someone yes, but\nyour taxes would be that much higher if you weren't getting the\nexemption, and so we have insisted there must be such guaranfees.\nQ\nWell, back to the question, is tax reform dead?\nA\nI'm going to meet with him on this.\nAs I say, we came\nas far as we could go in a compromise in an effort to get this and\nthe meetings fell apart on the issue of such guarantees and without\nsuch guarantees, yes, tax reform is dead until the legislative\nleadership on the other side and the legislature itself is willing\nto agree that any tax relief we give to the property owner must be\nmade permanet and guaranteed.\nQ\nHave you been briefed on what is imminent, what the Gonsalves\nmeasure has, and his latest thing, and you think that could be a\nstarting thing?\nA\nWell, a starting point for what?we We went through 16 pretty\nweary days and very frankly if there had been a real intent to have\nlegitimate tax reform it could have been accomplished in 16 days.\nAs a matter of fact, it would have been accomplished before June 30,\nhad there been some leadership in the legislature.\n8\nDo you think -- is there any leadership now?\nA\nPardon?\n0\nIs there any leadership now?\nA\nYoulllahaveotesask them.\nQ\nAre you talking about both parties?\nA\nWhat?\n0\nTalking about both parties?\nA\nNo,\nno, I'm not. When I talk leadership, I'm talking\nthose in charge of the legislature and appointing the committees and\nnaming the chairmen.\nQ\nYou are talking about Democrats?\nA\nThat was the word --\n(Laughter)\nA\nThat was the word I was looking for.\n0\nYou used to be one.\nD\nNew subject. O. K., Governor, last week in Washington\nSenator Magnus's bill to legitimatize the El Paso gas monopoly was\nheard.\nNow itis my understanding that you had favored the bill.\nLast week the Attorney General came in and favored it with two\namendments and California PUC apparently wasn't responsive. Can you\ntell me the administration's position now?\nA\nYes, let me clarify that, it seems to be a little misunder-\nstanding. I have never written any letter favoring the particular\nlegislation that is now being discussed. After an investigation\nhere I wrote a letter to Senator Magnus -- I guess more than ayyear\nago and there was no legislation, there was no bill, but telling\nthem our position here :with regard to wanting something that would\nassure the people of California an adequate supply of natural gas\nat the lowest possible figure to the consumer. The best interest\nof the consumer. Now, his legislation is evidently the result of\nthis same type of thinking. I'm not going to say it was the result\nof our letter, but this is what we had suggested. And the amendments\nthat have been proposed, yes, we believe -- that have been proposed\nby the Attorney General, we believe those amendments are for the\ngood of the people of California, we support them and I think they\nwere favorably received by the committee in Washington.\nQ\nThe U. S. Justice Department opposed the bill, does that give\nyou pause?\nA\nWell, I don't know the basis for their opposition to it.\nQ\nNor do I?\nA\nNo, I only know that what we are interested in in California\nis, as I say, an adequate guaranteed supply of natural gas for the\nconsumer in California at the best possible price. A fair price.\nQ\nGovernor, earlier you vetoed a bill by Senator Rodda which\nwas extended, allowed districts to use permissive override tax to\nfinance school lunch programs for pre-school children attending\npre-school programs. And you said that there myst be an end to\nthe practice of bypassing the voter in matters affecting financing\nof programs at the district level. While you were gone, Governor\nReinecke signed a bill by Senator Deukmejian which allows the Long\nBeach school district to use appermissive override to finance\na regional occupational program, isn't that a 180 degree contradic-\ntion?\nA\nWell, your --\nQ\nI know it is specific and -- but it is the principle I'm\nasking you about.\nA\nWell --\n8\nBoth affecting the -- concerning the permissive override.\nA\nWell, I don't know if the principle is violated and I would\nhave to -- you'd have to give me a little time to look into this and\nsee what the details were of the -- of the two bills.\n0\nGovernor, on another subject. I wonder if you can tell us\nwhat you think of the concept of changing the names ofssome state\ncolleges to California State University.\nA\nWell, this is one here -- this problem, I -- it's got some\npros and cons and it is a very difficult one. I have many times said\nin effect, if a college is indeed a university, is in fact a univer-\nsity, it certainly should be able to use the name. On therother\nhand, there is great concern in educational' circles that with the\nname might indeed go some alterations to where we would have a competi-\ntive situation with regard to research and post-graduate degrees that\nis now being handled adequately by the university system, and that we\nmight find ourselves drifting away from -- to the original concept\nof the state colleges. It is a difficult situation and I can\nunderstand some ite colleges that have rea ed the average\nuniversity status wanting to have this name, I just have to tell\nyou that I haven't resolved the issue in my own mind yet as to just\nwhat is fair and what we can do. I would prefer to wait on the\nstudy that we have andour own coordinating council of higher\neducation may have on the master plan and see what their recommenda-\ntions are.\nQ\nWhen -- excuse me, Governor, when is that study?\nA\nWhen is that study -- I can't tell you exactly right now.\n8\nYou vetoed Assemblywoman Fong's bill on venereal disease\neducation. She has said that she thought due to because you have\nnot been properly informed on the bill staff. Now, if she gets that\nbill back to your desk and can get it back to your desk, will you\nreconsider yourpposition?\nA\nWell, I bake issue, a little bit, with all due respect, to\nAssemblywoman Fong, about the idea that I was not properly informed.\nI think there's been a great deal of misinformation about the bill\nand the reasons for vetoing. First of all, right today in\nCalifornia and evidently some teachers and administrators in schools\naren't aware of this, there is no hindrance whatsoever in the way\nof instituting and maintaining classes and education with regard\nto venemeal disease. The only thing is that today in instituting\nor putting into effect such classes the school must notify the\nparents that the childris being taught this particular subject.\nThere was really no need for the Fong bill. It is not necessary\nto institute courses in venereal disease education. All that\nthe bill did was remove the necessity for the school notifying the\nparents Now, I made a technical error in my veto message, I said\nconsent of the parents. It isn't consent, it is notification.\nThen if a parent -- there are several reasons for this, if a parent\nhas any objection, religiously or whatever reason, they can withdraw\ntheir child from this class. But mainly it is also so that parents\ncan inform themselves and when the child comes home and starts\nasking certain questions the parent can have some knowledge or\nidea of what is being taught, familiarize himself with it if he wants\nto go to the school, and do so, and thus be able to help at home,\nin this education. And I vetoed the bill simply because my belief\nthat there is too much government interference in the family relation-\nship in too many areas now. And that there was no reason to remove\nthis necessity of the school notifying the parent. I am in favor of\n-7-\nthe schools givinₜ his kind of education and am asking -- have\nasked for a meeting with Superintendent Riles and with our public\nhealth people to sit down now and stimulate and have more of this.\nLieutenant Governor Reinecke signed a bill with regard to VD educa-\ntion that carries it a step further, although in the school, but\ninvolving legitimatizing information on this while I was gone. Two\nmonths ago I signed another bill that made it more possible for us.\nThere is an epidemic situation, we do need the education and this\nbill had nothing to do with making more education possible. It\njust simply, as I say, removed the necessity for the schools noti-\nfying the parents they were teaching these courses and I just didn't\nthink that was right.\n8\nWith too much government interference in family life, do\nyou think Willie Brown's bill should pass, the one on consenting\nadults, whatever their sexual relations, and get the government out\nof the bedroom?\nA\nWell, it is hard for me to speak objectively because I've\nnever felt the presence of government in the bedroom. I --\nBut it is there?\nA\nYes, we know that --\n(Laughter)\nA\nI just have to say I have -- I have no comment.\nThey\ndisposed of the bill and it didn't have to come down to me for any\nparticular treatment, so -- no comment on Willie Brown's bill.\n8\nGovernor, I wonder what your reaction was to the disclosure\nthis morning on the wires that an agreement had been signed several\nyears ago between Mr. Livermore and P.G.& E. regarding the Point\nArena Nuclear Powerplant and I wonder if you were aware of the\nagreement at that time and if so, if you think it was correct and\nwhat your thinking behind it was.\nA\nThis seems to be the day for clearing up misunderstandings.\nI've seen an AP story, I don't know how many others there might\nbe, and with all due respect to Associated Press, let me clear the\ndocks on that one. I have boasted many times that this administra-\ntion did not wait for the great furor about environment and ecology,\nthat this administration in the first few months we were here\nstarted in to do such things as -- as trying to protect the environ-\nment and trying to find arrangements whereby we could ensure that\nsome development even -- even a state development or project did\nnot destroy the environment. In this instance, long before there\nwere any laws on the stato hooks about\na contract or sig. d a deal, but into an agre ment and at the\nrequest, I might add, of the utility companies who had just gone\nthrough the Bodega Bay experience, that we would work with them and\nthey agreed to work cooperatively with us about any sites that they\nmight have for powerplants, that we would work with them on a study\nof the ecology -- the environment and so far they have been most\ncooperative on that. So what has happened is that the one company\nhas put up money, actually, to finance a study by our own fish and\ngame people and our environmentalists in the government on this\nparticular site and there's no such agreement. If -- in other\nwords, if new evidence comes out in this study that would warrant\nus objecting to that site on ecological grounds, the company is\naware that we will -- that we will present that evidence. And\nsince that time, of course, there'has been the federal law. As a\nmatter of fact, this agreement and this cooperative effort on our\npart was the pattern for the federal government's subsequent law.\nThis was looked at with great favor all over the United States by\nwhat we were doing.\nQ\nGovernor, is there an agreement by the administration not\nto oppose that Point Arena powerplant?\nA\nNo, there is a statement, as I understand it, to this effect,\nthat as of now we have no evidence -- we have studied this\ncompletely and there is no evidence against placing the plant there,\nbut as I say, a study continues to go forward and if new evidence is\nintroduced -- in other words, if we find new facts that suddenly change\nus, and we say wait, there is something we have discovered that we\ndidn't know before, the utility is aware that we will present that\nevidence.\nQ\nBy presenting the evidence -- you mean you are keeping your\noptions open to oppose that plant, is that correct?\nA\nThat's exactly what it amounts to.\nQ\nBut does the agreement permit the state to prevent construc-\ntion of that plant?\nA\nYes, because by now we have-the laws are on the books now.\nQ\nI mean does the agreement itself prevent that?\nED MEESE: There is no agreement. This is merely a\nstatement of our analysis of the environmental impact of this particu-\nlar site.\n-9-\nQ\nWhat about he thing which ischeaded greement,\" and it is\nsigned by Mr. Livermore and Mr. Bonner of P.G. & E, is that or is\nthat not an agreement?\nED MEESE: It is an agreement to cooperate in the study.\nA\nA letter of understanding.\n0\nThe burden is on the state to show damage?\nA\nWell, that's --\nMR. MEESE: The burden --\nA\nThat's our business, the environmental control area, but\nas I say, they have put up the money to finance the -- the examina-\ntion or thessurvey.\na\nGovernor, who makes the study, Governor? Does P.G.& E.\nmake the study or the state?\nA\nOh, no, we make it, our fish and game people, our environ-\nmental people.\n0\nFf the findings of that study are adverse, what effect\ndoes that have on P.G.& E's plans to go ahead or not build the\nplant?\nA\nWe will take the adverse information to them and object to\nthe location.\n0\nCan you stop them on the basis of that study?\nA\nI think notice -- yes, we can.\nQ\nYes, Governor, if I can just interject, the Public Utilities\nCommission and Atomic Energy Commission both require the statement S\non environmental. impact before they grant the permits and that's the\npurpose of this.\nQ\nChange of subject, Governor.\nA\nAll right.\nQ\nI'd like to go back, since someone brought up the Kildgord\nreport, and the Department of Corrections, the House Judiciary\nSubcommittee held a hearing in California Monday after touring\nboth San Quentin and Soledad. The subject of the Kidgord report\ncame up and the contents and context of the independency of that\nreport. It seems that Kildgord in putting a report together\nsubmitted raw data, the task force reports, to state officials,\nMr. Procunier , Mr.\nand so forth, for comment. The feeling\nof the committee is this was to be an independent report in that\nthe federal funds were used. And state officials exercised\napparently great control over their own comments, some of them very\nharshly worded comments, with respect to the opinions of the task\neventually came own to us is a toned down version, ifyou will,\nfrom the original data prepared by the task forces. This criticism\ncame out in the latter hours of that hearing. I wonder what your\ncomment to the procedure is, specifically.\nA\nIt seems to me that the procedure is very plain, very\nevident. You refer to task forces. The only information that\nhas come in so far have been from paid consultants, people that --\nthe task force itself hired. And they now have the responsibility\nof coordinating this and judging and looking for factual error in all\nthe information that has been brought in by the paid consultants,\nand what has caused all of the talk is evidently one copy of someone's\nof one of the paid consultants, some copy of their reports to the\ncommittee. And the committee or the task force has not finished\nits compilation of all of this information.\nD\nWell, the point was you feel then that state officials\nshould exercise input into independent federal studies like this?\nA\nWell, I think if I go out and hire a consultant to help me\non a decision that I have to reach, that I've hired him and it is\nmy responsibility then not to just without reading it hand out his\npaid consultant's report, but to take this now, put it together\nwith all the other information I have, and what my responsibilities\nare, and then come forth and say here is my recommendation, and this\nis -- this is all that's being done.\n8\nGovernor, I'd like to ask you a question about your telegram\nto Chiang Kai-Shek. You said, \"I've told the President of my\ndispleasure. 11 How did you tell the President and when you did tell\nhim did you make a report on your trip?\nA\nNo, because thise was a phone call and I'm looking forward\nto a meeting with him to discuss the entire trip which I visited\nsix nations, but -- yes, I called him and he returned the call\nyesterday morning, and when I told him of my great unhappiness and\ndispleasure at this --\n0\nGovernor, what did the President --\nQ\nDid the President ask you specifically to tell Chiang Kai-\nShek that, in effect, there would be no problems, that Nationalist\nChina would retain a seat in the United Nations?\nA\nNo, no one could guarantee that, but all of us who had any\ninformation, and myself, judging from talking to them or talking to\nour own people, we were all optimistic. As a matter of fact, this\nis, I'm sure you recognize, came as a great surprise while we knew\n-11-\nthe vote would be fairly close, we believed that we had the vote\nin the United Nations, and those people that I met with in Asia,\nthey themselves were dealing with other governments in the U. N.,\nand lobbying for an approval of the United State's position, and\nthere was a general optimism that this was not going to happen, that\nwe were going to win. The plain truth of the matter is we wore\ndouble-crossed by some nations that switched their votes.\nD\nGovernor, --\n8\nGovernor, Assemblyman --\n0\n-- introduced a bill to have the United States withdraw from\nthe United Nations, would you support such a bill?\nA\nWho is that?\na\nAssemblyman Burke from southern California. Do you think\nthat this was out of his jurisdiction to ask the U. S. to withdraw\nfrom the United Nations? Would you sign such a bill?\nA\nI don't think it is -- well, I'm not in a position to sign\nsuch a bill. I think that -- I don't think there is any question\nbut that he is voicing the sentiment of a great many Americans\nincluding myself, that all alternatives should be considered from\nwithdrawal to reduction of funds to whatever, to show our indigna-\ntion at what has been obviously nothing but political expediency\nin the United Nations. I voiced my disgust yesterday at this, my\nfeelingmabout it. And I canlt speak too strongly about it.\nI\ndon't think there was any morality in the action that was taken at\nthe U.S. N. whatsoever, and I think if the U. S. government does not\ntake some action that shows its displeasure the people of this\ncountry are going to be very angry, indeed.\nQ\nGovernor --\n8\nI notice in the telegram here you referred to the immoral\naction of the General Assembly in kicking out Formosa. I was\nwondering if you considered at all immoral the United State's\naction for several years of keeping mainland China with 700 million\npeople, that are represented in this rural nation?\nA\nNo, I don't think it was immoral, and I think it is somewhat\nimmoral today, the wording of the Albanian resolution, to suggest that\nsimply by taking over a people by force to never giving those people\nan opportunity to -- by referendum to vote and agree that this was\nthe government they wanted, to hold them in bondage literally just\nover a passage of time makes that government automatically the\nlegitimate government of the 700 million people. I think\nthe\nquestion still remains as to whether the government in Peking is\nthe representative of 700 million people or whether it is holding\nin bondage 700 million people.\nQ\nDo you see any contradiction, for example, to support a\ncountry like the Union of South Africa, the white government doesn't\nsupport or obviously represents its people, and not in the past\nsupport the mainland china?\nA\nThe charter of the United Nations makes it very plain that\nthe United Nations cannot interfere with the internal problems of\nany country. So the charter itself prevents what you are talking\nabout. But, again, we had recognized for many years that Chiang\nKai-Shek's government is the government of China, and it was on this\nbasis that we -- that we took our stand. Now, the plain and simple\nfact is that this year it became apparent that we no longer had the\nvotes and could prevent the action with regard to the seating of\nCommunist China, so the U. S. took the position then of, all right,\nwe would agree to that providing that both Chinas were retained\nin the U. N., and this left still the internal matters of -- between\nthe two contesting governments as to who was the legitimate ruler\nor government of China, and this is the matter upon which we lost.\n0\nGovernor --\nQ\nGovernor, you said --\nA\nWait a minute, he was interrupted earlier.\n8\nGovernor, what did President Nixon say to you regarding\nthe U.N. situation?\nA\nWell, I think that any questions about what he said to me, you\ndon't quote the President. I think that -- I don't think he'd mind\nif I told you that when I told hihm I didn't sleep very well the\nnight before after the decision, he said he hadn't slept very well\neither, but beyond that I think you'd have to ask the White House\nwhat --\n8\nMeanwhile back in California.\nQ\nWait a minute. Wait a minute.\nI\nNo, wait a second.\n8\nStay in the Orient a second. Could yougive us a brief\nsummary of your trip, any impressions you received or anything you\nmight have ahanged your mind on or, you know, how the -- how did the\ntrip go?\n-13-\nA\nOh, well, let me -- I'm not going to pose as anainstant\nexpert, I don't like pepple that go there for 48 hours and suddenly\nknow how to run the show. But I will say this, first impressions\nand a lasting impression, in all of the six nations that we visited\nis that we better shorten our lunch hour. It sounds strange to\ntalk of -- of a pioneering atmosphere when you were in a country\nthat has a civilization and a history that is thousands of years\nold and yet that was the only way to describe it. It was -- it\nwas like an American in a younger day. The energyy the drive, the\nprogress that they are making and usually Americans have gone abroad,\nI suppose, with the idea that we have some know-how to impart to\nthem. I want to tell you, I came home wanting to impart some\nknow-how here at home. On some of the things that I saw, from\nthe great ship building yards in Kobe to Singapore which to those\npeople who were concerned about the environment, Singapore, I\nswear, must be the cleanest city in the entire world, bar none.\nAnd this -- this extends not only to litter and to cleanliness, but\nto even the elimination of -- of pesty insects, and so forth. But\nevery country that -- the drive and the progress that they are\nmaking is so fantastic, when you compare the growth rate and produc-\ntivity of Japan last year was 14.2 per cent and in the United\nStates it was only 1.9 per cent -- I think that sometimes perhaps\nsome of the hierarchy of organized labor in this country should\ntake a trip abroad.\n8\nHow did you like the food, Governor?\nA\nWhat? It was wonderful, and I even mastered chopsticks.\nI have a secret to tell you, I didn't really have to wait till\nI went there to master them, I had to learn to use them in a\npicture once.\n8\nGovernor, if you think the U. S. doesn't take some action\nthe people will be unhappy, do you think if President Nixon fails\nto take some sort of action that it will harm his chances for\nbeing remominated next year?\nA\nI'm not going to comment on this in the context of politics\nor anything, I'm only going to say that I think the U. S. govern-\nment should reveal Its understanding of the fact that the United\nNations has not lived up to the great dreams that we had for it\nsome years ago.\n-14-\nQ\nGovernor, you said --\nA\nAnd certainly, among other things, a reorganization is\nnecessary. And you have a situation in which, as I said yesterday,\nmore than 50 per cent of the nations who can win a vote -- now this\nwas not true in this instance, in this particular vote. There\nwere major nations involved on the other side, but you can actually\nmuster a better than 50 per cent vote among nations that represent\nless than 10 per cent of the total population, of the world.\nD\nGovernor --\nD\nGovernor, it is a political context to what we are talking\nabout, because in the -- there is an election coming up next year,\ndo you think that it will have any effect on President Nixon's\nchances for renomination or re-election?\nA\nI just want to wait and see if we aren't going to take\nan action.\nQ\nOne question on the United Nation. In the future, as\nin your years as Governor, will you sign any proclamation dedlaring\nUnited Nations Day in California?\nA\nWell, you say any time in the future, they might have\nthat reorganization. If they put one on my desk right now, no, I\nwouldn't sign it.\nMR. RODDA:\nThank you, Governor.\no0o\n-15-\nL1/11\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nNOVEMBER 17, 1971\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nPRESS CONFERENCE\nOF\nRONALD REAGAN, GOVERNOR\nOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\nTHE BRIEFING ROOM\nAT 12:35 P.M. EST.\nMR. ZIEGLER: The President has just met with\nGovernor Reagan for an hour and a half. They talked about\nthe recent trip Governor Reagan took as a personal representa-\ntive of the President between the period of October 9 to the\n23rd, to Asia. The Governor was the personal representative\nof the President to the Republic of China's national celebration\non October 10.\nThe Governor will give you a rundown on their\ndiscussions and take your questions.\nGovernor Reagan.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: There is nothing in the line of\nan opening statement except to continue the remarks of Mr.\nZiegler and tell you that this finally was my report to the\nPresident on that trip and my meetings with the various Heads\nof State in the six countries we visited.\nSo if any of you have questions, go ahead.\nQ\nGovernor, did you also talk about any of- the\nproblems you have expressed that you have with the agencies\nlike HEW?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I reported to him the state\nof our welfare reforms, for example, and where we are with\nregard to those areas where we must have waivers from HEW.\nQ\nGovernor, how would you characterize your report?\nAre things looking good over there for us? What did you tell\nthe President?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I told him, as I am sure you can\nall realize and as we well understand, that when I was there,\nwhat with the Peking visit and all, there was an occasion to\nreassure the people in those countries that this country had\nno intention of abandoning its alliances or its friendships\nor treaties with those various nations.\nFor example, in Taiwan, and the President himself\nhas confirmed, this Nation is still committed to its alliance\nwith Taiwan.\nMORE\n- 2 -\n0\nGovernor, did you get the feeling that they\nbelieved what you were saying or were there still questions\nin their minds about that?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I had a very distinct feeling in\neach place we left that there was a reassurance and they\nwere easier in their minds, because we would usually segue\nfrom that kind of talk into one of the things I was interested\nin, particularly from our own California standpoint, as well\nas the Nation's as a whole, and that was the expansion of the\ntrade that already exists between us and the commercial\nrelationships, and we had good meetings on that score.\nQ\nGovernor, was there anybody else in this\nmeeting this morning besides yourself and the President?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No, I was reporting to the President.\nQ\nDid the subject of domestic politics per chance\ncome up?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, no more than some chit-chat\nbetween us over coffee about the recent dinner with the closed\ncircuit television, and comparing notes of what it was like\nat our dinner in Los Angeles and what it was like at the dinners\nhe attended.\nQ\nGovernor, a number of conservatives in this\ncountry are supposed to be unhappy with some of the things\nthat the President has done, such as the Peking visit. Do\nyou think there is a way of getting through to these people\nand explaining? Are you trying to explain this or do you\nagree with the President's position?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, as a matter of fact, and that\nyes is to all your questions, that there is a way. There\nis no question but that based on our past history and the\nrecord of things that you refer to as the conservatives\ndisagreeing with, all the way back to Yalta and Potsdam and\nsome of our international relations, that these people would\nbe concerned with the announcement that a President of the\nUnited States was going to Peking.\nI have found already, in pointing out to them that\nthere might very well be reason for that concern, if someone\nelse were going to Peking, based on the past record of\nperformance, but that this President has certainly revealed\nthroughout his entire public career, an awareness of the great\nfundamental differences between our philosophy and that of the\nCommunist nations, and that he has said only that he is\ngoing to try and establish communication to try and take us\na step further away from confrontation, and that he has made\nit perfectly clear that he has no intention of abandoning\nold friends or breaking any of our alliances with our friends.\nI have found when it is presented to them in this way, that\nmost people who were disquieted by this announcement see it\nin a different light.\nI am sure after he has completed the trip, they will\nfind that their fears were groundless.\nMORE\n- 3 -\nQ\nDid you discuss this in this context with him\nthis morning.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, only in the sense that it\nfigured in the report. Naturally there were, in the countries,\naudiences--for example, with President Chiang Kai-shek there\nwas this concern about was there any possible change in\nAmerican policy--and I was authorized to reassure them that\nno, there was not, and yes, we were still allies and we\nintended to be that way.\nQ\nI meant in the context of American politics and\nthe possible discontent of conservatives here. Did you discuss\nthat with the President?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Oh, no, there was no need for that,\nbecause we have had conversations about that before.\nQ\nGovernor, back to this welfare question for a\nminute, did the President give you any kind of assurance that\nthe waivers necessary to carry out your programs in California\nwould be granted?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, Lou, let me just answer it\nthis way and tell you that the President from the very first\nhas approved our approach to the welfare reform and the\nexperiments, for example, in the community work forces, the\nexperiment of seeing if we can recreate a community work\nforce out of people who are on welfare.\nHe has approved that and approved that and approved\nsuch an experiment in California. He did so in San Clemente\nseveral months ago, and he hasn't retreated from that position\nat all.\nQ\nGovernor, are there other issues the conservatives\nare exercised about, policies of this Administration?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No, I don't think SO.\nor\nGovernor, when you called the President the\nday after the U.N. vote expelling Taiwan, what did you say to\nhim?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I expressed my great regret and told\nhim I hadn't slept very well the night before, and he confessed\nto me he hadn't slept very well either. I said I was sure\nthat the people, a great many Americans, were going to be\ndisturbed about what had happened, and he also was disturbed\nabout what had happened.\nQ\nGovernor, when you meet with Senator Buckley\nthis afternoon, are you going to try to enlist his help in\nrallying the conservatives around President Nixon?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I don't know whether that\nwill be necessary. Jim Buckley and I aren't as well acquainted\nas Bill Buckley and I are, and it was just that being here,\nI wanted to touch base.\nMORE\n- 4 -\nWe had met in California recently when he was out\nthere. He came out to do some chores for us, politically,\nand I wanted to meet with him and exchange views and tell\nhim a little about the trip I was just on.\nΩ Governor, in a larger sense, do you think the\nPresident has any serious problems with the conservatives\nin this country, politically in terms of their support of him?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: None that cannot be resolved,\nfor example, by the outcome of the Peking trip. I think this,\nand then coming on top of it, the affair at the United Nations,\nhas been disturbing, and as I say, I think it is disturbing\nto many Republicans. I won't even use the label conservative.\nIt has been disturbing because in the past history\nthere has been a case of appeasement here and there in our\ndealings on the world level, but I think it is easy to point\nout that this appeasement has usually taken place under the\nopposition Party, and I think when they find out that the\nPresident has no intention of going and bargaining away anything\nthat is of value to the United States, they will be reassured.\nQ\nGovernor, would you give us some examples of\nthis sort of appeasement you are talking about in the past?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I think in Yalta and Potsdam,\nthe agreement we made with the Russians. I think in the so-called\nCuban missile crisis, we never claimed our part of the agreement\nfor the settlement of that so-called dispute. I think the\nfiasco in the Bay of Pigs, the tragedy there was certainly\nnot to the credit of the United States, and very frankly, I\nthink that the whole matter of the whole Vietnam war, up\nuntil this Administration, when it was just a kind of aimless\npouring more and more men into the mill in Vietnam, with\nno solution in sight, and unwillingness to win, and yet no ability\nto get out, was an example of foreign policy that was misguided.\nI think the fact that this President is winding down\nthe war and winding it down in such a way that South Vietnam\nis not going to be deserted by its allies, but is going to be\nin a position to take care of itself as a nation, should indicate\nthe difference between a policy that just went from day to day\nhoping that a miracle would happen and somebody who had a plan\nand an idea.\nQ\nHave you been asked or do you intend to go out\nand speak in defense of whatever policies the President may\nhave invoked that seem to disturb the conservatives?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Oh, no. My participation in that\nsort of thing has already been resolved. I have been getting\na number of requests from around the country to speak to\nRepublican groups, as we get close to a campaign year, and\nwe turned all of those invitations over to the National Committee\nand let them make the choice, because I can't accept them all.\nSo we let them decide which are the ones they think I\nwould be most valuable in, and that situation still maintains.\n- 5 -\n2\nDid you discuss with the President the California\nprimary, particularly the prospects of a slate opposed to the\none you plan to lead?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: That never came up.\n2\nGovernor, what impact do you think today's\ndevelopments in Thailand will have on that part of the world\nand America's role in that part of the world?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I am afraid a two week trip\nto the Orient did not make me an Asian expert. Some kinds\nof people become experts on that kind of a trip, but I am a\nslow student.\nI would only just hazard this: I doubt that this\nmeans a very great fundamental change in the picture in Thailand\nQ Governor, what would you advise the President\ntoday, now, in respect to the United Nations and the support\nof it, both financially and morally?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, now, Governors don't usually\nadvise the President.\nMORE\n- 6 -\n0\nYou did have a conversation with him at the\ntime of the vote?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, I think that the United\nStates is keeping an eye on our relationship there in that\nbody and where we should go. Perhaps I might have a position\nthat would be one of some immediate changes. I think that\nthe United Nations -- and this is not a new position since\nthe vote, I said this at the time of their anniversary when\nmany of them journeyed out and there was quite, as you know,\nan affair in San Francisco, the scene of the birth of the\nUnited Nations -- I said at that time I thought that part of\nthe United Nations Charter or rules that it provided for\nsubsequent review for the U.N. after it had been in operation\nfor a while to see if changes should be made. That it\nwas high time they had that review and I think there are changes\nthat should be made.\nI think perhaps a more realistic membership balance\nto overcome the fact, that today nations containing less\nthan 10 percent of the world population can actually carry\nthe vote in the U.N., should make us reconsider as to how\nfar we would be bound by a United Nations vote.\nQ\nThe Administration has now given up the hope\nof having welfare reform put into effect during this term\nof office. That is, it has given up on Congressional passage\nthis year and it takes 12 to 18 months to put it into effect\nafter that.\nDoes that make you unhappy?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Not at all. As long as they let us\ntry the welfare reform that we are putting into effect and\nsome other States have put various parts, of the same kind of\nthing we have been talking about, into effect, I think it is\na great opportunity to do some experimenting and perhaps\nknow more about the whole welfare problem than we know, or\nthen we have been able to see from the standpoint of a\nnational reform.\nI do not hold with the idea in this instance, that\nWashington has all the answers with regard to welfare. We\nare out where it is working. We have to make it work. And\nfrankly, it is probably one of the most colossal social failures\nthat we have in our government, is welfare as it is presently\norganized.\nQ\nOn that point, Governor, there are reports\nthat an amendment is going to be offered to the tax bill today\nwhich would give a billion dollars, as I understand it, to\nthe States to help reimburse them for the very heavy welfare\nexpenditures. Did this come up this morning and do you have\na position on that?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I don't know what the details of\nthat would be. It certainly didn't come up, anything about\nit. The answer in my book has never been one of finding a\ndifferent way to finance it. Those States, which out of\ndesperation, have said if the Federal Government would only\npay for it and just take it off our backs. That is not\nreform. Because the same taxpayers pay for it.\nMORE\n- 7 -\nIt doesn't matter who is collecting the tax, the\nState, the county or Federal Government. The answer is to\nreform the program and in California, with only a few\nadministrative changes and a great spotlight turned on welfare\nas we turned it on in attempting to get our welfare reform,\nbeginning last winter, at the end of November we will be\nable to announce that for eight consecutive months the\nwelfare case load in California has been going down. We had\n119,000 fewer people on welfare at the end of September\nthan we had in March when we started and the importance\nof that can be seen when I tell you that for several years\nprior to that, welfare in California averaged increasing\n50,000 cases a month.\nQ\nWhat happened to those 119,000, Governor? Did\nyou run any spot check on how they are subsisting?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No, we have been so busy implementing\nthese things we haven't done that, but I think some of the\nsame thing could be seen there as in New York where the\nGovernor in New York ordered them to pick up the checks\ninstead of having them mailed and 22 percent of the people\ndidn't pick up the checks. I don't know whether it is\n22 percent of the people or 22 percent of the checks and\nthe explanation of that is one of the things I think we are\nlearning is that a great many people have discovered they\ncan get more than one check and when they had to come in and\npick them up in person, there was the fear of being caught.\nQ\nGovernor, many conservatives are very unhappy\nwith the OEO bill that is nearing final approval on the\nHill and that would shift legal services from OEO and\nremove your veto and the veto of other Governors and create\na new legal services corporation.\nDid you have occasion to discuss this with the\nPresident?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No.\nOr\nIn any case, would you like him to veto the\nbill should this provision remain in it?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: We didn't discuss it and let me\npoint out in California I never discuss a bill as to whether\nto veto it until it actually gets to my desk. As I said, out\nthere what starts in the Legislature as an orange sometimes\ncomes out as an apple.\nI don't know what the bill will be. Let me just\nsay that I am in favor of a correction and a change in the\npresent legal assistance program because for the very reason\nthat we vetoed the rural legal assistance program in\nCalifornia. They are not working the way they were intended\nto work and the people that were intended to have personal\nand private help in their legal problems were not getting it.\nWe have some idea and we have been authorized to try\nan experiment in California and we are going forth implementing\nthat to see. Just to simply take away the Governor's veto\nI think, is a step backwards, because once again, the Governor\nis on hand at the scene and able to know whether it is working\nor not and I think the Governor should have the authority\nto veto the program.\nMORE\n- 8 -\nQ\nDo you think in 1972 the old historic rule of\ngeographic balance ought to be a major consideration in putting\ntogether the Republic National ticket?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I wonder what you are getting at\nwith that question. Would it be an answer to your question if\nI told you that the only plan I have and the only desire I have\nis to continue being Governor of California for the rest of this\nterm.\nQ\nWill you go further then and tack on the General\nSherman statement -- I ask this in all seriousness -- are you\nat this moment ruling yourself out between now and 1972 for\nany place in the National ticket?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: That is right.\nQ\nDo you believe Vice President Agnew should remain\non the ticket?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes.\n0\nGovernor, Senator Cranston says he expects you to\nbe his opponent if he runs for re-election in 1974. Is that a\ngood guess on his part?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I don't know whether it is a good\nguess or not, but I will not say anything that will relieve\nhim of the worry for the next three years. He ought to have\nsomething on his mind.\nH\n0\nRon, Governor Reagan said when he represented the\nPresident on Taiwan he tried to reassure the China Government\nthat we would maintain our commitments. In view of the fact\nthat Mainland China now is in the United Nations and Mainland\nChina claims absolute sovereignty over Formosa, does the\nPresident still continue his promise of military support for\ndefense of the Government of Formosa?\nMR. ZIEGLER: I think the Governor represented the\nPresident's view very clearly on the U.S. commitment to Taiwan\nand the U.S. position is that we stand fully behind the defense\ncommitment to Taiwan. President Nixon has made that very clear\nin many statements which he has made and there is no change in\nthat policy, nor will there be a change in that policy. The\nUnited States stands fully behind its defense commitment to\nTaiwan.\nQ\nRon, is H.R. 1 still a top priority bill for the\nAdministration?\nMR. ZIEGLER: Well, Secretary Richardson spokes about\nthe matter yesterday and Governor Reagan pointed out to you\nthat the President and Governor Reagan have had a very\nproductive discussion about welfare reform and the need for\nwelfare reform. H.R. 1 is welfare reform and remains high\non the Administration's docket.\nQ\nWhat about plans for this afternoon?\nMR. ZIEGLER: Jerry Warren will brief at 4:00\n0\nDo we have a lid until then?\nMR. ZIEGLER: Yes, sir.\nTHE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.\nFND\n12.53 P.M. EST)\n/\n11/22\nPRESS CON. RENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD NOVEMBER 22, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript, of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because ofthe need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n--000---\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning, I have an opening statement.\nIt isn't -- I don't have any release on it. It's ad lib. But I\nwould like to ask -- I'd like to ask your help and cooperation.\nI'd like to ask it also of the electronic media. As a matter of\nfact,\nI\ncan\nalmost\n:\nputet\nit on an equal time basis, but not on\nbehalf of myself, but equal time for the young people of California.\nThe confusion persists about the venereal disease education bill\nin the schools. It has been carried recently on a number of outlets\nof the eletronic media, it has been carried recently in the press,\nit has been extended to a county health officer who's reported ine\none of the papers from Los Angeles making a statement. Let me make\none thing plain. Number one, all of us should be in support of\nvenereal disease training and education in our schools. I have\nmade a public service television film tothat extent, urging parents\nto call attention on the part of their own schools where their own\nchildren are going to the need for this. It is epidemic proportions.\nI have met with Wilson Riles. Guidelines have gone out to the\nschools. We have made $200,000 of public health money available\nfor this, and for the start of a program to indoctrinate first the\nteachers, a training school for the teachers in order to institute\nthis immediately. No consent of the parents is needed. The law\nthat I vetoed I vetoed simply because it was unneeded, and it did\ncross out one thing that I think is essential and should not be\neliminated. It memely requires that the parents be notified that\ntheir children are going to get this training.\nNow, as I say, we have proceeded, we are on our way with the\nprogram and I hope that all of you will take advantage of the oppor-\ntunity to make this public and to let the parents know so that they\ncan encourage schools to go forward. There is no way that teachers'\n-1-\ncredentials are threatened, they do not have to get consent to\nhave this program, and I urge the immediate expansion of training\nof this kind because it is a problem that is hurting our young\npeople. It is of epidemic proportions.\na\nGovernor, is it a coincidence that you are making this state-\nment, holding this press conference at precisely the time when\nMarch Fong is seeking to override your veto of her bill dealing with\nvenereal disease education?\nA\nNo, I have just returned, I am not concerned about that\nat\nall. I am concerned when I try to keep up or catch up with the\npress out here that I have missed while I've been at the Governor's\nConference, and discovered someone that's supposedly knowledgeable\nas a county public health officer giving a public address to other\nprofessionals in the field and saying that at the moment they cannot\ngive this course in the schools.\nAnd this information seems to\nhave been spreading more and I go by my own mail of people who want\nto know, people who have contacted me want to know why the state\nshould not favor this kind of a program. Favor it, we are\nenthusiastically in support of it, and I would suggest that anyone\nwho questions this can check with the Superintendent of Education\nor the State School Board about our meeting. I think you'll find\nthat it is going forward and the plans are already being laid and\ncarried out for teachers' indoctrination or training re: indoctrima-\ntion with the materials and so forth that will be used in the\nprogram.\n8\nAnd after being notified the parent does have a right to\nsay, he doesn't want the student in that class, right?\nA\nA parent can -- yes, a parent is notified, but there is a\ngreat difference between a parent, whether for religious reasons\nor whatever, saying I want my child excused from that class, and a\nparent having to give a consent in order to train or to teach the\ncourse. And I just believe that the one thing that the bill would\nhave done was simply remove the necessity of informing the students\nand I just think that there is too much of a tendency today of\ngovernment to put itself between the parent and the child, and\ntherefore this bill -- it wasn't worth it to just simply take this\none factor out of notification. Good Lord, the schools cananttify\nthem every week of a PTA meeting by way of the students. It is\ngoing to be no strain on the schools and as I say, wenhave already --\n-2-\nour staff has hel d Wilson Rilessand last We the guidelines went\nout for the notification to the parents and how this is to be done.\nThey have gone out to the school districts already.\nQ\nGovernor, under the current law can a parent remove his\nchild from the educational course in V. D.?\nA\nYes.\nOh, yes, and under a number of other courses also.\nQ\nIsn't that sort of a form of granting permission to --\nA\nWell the thing that I'm trying to correct is an inference\nthat has been made or a misunderstanding that consent of the parents\nis required in advance or you can't have the course or teach the\ncourse. And I think the -- the bases of the right of a parent or\nthe -- of a parent to withdraw a child from a class in school --\nthis has been a rather inherent thing where certain religious\ndifferences and so forth have occurred about certain courses for a\nlong time. They can do it in sertain areas of physiology classes\nright now.\nQ\nGovernor, notification of PTA meetings is often done by just\nsending a note home with the child. What are the guidelines for\nthe type ofnotification that would be required in this case?\nA\nWell, these were drawn up last week while I was gone, I'd\nhave to ask Ed here exactly what they said, but I know in the meeting\nwe had with Wilson Riles we offered that help to him, he accepted.\nSo what has been the result, what is the nature of it?\nED MEESE: The law requires that the notice be sent home\nin the same manner, customarily used for sending home noticies, which\ncan be by the students, by the mails or whatever way is normally\nused. That's the way the law provides.\nQ\nIt is all it requires, a simple statement that a course will\nbe taught, or is the notice more than that?\nED\nMEESE: It requires the statement that a course will be\ntaught and that the instructional materials will be available\nif any parent wants to look at them.\nQ\nDoesn't notify the parents that they have a right to withdraw\nthe students from the course?\nED\nMEESE: I think that probably would be in the notice\nalso.\n8\nGovernor, concerning another veto of yours on the methadone\nbill, your message, you said that we should learn how effectively\nthese programs are meeting their goals.\nThe President of the\nFederal Food and Drug Administration and the Bureau of Narcotics and\nDangerous Drugs have seen fit to use information\ncountry to recommend that methadone is safe and effective for\ntreating heroin addicts. Did you use that same information or are\nyou aware of information not only in California but the rest of the\ncountry?\nA\nWe now have a five million dollar program and it is being\ncarefully watched. Whatever the Food and Drug people said, I can\nonly tell you that there have been deaths from overdoses of methadone.\nIt is an addictive drug, even though it doesn't have some of the\ndeletery side effects of heroin. And there is an addiction problem.\nThere's even a problem of some individuals who go out in spite of\nthe prescribed doses and get additional on the black market the same\nas they would go out for heroin or anything else. And our feeling\nwas that this bill was premature. That we have this program,\nfive million dollar program going. We have it being carefully\nwatched. The program that was in the legislation, we don't know\nit might be too small or it might be too big. It was just\npremature. That if this program, when our people come back to\nus with recommendations, they may recommend going much fatther and\nall out, but there are still some unanswered questions in it and\nwe are depending on our own experts in this who are -- who are\nconducting the program right now.\n0\nGovernor, how do you feel about funding the program similar\nto the probation subsidy where you pay the county for people kept\nlocally rather than going to state prison?\nED\nMEESE: That bill hasn't come down yet.\nA\nThat hasn't come down.\nD\nAnother subject.\nA\nAll right.\n8\nGovernor Reagan, the other night on the David Frost show he\nasked, if you found yourself in the same tax position this year\nwould you pay taxes or not? You said you'd pay them anyway because\nyou didn't want the furor. Does that make sense? I mean, if it\nwasn't wrong last year it isn't wrong this year, is it?\nA\nNo, it doesn't make sense, and it didn'tmake sense last year,\nThe whole fuss that was raised. But what I said to him was and that\nconversation will show, that after -- after the clouts on the head\nthat I took I was going to tell my lawyer that if I was Simon Pure\nand didn't owe a dime. I was going to invent something, Make a\n-4-\ncontribution to the state.\nQ\nIsn't that illegal?\n(Laughter)\nA\nIt might be, then it would be up to the Franchise Board\nto come back and force me to take the money back.\no\nIf they send you a refund, what would you do with it?\nA\nWhat? Well, could I give it to charity, which would\nincrease my deductions for the next year.\n0\nGovernor, there is a group in Oregon which is involved\nin a letter writing campaign now urging you to become involved in\nthe presidential campaign. I wonder if some of those letters have\nreached you and what your reaction to that is.\nin Oregon is.\nA\nThat's the first I heard of it. The letters mayhave\nreached here, but as I say, this is my first morning back. No, my\nreaction is very simple. While at the Governor's Conference in\nIndiana Nelson Rockefeller and I co-sponsored a resolution that was\nunanimously passed by the Republic Governors supporting the\nrenomination and re-election of Richard Nixon.\nQ\nSpeaking of bills that are on your desk, when do you plan\nto take action on the Priolo 18 year majority? You've favored\nthe idea of giving the 18 yearolds the duties of citizenship now\nthat they have the right to vote.\nA\nWell, that bill we haven't had a chance to put that through\nthe usual process that we do in cabinet meetings, so I'd rather\nnot comment on it now.\n0\nThink you'll act this week?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nThink you'll act this week?\nA\nI hope SO.\nD\nNow, there is one sort of related bill that will not get to\nyou, I wonder if you've taken any position on that, it is the\nconstitutional amendments which will allow the people to vote on the\nquestion of letting 18 year olds drink.\nA\nWell, I -- on that one I can tell you, as I have said on\nseveral other bills before, regardless of how I might feel about\nhow the people should vote on it, I agree with the right of the\npeople to vote on it, to make that decision.\nQ\nGovernor, change of subject. Will you support legislation\nor sign legislation which provides for the state to pick up the cost\n-5-\nof the Angela Dav\ntrial?\nED\nMEESE: This is another bill that hasn't come down yet.\nJust to correct the record on the other one, the bill is down but\nhas not yet been considered by the Gove nor on the probation subsidy.\nA\nAs I say, that bill hasn't come down yet.\nQ\nGovernor, on another bill --\n(Laughter)\nQ\nWhat about the one that increases compensation for workmen\nthat are injured or killed in the course of their\nA\nWait a minute, are you talking about the --\nQ\nTalking about Assemblyman Fenton's Workmen's Compensation\nreform package.\nA\nThis one, has this come down yet, I --\nED MEESE:\nI think it is still in the Senate at the\npresent time.\nA\nIt is still in the Senate.\nED MEESE: At least we haven't considered it yet, Governor,\nin cabinet meetings.\nQ\nGovernor, there was an argument on the floor that these\ntwo bills are tied together and that you have agreed to sign both, but\nyou wouldn't sign one without the other. That was the inference\nor the implication that there was some kind of a deal made with --\nbetween business and labor that you were involved in.\nA\nYou use that word \"A deal made.\"\n(Laughter)\nA\nI don't --\nED\nMEESE: Governor, this is a case of bills relating to\nWorkmen's Compensation, and the general position taken, without\ndealing with specific legislation, is that the entire system should\nbe reformed rather than merely increasing the benefits.\nAnd I\nthink that was the discussion on the floor.\nD\nGovernor, what's your attitude towards Connally'as a Vice-\nPresidential contender?\nThere's some reports that you would oppose\nhim if he -- you knew, what would -- if the President decided to\ntake him as Vice President, what would your feeling be?\nA\nWell, I think in politics today, and most people recognize\nthat the President has a very large voice in choosing his running\nmate, at the same time that doesn't preclude people in his party\ngiving him counsel, and even pressing for some other candidate.\nI've made it perfectly plain I think Ted Agnew has been a great Vice\nPresident and I am one who believes that Ted Agnew should he on the\nticket. And I tl k a great many Republis - nost of them feel\nthat way. So that is my preference. It is a preference I certainly\nwould express to the President.\n0\nHow do you explain the sudden silence of Mr. Agrew and also\nthe renewed speculation of change, Governor?\nA\nWell, I can't comment on the speculation for change.\nPeople, particularly in political years, speculate on a lot of\nthings. But I do know that the recent twenty dinners connected by\nclosed circuit television, the President was most fullsome in his\npraise of Ted Agnew and the job he had done.\nQ\nWhat did you think of the Vice President's remarks about\nCongressman McCloskey, reference to Benedict Arnold.\nA\nWell, I think -- I got a couple of letters on my desk about\nsone one liners that I've used in some political speeches. I think\nthat it is nitpicking and it always seems to be one-sided nit picking.\nAlways aimed at one particular party. He made a humorous remark.\nHe was in a succession of the re-opening of his remarks of one\nliners on political matters and about potential opponents on the\nother side, and he was getting pretty good laughs, too, I might\nadd, and he got on this one and I don't think there was anything\nin bad taste or wrong about it at all.\nQ\nYou thought it was funny at the time he said it?\nA\nWhat?\n8\nDid you think it was funny at the time he said it?\nA\nYeah, I laughed.\n0\nGovernor, new subject. On reapportionment, some one is\nbound to ask you sooner or later, I suppose, the County chairman\nin Santa Clara County, both Republican and Democrat party have urged you\nto veto the current reapportionment bill because it splits Santa\nCalra County between six Senate Districts, one of which goes to the\nOregon border and the other one goes to the Arizona border. I wonder\nif you would comment on the Santa Clara County plan, specifically,\nand if you can tell us now whether you would veto the reapportionment\nplan since it has been merged with the Assembly bill, which gives\nAssembly democrats a 44 -- 33 --- 44 and 36 split.\nA\nWell, now] let me be general on one and specific on the\nother because I just haven't gotten back -- I haven't had a chance\nto sit down with anyone on what the details are or how far we have\ngone foward reconciling the differences between Republicarand Democrat\n-7-\nplans.\nAs\nto\nSar\nClara County, I think we\nive -- they have\na legitimate compaaint. I always say that reapportionment should\nbe based on what is best for the people, not their representatives.\nAnd that you should try as nearly as possible to have districts\nthat represent a community of interests where there is a logical\nreason, such as a county to have a representative and that -- not\nto be so divided up that the county literally has no representation,\nthat the -- they are such a tag end, each part of the county of ve\nsome other --of a representative's district that he can afford to\nmake decisions without taking their interest into mind, because\nthey do not represent a large enough segment of voters. And\nthat's for the specific answer. I think they have a legitimate\ncomplaint just from what I generally have heard. Now to the broad\nanswer, because I haven't seen the specifics and I haven't had a\nchance to meet with our leadership and see where we are, what the\ncompromises are that are being attempted, the changes that are still\nbeing contemplated, let me just say that once again this should\nguide us. I am opposed to gerrymanders whether they are Republican\nor Democrat. toThe people have-arright to believe that when a\nreapportionment comes along it will be based on what is the best\nrepresentation for the people, not creating a lot of districts that\nlike Jerry Martin said, look like skinny octopuses with long sharp\nfingernails or is it octopi?\nQ\nNew subject, Governor. You wouldn't necessarily veto\na bill just because it consolidated the Assembly with the\nSenate reapportionment?\nA\nOh, not on that as a principle. If -- if in an attempt to\nget one jerrymander passed by putting it in with a bill that they\nthought was all right and one that would be acceptable to me, that\ndevice won'twwork.\nQ\nGovernor, are you -- excuse me. Are you Saying that even\nthough the Republicans in the legislature supported this reapportion-\nment bill, ifyou found thatitoviolated community interests and have\njerrymandered too far towards the legislature, you would veto it?\nA\nI don't anticipate that the Republicans in the legislature\nand I are going to find ourselVesoon opposite sides. They know\nmy feelings and I must say that the plans that they have originally\nput forth I thought were very fair and w@re virtually neutral plans.\nNow, I want to meet with them before I give any answer, I want to\nfind out exactly what it is and what's going on in the attempts to\nreconcile the differences.\nD\nGovernon, cently a federal court Ju e in San Francisco\nblocked the continuance of a freeway in East Bay over there, and he\nruled because of inadequate relocation programs for the people in the\nway of the freeway, and also environmental policies. The state\nhas not yeb appealed that decision but a similar case in the State\nof Washington the federal circuit Court, rules against the state\nup there. Do you feel that the rulings will have any effect on the\nfreeways now in progress and those planned in the future in the\nstate?\nA\nWell, I don't know what effect they might have in the future,\nbut the minute I saw that I have asked and so far I don't have the\nreport yet -- I have asked for a report on this because it seems\nstrange to me because the policy of the Highway Division under this\nadministration has been to take into consideration not only environ-\nmental problems, but community problems, neighborhoods -- as a matter\nof fact, I'll recall to you that California is she state that for\nthe first time in history made highway building funds available to\nrelocate neighborhoods when it was inevitable that some neighborhood\nhad to be changed by a freeway, and so I was hard put to understand\njust what this was all about, and I can't believe that we have in some\nway changed our policy and I still don't have a report, so I couldn't\nI can't go beyond that.\nQ\nIn this case it was a -- federal funds were involved and\nrelocation program did not meet federal standards.\nA\nWell, let me find out what it is that develops. As a\nmatter of fact, the federal government in its policy of providing fund.\nfor relocating of neighborhoods, they got that idea from us.\nWe\nfirst brought that about to solve a problem down in central Los\nAngeles in the Watts area with regard to a freeway that -- it had\nnever been done in the United States before.\nQ\nGovernor, how do you feel about the sale of rare books as\na way of solving the economic problems and the univerity problem?\nA\nWell, I -- once again, this is like a rerun, do I get a\nresidual check because I think we talked about this a few weeks\nago at a press conference, or am I confusing you with somebody\nthat caught me at the elevator or something? Look, this report\nwas nothing more than the working papers of a group of auditors who\nwere supposed to put down, regardless of how they might personally\nfeel, every possible area they saw that might be an alternative for\n-9-\nworkable economies\nThe administration of th schools. They\nmade this available to the university authorities, as we told the\nuniversity authorities we would, before we even saw it, so that\nthey could put their input in. It is not the report -- no recommenda-\ntions have been made whatsoever, either by the auditors and certainly\nnot by us, and I have to tell you the university administration knows\nthis. And the Regents who brought it up know this. And they also\nnust know if they read some of your printings a few weeks ago,\nknow if that was an alternative presented to me, I believe the\nuniversity library is a repository for such things as rare books.\nIt is a proper place for them and I would be unälterably opposed to\nselling them and the university and whoever over there leaked this\ninformation and tried to make it that this was some kind of economy\nmove by this administration knew this when they leaked it, that it\nwas false. And we have had calls of apology about it from the\npresident of the University who is not a part of this leak, and who\nhas stated that he understood exactly what those audit reports\nwere and that he did not take them as a recommendation.\n0\nWho was responsible for the leak?\nA\nI don't know. I guess when a thing gets into a shop that\nbig there's always somebody that talks to somebody.\n0\nGovernor, have you decided what you are going to do on the\nState college name change bill?\nA\nThat one is on the desk.\nMR. ED MEESE: That was up for discussion of cabinet today.\nA\nThat is due for the cabinet discussion today.\nQ\nThe marginal costs of running the legislature is set at about\n$11,000 a day. Would you say at this point that the taxpayers are\ngetting their money worth?\nA\nNo.\n0\nWhy not?\nWhy?\nA\nI think that everything that had to be done in this legisla-\ntive session could have been done within the regular session and\nthey could have been out of here by the end of June or early July\nas they should have been. I think that there has been foot dragging\non the part of the leadership of the majority party. And that include:\nin some instances chairmen of committees. And I just say there was\nno need whatsoever f6r this session to drag on to where we might for\nthe first time in history have two consurrent sessions running, this\n-10-\none and the next one.\nQ\nWould you say Republicans would share that blame?\nA\nWould share what?\nQ\nWould share the blame.\nA\nNo, there isn't much we can do. The other side calls the\nturn nn this. Didn't last this long in the one session that I've\nhad where we had Republican leadership. Everything got done on\ntime.\nQ\nWill you support legislation to limit the number of days\nin session next time around?\nA\nOh, I don't know what the approach to this is. I would\nhope that maybe they have learned their lesson and they wouldn't\nneed anything like that, but if it need be, something must be done\nbecause I think this is disgraceful.\n8\nYou said you would not support it?\nA\nI didn't say that. I said I'd -- I said I would hope\nthat it wouldn't be necessary, but something has to be done, to not\nhave a reoccurrence of this.\n0\nAnother subject. If they should try to go on vacation\nnow you wouldn't call them back for a special session?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nIf they should try to go on vacation now you wouldn't call\nthem back for a special session?\nA\nOh, let's not -- you know I'm not going to announce in\nadvance where we are going to drop the bombs.\n0\nAnother subject. Governor, what happens if they pass a\nreapportionment plan and you veto it? Legally, what's the situation?\nWhat are you going to do in that situation?\nA\nThere are severaltthings. First of all, they can go back\nupstairs and try again, and I would hope they would. I don't think\nthe issue has been resolved yet as to the commission, as to whether\nthat commission is supposed to be prescribed. I believe that it\ndoes, and I would think that would be the next resort. Then, of\ncourse, there are other courts.\nQ\nGovernor --\nVOICE: Thank you, Governor.\nQ\nThere is a new recall Reagan drive that's under way and unlike\nthose in the past, it is a different group organizing it and also it\ncomes at a time when the Field poll shows your popularity is at --\n-11-\nat a point lower t..an those who support you. First, do you think\nit's got a chance? And what are its chances?\n(Laughter)\nA\nYou -- you'd have to check on that.\nI don't know that I\ngo along with Mr. Field in his poll either. I thought we had about\nthe widest public support on the welfare reform program that we have\never had on anything in this administration in these four and a\nhalf years, and I figure that those recall things, it is sort of\nlike the swallows coming back to Capistrano. Every time as we get\non the even of an election year, whether it is for the Governor's\nelection or not, there is a recall movement seems to spring up\nwith regard to me, and I figure it is just part of the game.\nO\nA few moments ago on the subject of whether 18 year olds\nshould drink or not, you felt that regardless of your personal\nopinions you endorse the idea of getting things on the ballot, or\nthat is allowing the voters to decide. In that spirit, would you\nsign a petition?\nED MEESE:\nNo.\nVOICE:\nThank you. Governor.\no00\n-12-"
}