Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564120",
    "label": "Transcripts - 02/16/1972, 02/29/1972, 03/07/1972, 03/21/1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564120"
}

{
    "id": "118564120",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564120",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 02/16/1972, 02/29/1972, 03/07/1972, 03/21/1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564120",
    "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-P03-013-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-013-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-013-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564120",
    "naId": 118564120,
    "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-P03-013-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "83373867b260ed5c",
    "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 -\n02/16/1972, 02/29/1972, 03/07/1972, 03/21/1972\nBox: P03\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\n91/2\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD FEBRUARY 16, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitbl press corps for their conven-\nience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as\npossible after the conference, no corrections aremmade and there is no\nguaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning.\nQ. Governor, Angela Davis has told the Superior Court in San Jose\nthat she intends to subpoena you to ask you what part you played in\nan alleged conspiracy against her and Black people in general.\nWould you honor that subpodna or would you fight it and what do you\nthink about her comspiracy charge?\nA. I'd have to get leval advise on that. I don't know what you do\nwith regard to subpoenas of that kind, but I -- I don't take it very\nseriously. Certainly there has been no conspiracy foranyone to\nparticipate in.\na.\nI.\nIf you got subpoenaed you would take it seriously,\nwouldn't you?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nIf you got subpoenaed you would take it seriously.\nA.\nThat's right, turn to my leval advisors and say, \"What do\nI do about this?\"\nQ.\nGovernor, do you favor -- do you favor amnesty for draft\nresistors who have fled to other countires and there is a proposal\nin Congress now to grant them amnesty. How do you feel about this?\nA.\nNo, I don't, and I think when amnesty is considered it should\nbe considered on an individual base. I'm quite sure there are some\npeople who very sincerely took this action and believed in what they\nwere doing. I think this should be taken into consideration. I\nthink there are others who just plain were devout cowards and ducked\nout and I don't think a blanket rule of this kind would be proper.\nA great many young men who probably disagreed with that war went over\nadd served and some were killed and some were wounded, and I think we'd\nbe setting a very bad precedent if you said to anyone that they could\nduck out on anything on the ground that they disagreed with it and then\neverything would be forgiven.\n-1-\nQ.\nGovernor\nQ.\nSame subject. Because it is not really a precedent, it's\nhappened during the Civil War and wars before.\nA.\nWell, I think when you talk about the Civil War you are talk-\ning about a case there of -- of a war and of a victorious side, that\ngranted amnesty to men not who refused to serve but men who with\ntheir own sincere belief fought on the othersside, And I think there\nis a great difference between that and between allowing the average\ncitizen to simply decide which laws he will obey and which he will\navoid. I'm quite sure there are a great many peopèe in this country\nwho could think of a number of government requirements that they would\nlike to ignore.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you favor a constitutional amendment to prohibit\nbusing in the schools?\nA.\nWell, I'm heartily in favor of the -- what the President is\ndoing in trying to find an answer to this problem and have so written\nhim, rmy support in what he's doing. I don't know that he -- that\na\nconstitutional amendment is the answer or whether it can be handled\nwithin our present law or statutorily, and I just -- I am opposed to\nmandatory busing myself. I do -- I believe it's been nonproductive.\nI believe it has created more bitterness rather than healing the\ndivisions that we are trying to heal. And so I support the President's\nsearch in the meeting that he's having with his cabinet committee in\nfinding an answer to the problem.\nQ.\nBut you have not made up your mind on the amendment, the\nconstitution?\nA.\nNo, because I -- I just don't know whether that is required\nor whether that is the best way or not.\nQ.\nGovernor, aside from having some criticism of your\ncatastrophic health plan, some of the Democratic leaders are proposing\na broader state health plan. Would there be room for compromise between\nyour plan and their proposals?\nA.\nOh, we: listen to any idea but I'm quite sure that some\nof them are thinking of a braader plan. I'm sure some of them are\nthinking about outright socialized medicine. As a matter of fact, there's\nbeen quite a wave of this going on in Washington right now. Senator\nKennedy's proposals. I don't believe in socialized medicine, even\nwhen you call it nationalized health insurance. We are trying to\nmeet a problem that affects the working men and women, so-called middle\nclass, the people that are paying the freight and supporting government\nin all its social reforms, yet who can be wiped out economically and\nwhole family life destroyed by catastrophic illness or serious acci-\ndent. So, of course, I'm sure that there will be those that would\nlike to broaden it to the kind of medical programthat I just mentioned.\nBut I believe we have made a proposal, this is why I announced it to\nthe people, that will not do what a number of other government programs\nhave done, and that is inflate the cost of medical care but will offer\na protection at an amount that is so low that you could not achieve\nthat protection on a voluntary basis. I am not one who normally\nwants to see the government mandating. This is why I -- explained\nto the people in the announcement that I've already made, this is\none of those cases where the government has proposed to the people\na service that can be rendered, does require it to be mandatory, and\nwe have told them what the charge would be and the people can make up\ntheir minds and thus influence their legislators on the basis of whether\nthey think that it is worth the charge.\nQ.\nGovernor, philosophically, what's the difference between\ntaking this step you are proposing and going all the way, so to speak,\nin having a state administered broad insurance policy to cover all\nmedical expenses?\nA.\nWell, because I just don't think that -- I think that govern-\nment should do those things that the people cannot otherwise do for\nthemselves. And I think this is one of those instances. It is\nimpossible on a voluntary basis except at a tremendously high premium\nfor private insurance to offer this kind of protection. We are\ntalking about a limited number of people each year who have within\ntheir family an illness or an accident that averages -- averages in\ncost $25,000 a year. Sometimes ittgoes as high as $100,000 a year,\nbut the average is $25,000. Private insurance could not, as I say,\noffer this except a/ a premium so high that only the wealthy could\nafford it. And the wealthy are not the ones who particularly have\nthis need. Now, the lowest economic level is provided for by Medi-Cal.\nThe most affluent, we believe, can take care of themselves, but the\nworking men and women, the ones that every once in a while there is\nhardly a month goes by that you don't pick up and read some story about\nsome citizen, some working citizen faced with this who has had to sell\nhis home and cash in his insurance if he had any, and then you say,\n\"What does he do next year,\" because this goes on through the years.\nAnd we have worked long and hard at this, we believe we have come up\nwith a proposal, we are willing to aceept any improvements to it.\n-3-\nBut we have come up th a proposal that will ac it on top of the\ninsurance that people are carrying -- about 85 to 90 per cent of our\npeople are now carrying some form of health insurance, added on will\nmeet that problem.\nQ.\nGovernor, the booklet on the -- the brochure that came out\nyesterday, the first part of it reads like an insurance agen'ts\npresentation. What industry input did you have, who helped prepare\nthis?\nA.\nYou will have to ask Earl Brian.\nQ.\nWe understand that it came from the Governor's office.\nA.\nWell, I know that we have been working with outside help.\nWe had actuarial help in arriving at the figures on this. We have\nhad input from a number of people in arriving at this plan. Now, who\nactually sat down and drew up that book, I haven't gotten into that.\nMR. MEESE: Governor, it was done by the Department iself\nwith consultation, with the cooperation of the Governor's office and\nthe cabinet. There was no industry, per se, input into the prepara-\ntion of the booklet.\nQ.\nGovernor, you said that you feel that your program won't\ninflate medical costs. But does it have in it any specific provisions\nthat put any kind of ceiling or control on that cost?\nA.\nNo. Is one needed? What we are talking about is so often\nthese broad plans like Medi-Cal, for example, without any -- when\nthis program prior to our reforms had no restrictions on use, what\nyou simply did was increase the demand with no provision for increasing\nthe supply. Now, this hasn't been done here. You have a case of\n\"x\" number of people in these illnesses, they are cared for now. So\nwe are not doing anything here with a program that is suddenly going\nto increase the demand. We know approximately how many catastrophic\ncases there are a year and catastrophic illness itself makes it plain\nthat there isn't someone lying over here endlessly for years without\ngetting the medical attention they need.\nQ.\nGovernor, Senator Moscone has slaimed that your plan would\nbe what he calls a boondoggle for private insurance companies. What\nabout that?\nA.\nWell, Senator Moscone is very often mistaken at the top of\nhis voice. And he's mistaken once again. This cannot possibly be\na boondoggle. The figures actuarily work out that this program\nprovides for a sum of money that meets the situation as we know it\n-4-\nexists now, in cata. rophic illness plus a smal. surplus which wisdom\nsays you should have, plus a reasonable amount of money for administra-\ntive costs, but more important this money is in a state fund. It is\nnot turned over to private insurance companies where they would have\nthis money available in the meantime to invest and make money on this\npool of money. There is no way in the world that there could be a\nboondoggle for insurance companies.\nQ.\nGovernor, Senator Moscone says that your plan amounts to an\n$8,000 deductible and that there is no provision in there for preventive\nmedicine. How would you respond to those cases?\nA.\nWell, again I think that Senator Moscone is dreaming of\nprograms that would be far beyond taking care of a particular problem,\ncatastrophic illness. The so-called $8,000 threshold, yes, there\nis for a person that is non-insured. But we are talking about 85 to\n90 per cent of ourppeople that would go through their regular health\ninsurance that they now have and coming to the end of that would then\nbe provided, if it was necessary, in those cases this catastrophic\nillness, whatever the cost might be, with no ceiling on it, whatsoever.\nThere is no such insurance today any place in the world. This would --\nthis would go on. New, the person who has no insurance, who perhaps\nfeels e-cdoesn't feel the need for it, has enough income or affluence\nthat without insurance feels he can provide for himself, this person\nas an earner would be covered and his family. So to implement his\nit would require that this individual spend up to $8,000 himself before\nhe then becomes eligible for this ongoing tremendous cost and the --\nthe difference in that would be that if you don't have that, if you\ntry to cover from the beginning on everyone, again you get into an\nexorbitant premium, a change against the people that is unwarranted\nbased on the actuarial statistics, the figure of how many people this\nis going to happen to.\nQ.\nGovernor, how many programs, health programs that people\nhold now are liable to qualify as basic health plans under your bill\nand are any people liable to have to switch programs because they dontt\nqualify?\nA.\nWell, I have somebody here who could answer that very --\nnot only the author of the bill, but I have Dr. Brian here who could\nanswer on that because it is true that a part of this that's been\nneglected in some of the accounts so far, and he's trying to make\nplain is yes, we are going to induce people to have a better health\n-5-\ncoverage than they ha\nNow you fill in if I\nSS on this, there\nare a great many health insurance plans that have great restrictions\nand don't go up as far as what we would consider the approved plan,\nbut the approved plans in those insurance companies that will write\ninsurance up to covering, say, that $8,000 figure, we will offer an\ninducement in that they well get a $300 deduction in their state income\ntax for having that kind of insurance. Is there anything that needs --\nMR. BRIAN: Governor, the only other point is it is totally\nvoluntary. Some persons not wishing to switch don't have to. But\nas we said yesterday, the e's 700 insurance companies providing 18,000\ndifferent plans. Most of the better known plans with minor modifica-\ntions, if any. are needed, will qualify as a basic approved plan, but\nagain the choise is left up to the individual purchasing the plan.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: If he wants to gamble on a lesser plan\nin that he would fill in that balance of $8,000 himself, 1f it should\nhappen to him, and then go to this other, that's up to him.\nQ.\nYou said you know how many cases there are of this type of\ncatastrophic illness. How many are there and about what is the cost\nfor each year to cover them?\nA.\nThey run -- roughly the avarage is 10,000 catastrophic cases\nin California a year, at an average cost of $25,000 a year.\nQ.\nGovernor Reagan, philesophically, what's the 'ifference between\na state mandated plan and a nationalized plan?\nA.\nWell, when we talk nationalized health insurance we are\ntalking about those people who would like to take something comparable\nto Medi-Cal and just simply cover everybody regardness of need. Force\nyou into that plan. Eliminate the need for private insurance and\nliterally -- well, what we see in England, they call it nationalized\nhealth insurance, in which you have socialized medicine and in England\nyou have bery little choice of dottor and you have all the rules and\nthe regulations that are set down and the doctor in effect becomes\nan employee of the government. And this is the thing that many people\nin this country believe we should turn to and yet the -- the plain\ntruth is medicine as it is practiced in the United States today has\nreached the highest level of medical care any place in the world and\nthere isn't any country with socialized medicine that can begin to\ncompare with what we have in this country under our private system.\nQ.\nGovernor, is one of the things you are willing to consider\nchanging this $8,000 figure? I mean would you lower that down?\nA.\nNo, if you -- if you lower that figure down, the $8,000 figure\n-6-\ndown, then you --\ntl.\n$36 goes out the window,\nnd\nyou\nhave\nto\nbegin raising this mandatory fee.\nQ.\nGovernor --\nDD. BRIAN:\nGovernor, there is also no reason to lower\nthe $8,000 figure because the basic plans build a floor under it and\nthese plans come up to that particular level and this is how this\nsignificantly differs from other catastrophic plans. 23 basic\n---\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: The basic -- the approved Insurance plans\nas Dr. Brian says, they now bring you up to that point so that the\naverage person with that kind of a plan would -- there would be no\ndifference, he would just simply keep on going if the case was\ncatastrophic.\nQ.\nThis $8,000 is any one illness by any one member?\nDR. BRIAN: This --\nQ.\nOf a family.\nDR.\nBRIAN: This $8,000 is an annual expenditure by an\nindividual for any number of illnesses. But again, I'd point out the\n$8,000 will relate to a relatively small number of people and the\nprimary interest is the basic health plan.\nQ.\nI wanted to ask, it doesn't cover the deductible in any way --\nmost of these plans you are talking about have deductibles, some of\nthem very substantial, which you would pay out of your own pocket.\nDR. BRIAN: Correett.\nQ.\nYou'll still do that?\nDR. BRIAN: Correct.\nQ.\nThis plan will not cover that in any way except that when\nthe Blue Cross, say, contribution and your contribution totals $8,000\nthen you would be picked up under the catastrophic?\nDR. BRIAN: No, the chances are if you had Blue Cross plan,\nregardless of the contribution, the contribution may well exceed\n$8,000, the $8,000 corridor does not apply. That's a service entry\nmechanism for Blue Cross type plans. If you didn't have insurance\nand you had a very marginal plan, then you would talk about the\n$8,000 corridor. Remember, the $8,000 corridor only applies to relative\nsmall number of people, generally, that aren't insured at all or\nhave a very minimal plan, so there is a big difference in there.\nA.\nEarl, I think what he's meaning is those that do have\ndeductible, I think it is in our plan that it will only be what they\nreceive from their insurance, but what they themselves spenti added\ntogether would be $8,000, it would be the total of that spending that\nwould be the threshc\nDR. BRIAN: Yes, sir, the point I was trying to make to Jack\nwas that most plans have some sort of deductibles and copayments,\nthese are basic plans. Now, the expenditure by the person reaching\nthe $8,000 limit for those plans does not apply in this case, to\nspeak of, because they are talking about entering on a service basis\nrather thanaa money basis. We are only talking about expenditures\nin those people who really don't have insurance or have a marginal\ntype 6f plan. So if you had a Blue Cross plan, for example, that\nmet those service standards of a basic plan, sure,dyou may have some\ndeductibles in co-insurance, but you'd get in regardless of the deduct-\nibles and co-insurance once you exhausted the plan benefits. For\nexample, Blue Cross now pays a hundred per cent of hospitalization so\nif you exhausted a hundred days of hospitalization, even though you\nmade no deductibles of co-insurance or copayment, you would go right\ninto the catastrophic plan which itself has no deductibles or co-\ninsurance.\nQ.\nGovernor --\nA.\nHere and then I!ll get back to you.\nQ.\nIn effect then you are taxing 8.4 million families to help\nperhaps 10,000 families a year. Isn't that a rather broad tax for a\nrather narrow number of people to benefit?\nA.\nNo, the odds work out because here we are playing -- people\nare playing Russion Roulette, and it can happen to any ore of us. It is\nlike any -- any insurance is a gamble that it isn't going to happen.\nYou pay your fire insurance on the basis of how many fires rationally\ndo you expect, what's the average a year? And your house may never\ncatch on fire, but you feel comfortable with having the fire insurance.\nThis is -- this low fee guarantees you that if you are one of those that\nit happens to you are not going to be wiped out. You are going to be\nprovided for without selling your home, or the rest. And the fee\ncan be this low if you have that many people. The reason the insurance\ncompany can't sell it on a voluntary basis is because then the fee has to\nget so high.\nQ.\nWell, Governor --\nQ.\nGovernor, isn't it more likely that the person who has below\nstandard health insurance or no health insurance at all is the guy\nwho's just above the Medi-Cal level rather than the wealthy man who\nops not to take it because he can afford to pay his own medical bills?\n-8-\nA.\nWell, I don't think SO. We have the medically indigent who\nare not actually welfare recipients in Medi-Cal, but I think more\nlikely you find the person who -- or there is as much chance that\nyou find the person; who feels, well, I've got a good job and I've got\nsome money in the bank, and I can pay my own docgor bills, and doesn't\nfeel the need for this. But whichever way the answer is that --\nthe answers and choices that are available to any individual, I think,\nmakeshhim able to meet his situation. If he wants to gahble that\nhe might have to mortgage his home for that $8,000 and so therefore\nhe won't worry about insurance, and he'll them come in on it, if it\nshould happen to him, well, that's his privilege.\nQ.\nGovernor --\nQ.\nI want to change the subject.\nQ.\nWait a minute, I want to ask, how do you keep the affluent\nout?\nYou say this, you know, wouldn't apply to the affluent.\nA.\nWell, yes, you don't keep them out. They, too, in their\nearnings are going to be paying for this. Anyone who is an earner.\nQ.\nA wage earner?\nA.\nYes.\nQ.\nWhat if theyeare just wealthy and not working?\nA.\nWell --\nDR. BRIAN: They have taxable income, Governor, over $500\na year, based on taxable income. They of course are voluntarily\nin the basic system, so as you say the very affluent may decide to\nrun the risk of spending $8,000 and then wait for the catastrophic ---\nQ.\nSo then really no matter how wealthy a person is he's going to\ncontribute to his --\nA.\nHe's going to contribute, yes.\nQ.\nGovernor, in past years this idea has been adamantly opposed\nby conservatives in general, and doctors in particular. Why is it\nnow suddenly becoming respectable in the conservative circles?\nA.\nWell, I'm not sure that this has been adamantly opposed.\nThe matter of the catastrophic illness in the past -- I think, was\ntaken care of in a number of ways. It was not only private charity\nbut also prior to things like Medi-Cal and Medicare I think most\ndoctors had a list of patients that they cared for on their own.\nIt was a private charity on the part of the doctor, and this has been\nlargely ignored in recent years by people who want to be critical\nof health care services, that for many years doctors carried people\n-9-\non their books or th just didn't even put the on the books at all.\nDoctors gave of their own time, a proportion of their time to help out\nin these things. But when government got in more and more into the\nfield of medical care and our own Medi-Cal and Medicaid, this began\nto sidappear for one thing. The government had pre-empted this field.\nAnd now you come more and more to this case of the -- of the catastrophic\nillness.\nQ.\nIs it because of a feeling that if we don't get this we\nmay have socialized medicine? Is that what prompts this?\nA.\nNo, I think there is a need for it. Let me add something to\nwhat I just said that also answers your question. I think adso in the\npast that a great many of these very expensive treatments did not\nexist and a lot of the people we are talking about today are alive and --\nand very bluntly their case was taken care of in the past because they\ndidn't live. But now with kidney dialysis and things of this kind\nwe have this -- this ability to heal andthis ability to keep people\nalive and in many instances living fairly comfortable lives in spite\nof these illnesses, but the cost is terrific and there is no -- no\nway out of it and this is -- I think this hasbcreated a new problem\nin medicine.\nQ.\nGovernor --\nA.\nHere and then I'll come to you.\nQ.\nThen a man who makes $5,000 and a man who makes $75,000 still\npays $36 a year, is that it?\nA.\nThat's right, yes. Yes.\nQ.\nGovernor\n:\nGovernor, it is the nature of things that\ninsurance companies make profits in activities they take part in.\nWouldn't it be cheaper to have the state administer the whole thing?\nA.\nWell, let's take Medi-Cal, priort to the reforms. Medi-Cal\npatients were averaging double the costs of the medical expenses of\nthe private citizen who paid for his own. No, I don't think you can\nmake a case that government really can do anything cheaper. than it can\nbe done at the private sector, because the very need to make a profit\nholds down overhead and militates against building up a giant bureacracy\nand I think -- I think government medical programs prove this. The\nmost expensive now -- and don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting now\nthat we cancel out our needed Veterans Hospitals, but you might be\ninterested to know that the most expensive medical care in the world\ntoday is the Veterans Hospital. So, no, I don't think that there --\nthat the profit motive at all is going to make --\n-10-\nQ.\nGovernor, we were told yesterday there was no profit built\ninto this for the insurance companies.\nA.\nThere isn't. There can't be. This thing -- this is built --\nthe amount of money that will come in with all the income receivers\nin the state involved, the amount of money is based on actuarial stand-\nards of 10,000 such cases a year, an average cost of $25,000 a year.\nIt adds a small surplus in case one year you have a few more people\nor a few more serious ailments which anyone would have to have that\nkind of a surplus built in, and what prorates out to a reasonable\nadministrative overhead. Whoever is doing it. And the fact that\nthe money is in a state pool of money, it is the state that will have\nthat money invested, and -- and it will be earning money for the\npublic rather than -- than reing in the hands of a private insurance\ncompany that might be using it for its own investments and thus making\na profit off the pool of money.\na.\nGovernor, if there is such a need for treatment of catastrophic\nillness, why haven't insurance companies done this on their own and\ndoesn't your plan actually mean government intervention, forcing them\nto do this?\nA.\nNo, as I said earlier, the private insurance companies have\nfound that the premium -- oh, they'd do it except that all of them have\nsome ceiling. You can get insurance policies that will pay up to\nwith\n$40,000. But again if you are/one of those $25,000 a year ailments,\nwhat do you do after 18 months when that's been used up? No, it is\na plain case of -- it was uneconomic to -- for an insurance company\nto try to sell the premium that would be necessary for an unlimited\nmedical treatment as to amount and time. And the only way it can be\ndone is on this basis and this is why we are submitting it to the\npeople. Now, if the people hear about this and the people analyze\nthis and we want them to know all the facts about it, and if the people\nthen say, look, we'd rather have the 36 bucks in our pocket, then I'm\nsure they will let their legislators know and there won't be any such\nprotection and we will still be left with the problem of the 10,000\nof us that it happens to each year, how do we meet that problem.\nQ.\nGovernor, you say some policies cover up to $40,000 for a\nyear.\nA.\nYes.\nQ.\nNow, if the state's going to take -- be willing to take for\n$3 a month everything over $8,000 and I think this is part of Senator\n-11-\nMoscone's boondoggle. remark, won'd the private urriers be likely to\nsuggest or renegotiate and get it down to where $8,000 is their\nmaximum and it would be so cheap for anyone to get all the rest of\nit for just $3 a month.\nA.\nWell, I think some individuals affluent enough to have that\nkind of a health insurance policy, he'll make the decision himself as\nto whether he wants to continue, maintaining insurance above that --\nabove that level.\nQ.\nI'm talking agout group policies, they are negotiating --\nA.\nWell, I doubt if any group policies would go up to that\nkind --\nDR. BRIAN: Again, Governor, the $8,000 number is not\napplicable here, they would verylikely negotiate down these policies\nin a vertical sense to the minimum standards, aa hundred days of hospi-\ntalization, 30 days of extended care. But a hundred days of hospitali-\nzation can cost much more then $8,000. In cases can run in the\nneighborhood of 30 -- 40 -- 50 thousand dollars in certain cases.\nThey will very likely negotiate these minimum standards. The $8,000\nis still an outlet valve for people that really don't have insurance\nand don't apply to most insurance policies. There is two different\nsituations.\nQ.\nGovernor, if no profit is built in for the insurance companies,\nwhy would they go for this? Certainly it is not a charitytthing.\nA.\nWell, L think it is something that they can't do. There\nis no real market for them.\n&\nBut they are going to make money on it, aren't they, somehow\nor else they wouldn't go --\nA.\nNo, I don't think how they --\nDR. BRIAN: Governor, I think in the broadest perspective\nin this state somewhere between 6 and 8 billion dollars will be spent\nnext year on health care. Assuming 7.5 billion, which will be 10\nper cent of the national total, the insurance companies will be\nre-issuing, 5 billion of that, this 300 million, is a relatively small\npart of 5 billion dollars in expenses or a relatively small part of\n7aand a half million, and it is something that cannot be done by the\ninsurance companies. The other part of it they can take care of there\nefficiently, so they see this as possibly being a partnership\nactivity.\nQ.\nWell, when the question is asked, why would the insurance\ncompanies go for it, what is it they have to go for? What does an\nA\nReally, 1. the ohly think is we wou. like to see the\ninsurance companies, as this gets under way, as we have said before,\nwe would like to see them just simply take over the administering of\nthis, and in other words, if you have a policy with one and you have\nreached that limit of your policy that they themselves would keep\nright on with -- if it was a catastrophic case, keep right on with the\npayment of that and bill us for the money.\nQ.\nYou would like to see them do it, but what if they don't\nor if someone is not covered, does the state then reimburse directly\nout of this fund?\nDR. BRIAN: For those persons who have no insurance it is\nintended to : BWC a fiscal intermediary contract, no profit, no loss\ntype of arrangement would be developed with different geographic\nportions of the state, and indicate $8,000 of expenses have occurred,\nthen submit their bills through an insurer in their area for claims\npayment. And then the insurer will bill the state when an aggregate\nnumber of claims or significant amount of money --\nQ.\nThe question does come back, what would induce an insurance\ncompany to do this if there is no profit or no loss, why would anyone\ntake on this job?\nDR. BRIAN: Well, it is a responsibility of the business\nthey have been in and find they are best capable of administering and\nit is something, for example, that fiscal intermediaries do now for the\nState of California and the Medi-Cal program and in the Medicare program.\nIt is a no profit, no loss contract now with Blue Shield, for example,\nand Blue Crosses, but they do administer the program and find\nthey have expert ability to do it.\nA.\nIt might be oflinterest to them also by cooperating in doing\nthat that it would forestall those who might empire build -- want to\nempire build, might want to see government expand this and get into\nthe insurance business itself.\nQ.\nGovernor, change of subject.\nSQUIRE: Wait a minute, let's finish on this thing. Any\nmore on this question?\nQ.\nI'm wondering how you could come up with a program dealing\nwith insurance that requires the assistance of management from private\ninsurance companies without having relied onthose insurance companies\nor private insurance sector for advice, input.\nA.\nWell, we employed professional advice here in getting the\n-13-\nactuarial figures as\nwhat amounts we'd need a\nwhat the premium\nwould have to be.\nQ.\nYou didn't, for example, get assistance from Blue Cross,\nBlue Shield, for example?\nDR. BRIAN: The plan generally was developed without involve-\nment of private insurers, be they profit or nonprofit. A number of\nthe people involved in developing the plan are quite expert on the\nsubject themselves, and gave this type of input. Then the plans were\npresented to profit and the nonprofit insurance companies and further\ninput was made and there were some minor modifications made from\nthat input. There will be in the future opportunity for more and more\ninput. But again they don't have a monopoly on the knowledge necessaril;\nand it didn't -- doesn't take a large number of people do devise the\nplan.\nQ.\nWhat kind of reaction did you get from the insurance\ncompanies?\nA.\nDR. BRIAN: Got :a mixed reactinn, depending on the type of\ninsurance company you are referring to. I think the minimum standard\nplan of developing standards that would insure the quality of most\nplans was pretty well accepted. I think the insurance companies who\nare not happy about the fact that the money now paid in premiums\nthat they can invest will be run through state fund and not available\nfor investment, so you'd have to say the reaction is mixed.\na.\nWho are the companies and the persons who were most helpful?\nDR. BRIAN: Well, virtually every company of any magnitude\nwas consulted, including out of state companies that came to California\nfor the presentation. I think that you can say that all of them have\nbeen extremely helpful and this also would include Kaiser, who was\nconsulted, too. They aren't usually classified as an insurance\ncompany, but they were consulted.\nQ.\nAnother question on the same subject, you said there was no\nprofit involved for the insurance company, but if they are able to get\na certain amount of reserves developed, can they useithat for invest-\nment purposes and get interest on it?\nDR. BRIAN: The reserves in the catastrophic fund are held\nby the Statebof Califormaa, not by the insurance company. They can't\ndevelop reserves here. They can develop reserves in their basic\ninsurance business just as they do now, but this $300 million will be\nremoved from that pool of money.\n-14-\nQ.\nWill they\nable to use any of it for investment purposes?\nDR. BRIAN: No.\na.\nI still want to change the subject.\nA.\nOh.\nSQUIRE: Someone over here wants to change the subject.\nA.\nHe says --\nB.\nActually, Governor, it is referring back to a previous\nsubject, I think. If the objection on this -- on busing is to try\nand get rid of or stop court roders mandating busing, I don't quite\nunderstand what options you have here in California other than to\nsupport a constitutional amendment. Where can you turn to prevent\nthis from happening? If you don't support a constitutional amendment.\nA.\nWell, I didn't say that I didn't support it, I said that if\nit could be done I was not committed to that as the only way because\nI'm not familiar and obviously the President isn't either, in that he\nset up this cabinet committee and has been dealing with legislators\nas he did the other day to find out the best approach to this. And\nit may not be necessary to have it in the constitution, you may be\nable to do it simply with -- by law.\nQ.\nWhat is a better approach, though, in California, than to\nhave the people vote on it?\nA.\nWell, if it is going to be taken care of at the national\nlevel then there wouldn't be any need for them to vote on it, would\nthere?\nQ.\nIn other words, just delay in California until the national\nlevel is resolved, is that right?\nA.\nMaybe there wouldn't be any delay, maybe this is all going to\nbe resolved prior to the -- to the time of balloting.\na.\nYeah, but on other programs this has not bothered you, you\nwanted to move ahead in California and have California exercise its own\nrights and operate independently of the federal government. I wonder\nwhy you are willing to wait for the federal government to act in this\none.\nA.\nI think you are reading something into this that is not true\nabout my position. There are some areas where I think it is proper\nfor a state to move. There are others where I -- in fact, have\ndelayed beyond a point and finally moved at the state level when\nWashington didn't. Such as in the area of farm labor legislation.\nBut there are some areas that -- that I think are proper if action is\nbeing taken, it just doesn't make sense for as to go ahead if it is going\nto be solved at the national level.\nQ.\nGovernoe, do you feel busing in cities like San Francisco\nis a waste of public funds?\nA.\nWell, I just think that it's been unproductive. We know\nthat -- that there -- it has created bitterness and created devisiveness.\nWe feel that the minority communities that are supposed to be the\nbeneficiaries are just as angry about it as the -- as the majority\ncommunity. Most people want their children going to the neighborhood\nschool nearest home.\nMR. MEESE: dGovernor, if I can interject, one reason why\nthe need for federal legislation or constitutional amendment is much\nof the confusion in this field has been interjected by the federal\ncourts rather than the state courts.\nA.\nI should have said that, that's why I have a lawyer around.\nIt is true, we could be overruled with a state provision here, and have\nbeen sometimes by federal --\na.\nGovernor, do you think that standing committees of the\nlegislature should take a recorded roll call vote on bills instead of\na voice vote?\nA.\nWell, it sure would inject anew note into the fraternity,\nwouldn't it?\nI dohn't see any reason why that -- they shouldn't be\non record. I think many times it is possible for a legislator to have\nit both ways, to publicly take one stand and then knowing that he can\nprotect himself in committee without being recorded as such and\nI don't think the -- I don't think that should be done to the people.\nThe people have a right to know where a person stands and whether he is or\nis not interested in getting a bill out of committee.\nQ.\nGovernor, have you decided or discussed the matter of replace-\nBonelli\nment for Frank Minelli on the Board of Supervisors in Los Angeles?\nA.\nNo, this tragic loss of Mr. Minelli Bonell, has just happened.\nNo, we haven't met on that. I realize it's a problem that's going to\nhave to face me.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-16-\nG\nPPESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR\nNALD REAGAN\nHELD FEBRUARY 29, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no0o\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nGood morning.\nQ.\nGodd morning.\nGovernor, the Senator Richardenn has suggested\nthat the time might be right to initiate recall proceedings against\nthe six justices who voted to abolish capital punishment.\nWould\nyou support an effort in that direction?\nA.\nWell, that's his opinion. That isn't the course I would\nsuggest to follow, even though I'm in disagreement with the action\nthey took.\nQ.\nWhat course would you follow, Governor?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nWhat course will you follow, Governor?\nA.\nWell, I think this -- as I have said before, I believe the\nCourt legislated, it did not -- it made a policy decision that\nproperly belongs to the Legislature and the people and my own belief\nis that the people of the State by way of the -- an amendment to the\nState constitution should settle this issue once and for all.\nQ.\nDid you read the decision?\nA.\nWhat? Yes.\nQ.\nAll of it?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nPresumably all of it then?\nA.\nYes, and I -- I still am of the -- of the opinion and upheld\nby a number of constitutional lawyers and authorities that they did\nlegislate.\nQ.\nGovernor, would you -- the Court says that it is -- it is\ntheir repponsibility to confront constitutionl issues. Capital\npunishment is a constitutional issue.\nA.\nIt is their function to interpret the law, not to change the\nlaw.\nAnd in this instance they changed the law, they did not\ninterpret the constitution.\nQ.\nWould you give your own personal support to an initiative\nto put such a qu tion on the ballot and WOL you urge a yes vote\nthat capital punishment be allowed?\nA.\nI would certainly express my opinion, I'm sure I'd be asked\nabout this, you usually are about all initiatives, and I never made\nany secret of the fact that I do believe capital punishment is a\ndeterrent and I don't say that lightlyy or with any preconceived\nnotion. In fact, I went through a period of my life when I was\nopposed to capital punishment myself. I've had to -- I've had to\ngive thisaa great deal of study because it is a responsibility of\nmine now as the -- as the last court of appeal in a sense, with re-\ngard to clemency for those who are sentenced, and I -- I've been\nstrengthened in my belief from that study that this is a -- it is\na deterrent.\nQ.\nGovernor what was that period of life when you --\nA.\nI was much younger.\n3.\nGovernor, would you in the same line -- would you favor some\nform of legislation that would prohibit hail for certain types of\ncrimes in this state?\nA.\nWell, you are getting into some legal niceties. We have in\nour -- in our law and this is what has been changed incidentally\nby this recent court decision -- we have in our law that for\ncapital crimes there is no bail and it seemed to me that that makes\nsense\nschoo. I don't know that it should, perhaps, be extended. I\nknow that the criminal justice commission has been concerned as\neveryone should be with what we can do to preserve the rights of the\nindividual to bail in this country and at the same time protect\nourselves from what seems to be aan increasing number ofindividuals\nwho go on committing crimes while they are out on bail from a\nprevious charge. And it is -- it is more complicated than I can\ntake up. That's one for someone with regal training to see if\nthere is an answer to it. But I -- I don't believe that there is any\nnecessity for extending therbaildboyond or limiting it beyond those\nof capital crimes.\nQ.\nGovernor, I asked you this a couple of months ago, but let's\nsee if you can run through it again, are you pleased with the perform-\nance of the Chief Justice Wright Lawry?\nA.\nWell, I made a statement that I was disappointed with the\naction of all six of them and I haven't picked anyone out for\nparticular attention. I was disappointed in this decision and I\nfelt -- and this had nothing to do with whether you are for or\n-2-\nagainst capital punishment. This had to wwwwith the court\nlegislating. They -- I think violated the separation of powers.\nQ.\nBy definition you said the difference then on the part of the\nSupreme Court's action was the difference between interpreting and\nchanging the law. Isn't it pretty much the case that sometimes\nin interpreting you do change the law, coverturn a law, rule it\nunconstttutional?\nA.\nWell, no, in this instance they were interpreting the\nconstitution and the constitution makes it explicitly clear in\nseveral sections before you come to cruel or in -- or unusual\npunishment, they make it explicitly clear that the constitution\nis based on the acceptance of -- of the capital punishment. Such\nthings as you can't take a man's life without due process. Well,\nthis directly infers that with due process you can. Now, if the\nframers of the constitution had meant the death penalty itself to\nbe covered by the cruel or inhuman then there would not have been\nall these preceding expressions in there regarding it. I have\nused an example sometimes and I'm not a lawyer, I'm a layman, but\nhad they been judging the method of execution on the basis of whether\nit met the requirement of cruel or unuraal, not being cruel or unusual\npunishment, that would have been within their province if they had\ncome back add ruled that the particular method of execution being\nused does indeed constitute cruel or unusual punishment. That\nwould have been interpreting a law, that would Lave been outlawing\na method of execution without treating with the subject of capital\npunishment itself. And again I say that the capital punishment is\nincluded in our constitution and therefore the only way it can be\nchanged is in the process set down for changing the constitution\nwhich is by a vote of the people.\nQ.\nGovernor, you said you would express an opininn on such an\ninitiative if one were proposed. Do you intend to actively attempt\nto get subh an initiative proposed and/or would you participate act-\nively in the formal campaign to get it passed as you have in\ninitiatives for bond issues and Proposition la and things of that\nsort?\nA.\nWell, as I say I would express my approval of that. I don't\nhave to take an active part in it, I understand that several measures\nare going forward at several different levels with regard to\ngetting this on the ballot, including legitimate and legislative\n-3-\nprocess upstair of -- of an amendment prop ed that would then\ngo on the ballot. And --\nQ.\nGovernor, what I'm getting at is this, if money were raised to\nlauch a campaign and advertise and that sort of thing to get it\npassed, would you participate in that effort?\nA.\nWell, for the most part I have simply expressed myself\nwith regard to some, except there have been one or two instances of\ncampaigns that I thought actually involved the structure of state\ngovernment and the policy of state government, and I have actively\ncampaigned on those. But I wouldn't think it would be necessary\nfor me to do any more than -- than what I have suggested, that I have\nexpressed myself and will continue to express myself, that I\nbelieve in capital punishment, and the people should adopt --\nQ.\nGovernor, the State Attorney General has said in his opinion\nthe Courts probably have no alternative but to release on bail\npeople now being held for capital crimes. What do you think the\neffect of this would be on society?\nA.\nWell, I think the whole thing has lessened the protection\nand the safety of the people of California. This would just bo\nanother -- another instance of it. Because it is true that now under\nthis -- under this ruling the -- you no longer can hold in that\nlaw.\nWe had one instance afready.\nQ.\nDo you favor delay on initiative until the U. S. Supreme\nCourt has ruled on this question?\nA.\nWell I have -- I have expressed myself that perhaps before\nyou go forward with all the effort that it might be well to make\nsure because if the U. S. Supreme Court shouldrrüle on this issue\nat the national level obviously it wouldn't do any good to have\na constitutional change out here, that would settle the matter.\nAnd there is every reason to believe that such a decision is\nImminent from the U. S. Supreme Court.\nQ.\nSo then therefore we should wait for that, until the\nlegislature, let's say, takes action on putting it on the ballot?\nA.\nI would hope -- however, if the -- I think you should be\nprepared to go forward if they are not going to hand down that ruling,\nthen you just can't wait indefinitely. But I would hate to see us\ngo through the whole process and expense of -- of campaigning for\nsomething if the decision is going to be handed down. I think we\nhave to play that a little by ear.\nQ.\nGovernor, if there is not to be capital punishment, do you\n-4-\nthen favor making these crimes punishable by life imprisonment without\npossibility of parole?\nA.\nWell, everyone talks about it but this is the answer,\nlife imprisonment without possibility of parole, it doesn't work.\nAnd hever has worked. People a few years from now are not bound\nby what someone said at this time. The famous Leobold case in Chi-\ncago was a case in point. They were sentenced without possibility\nof parole and one was paroled. As time went by. At the present\ntime I have to say this, that our own law in California makes --\nand this is something to think about with this decision that's\nbeen handed down, makes anyone liable for parole after seven years\nof a life sentence has been served.\na.\nGovernor, have you ever seen a man die by execution?\nA.\nNo.\nQ.\nIn the ordinary mmeaning of the word, do you consider an\nexecution to be cruel?\nA.\nWell, I also consider murder to be cruel?\nA.\nYes, I don't think there is any way that you can make a\nprison into a resort hotel. I don't think that there is any way\nthat you can execute this kind of punishment without there being\na certain cruelty to it. But, on the other hand, I think --\neven included in the Bible itself there is reference to -- and\nits approval of capital punishment, the crime of murder.\nQ.\nNew subject, Governor.\nA.\nYes.\nQ.\nGovernor, did you say that you believe capital punishment\nis cruel, is that --\nA.\nWell, gentlemen, I think that you are a little nitpicking\nhere looking for something that you can hang into a lead.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nHow do you -- how do you describe taking someone's life without\nsaying I'm quite sure that there must be in people's mind some\ncruelty attendant upon it. I think there is cruelty when you\nexecute a chicken to have a Sunday afternoon chicken. But if you\nare goingto hang onto me that I believe in the legal -- legal\ndefinition of cruel and unusual punishment of the constitution, no,\nI believe that society has the right to take human life as a deterrent\nto protect society.\nQ.\nGovernor, there's been a flap in Taiwan and in conservative\n-5-\ncircles about 1 joint communique. It 1. chargedithat we sold\nChiang Kai Shek down the river. Do you have any comment on that?\nA.\nWell, yes I -- this was a very unusual joint communique and I\ndon't think enough has been said about the fact that unlike most\nmeetings where both sides agree upon a statement, in this instance\nboth sides agreed that each would make a statement and they would\nturn them out together and clip them together and hand it out.\nSo\nit washa joint communique only in the sense that it was clipped\ntogether. The Chinese said what they wanted to say and the U. S.\nrepresentatives said what they wanted to say, and therU. S. with\nregard to Taiwan reaffirmed what has always been our position with\nregard to Taiwan. And that is that when tensions eased and forces\nwere no longer necessary that we would withdraw them. But we\nwill make the decision astto when that time has come. There is\nnothing new proposed. As a matter of fact, the Armed Forces -- the\nmilitary forces on Taiwan, the army forces, the soldiers there\nare -- are not combat troops and area actually service troops\nrelated to the war in Vietnam. And they have been scaled down\nover a recent period as the war has been scaled down, but there\nis not going to be any change in the some 9,000 that are left for\nanother year and this will be contingent again, as I say, on the --\non the war in Vietnam, but there's been no change and certainly\nno reference was made to the pssition of the 7th Fleet which has\nbeen stationed in those waters ever since the Chiang Kai Shek\ngovernment moved to Taiwan. And I thought the President last\nnight in his homecoming speech made it perfectly plain that nothing\nhas changed in our relationship with Taiwan and our determination to\nprotect Taiwan.\n&\nGovernor, aside from the technicalities in the treaty, do you\nthink that the -- the President's statement in the joint communique\nand his trip to China has caused Nationalist China to lose face?\nA.\nNo, I don't think so, and I notice that the -- of course\nthis wouldn't be true in America, but I've noticed that the press in\nTaiwan is much more exercised than the officials of government of\nTaiwan about this. In fact, their statements have been -- have\nbeen quite mild. I think the President want out of his way in the\ncommunique to recognize the fact that both Red China and Taiwan in-\nsist that there is only one China. Now the question of which\n-6-\ngovernment is he legitimate government 1 not for the United\nStates to decide. Well, this is exactly the position of Chiang\nKai Shek. He says there is only one China, and on each side of the\nchannel they lay claim to being the legitimate government.\n8.\nGovernor, in the past you've toured the Orient on the Presi-\ndent's behalf. Would you anticipate a welcoming commission\ntouring China on the President's behalf?\nA.\nMe visiting China?\nB.\nYes.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nI'd want him to soften them up with a couple moro trips like\nthis last one before I went there, because I understand that while\nDr. Kissinger was there, while I was on my trip to those six other\nnations, that Dr. Kissinger said he was greeted overy morning with\na fistful of clippings that the Chinese had to show them of things\nthat I had said in those six other countries, so I think they have\nbeen keeping tabs on me. I don't even plan to visit the Democratic\nCouncil.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nAnother subject, please.\nQ.\nTwo questions, Governor. Would you oppose or support an\ninitiative that would legalize the right of an 18 to 21 year old\nto drink?\nA.\nOh, this is a constitutional change to lower the drinking\nage to 18. Now there -- here I put on a different hat. Now I put\non my hat as a parent and a citizen and not as a Governor.\nPersonally I'd be opposed to it.\nQ.\nAll right, my second question.\na.\nI have a question relating to your first question.\nQ.\nI have a question relating to my first question.\nThere is\nsome talk among Republicans that the party will not sponsor any\ninitiative that's going to bring out the 18 year old vote, and\nconsequently the party won't support the driking and the death\npenalty on an initiative. Now, is there any truth to this?\nA.\nI've heard nothing of that kind, no.\nQ.\nRepublicans have said this.\nA.\nWell, they must be speaking as individuals then, I know of\nno party position and no official position and I've just told you\nthat I would support the -- the death penalty issue. I think we\nhave to face the fact that they are voters and they are probably\ngoing to vote and I am just hopeful that in the months ahead we can\nexplain to them 'W badly fooled they have en if they think that\nthe things they are complaining about would be cured by the party that\ncaused them to happen.\nQ.\nGovernor, while we are on the initiative, how do you feel\nabout or think about the initiative to legalize marijuana?\nA.\nTo legalize marijuana, I'd be opposed.\nQ.\nTo put it on the ballot or opposed to voting for it?\nA.\nWell, I -- I've always found it hard to be opposed to letting\nthe people vote on any issue, but I would -- I'll just say I would\nbe opposed to legalizing marijuana. I don't think anyone has thought\nthat through and I think the increasing body of evidence that seems\nto be piling up, whether you agree with it or not, has to -- whether\nit's proven a case for marijuana it certainly has revealed that\nthere is a great uncertainty about the effects of marijuana.\nAnd\nI think it is silly for someone to say, well, until they prove it\nto me I'm going to keep on using it. We are a society that already\nputs a notice on just a plain tobacco cigarette, that it is injurious\nto your health.\nQ.\nDid you say that you upposed having it put on the ballot?\nA.\nNo, I said I've always found it difficult to oppose letting\nthe people vote on these matters. So I -- I don't have particular\nobjection to that. But I, as an individual, would oppose the\nlegalizing or marijuana.\nQ.\nGovernor, a new subject.\nA.\nWell, now did your --\nQ.\nYes, her second question was my first question.\nA\n-- your co-author -- you are all solved.\nQ.\nHas there been a decision made on appointment to the Los\nAngeles County Board of Supervisors?\nA.\nNo, that's a decision I still have to make and I still have\npeople what want to give me more input on it, but as quickly as\npossibly I am going to make the decision.\nQ.\nGovernor, last week you appointed Republican Senator Cologne\nto the Appellate Court in San Diego. Previously you named two\nof his law firm's partners to the Superior Court in Riverside\nCounty. How does this jibe with your campaign pledges to keep\npolitics out of the appointment of judiciaries?\nA.\nBecause we have followed exactly the same process we have\nbeen following for five years. Their names were submitted with\nall other potentialrnames and they were the ones that came back\n-8-\nrated by the multiple committees that we used as the men who should\nget the appointment. I have to tell you this, I have not violated\nthat process. I have not violated it in the face of people who have\ntried to put pressure on on behalf of individuals, some here in\ngovernment. But we have held to that policy of going by the ratings\nof the committees, and we are not -- I'm not going to violate it.\nI still believe that it should be put into law, but until it is\nI'm voluntarily abiding by the law that I myself sought to have\npassed.\na.\nYour appointment secretary said you had no committees for\nAppellate appointment, it is more informal.\nA.\nNo, we -- We do the same kind of screening process with this.\nWe dontt have the same firm of committees set up as we do for the\nregular judicial appointment, but we do go out, we go to the\nState Bar and we go to the others and Senator Cologne came back\nextremely highly rated and qualified for this job.\nQ.\nGovernor, a05 appointments, Kerry Mulligan's resignation\nbecame effective Saturday. When do you plan to announce his\nsuccessor and what are you looking for in that man?\nA.\nWe haven't taken up the matter of his successor as yet, so I --\nas you know, I've just been away and yesterday was the first day\nback in the office, so it is in that pileup of things that lie\nahead of me for the next two weeks.\nQ.\nGovernor, several weeks ago you announced that you are going\nto send the legislature some resolutions to put itself on record\nin favor of the President's peace proposal for Vietnam. You\nhaven't done SO. It is six weeks --\nA.\nI didn't mean that I would send them, I asked them to take\nup this matter.\nQ.\nWho did you ask?\nA.\nWell, I thought in publicly announcing this, in asking it,\nI think -- did we follow up with a letter asking this or did our\nlegislative section just do it verbally, asking about --\nET MEESE:\nThe request was made verbally. There has\nbeen no specific letter.\nA.\nI didn't intend I would send one up, and ask them to pass.\nQ.\nYou mean you made the request verbally in the speech to the\nYMCA Legislature?\nA.\nNo, our legislative unit relayed my request that the Legislature\n-9-\ntake this matter up.\nQ.\nGovernor, last week you had two youth advisors as your liaison\nwith the campuses. You no longer have them. Have you given up\non youth or don't you need a liaison?\nBAUL BECK: That's not true.\nQ.\nWho has them -- they never were announced -- you don't even\nknow the names?\nPAUL BECK: No, I don't.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you know the names of your advisors?\nA.\nI said Alex Sheriffs -- Alex Sheriffs would be able to\nanswer that. We rotate these quite frequently.\nQ.\nGovemor, what's the status of your no-fault insurance studies?\nA.\nWell, we are -- we have been studying this -- this matter\nand we -- I think will have, very shortly, some guidelines, broad\nguidelines within the framework of which we think no fault insurance\nshould fall.\nQ.\nThere are now five or six no fault insurance bills that\nhave been introduced. Are you prepared to support any of them yet\nor do any of them look like you will support them?\nA.\nI can't tell you what's -- what is in those bills or whether\nthey are -- but we have been going forward with our own study.\nWe found out that there are -- there are pitfalls in this as there\nare in any -- any proposals that are made of this kind.\nQ.\nGovernor, has the State Bar confirmed you on the bill you\ntalked about here this morning?\nA.\nNot with me personally, I don't know whether they have with\nanyone -- has the State Bar conferred with any of our people?\nMR. MEESE: They advised us of their plans and we have been\ntalking with them generally about the over-all no fault program.\nQ.\nDo you anticipate having your own bill?\nA.\nI can't tell you as yet as to that. It would depend on\nwhat's up there.\nQ.\nSenator Moscone introduced a bill studies and written by the\nBar Association this morning, are you aware of what's in that bill\nand what's your reaction to it?\nA.\nNo, I'm not even sure that Senator Moscone is aware of what's\nin it.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nGovernor, over the week-end the C.S.E.A. asked you for -- to\n-10-\nengage in formal negotiations to setttle their grievance with the\nhydroelectråc workers on the State Water project. Are you\nprepared\nto negotiate on that subject?\nA.\nWell, that's another subject that --\nED MEESE: Our people are consulting and have not yet taken\na position so far as I know on it. There have been, however,\ncontinued discussions with hydroelectric workers and representatives\nof the State government.\nQ.\nBut you wouldn't call them negotiations?\nED MEESE: Well, there have been continued discussions\non it.\nQ.\nTo return just a moment to the death penalty, you said it\nwould be a good idea to wait for the U. S. Supreme Court to act.\nIf the U. S. Supreme Court dedides under our national constitution\nthe death penalty is unconstitutional, would you favor an amendment\nto that constitution? And would --\nA.\nI would probably be in favor of it, but in view of some\nother attempts of amending things like the prayer amendment, I doubt -\nI dbout if anything would happen. There seems to be at the\nnational level a great reluctance to open up the -- that subject.\nI wouldn't be optimistic , in other worlds\na.\nGovernor, did you order Director Procunier to suspend and\nreview the 72 hour pass program?\nA.\nNo, this decision was made by the Secretary of that agency\nand by others in a study of this, and the study has been going\nforward. There is a -- there is a study of that, WO still are\nconfident it's only been two per cent of the people in more than\n16,000 who had those passes that have committee crimes while they\nare out, but even that two per cent we are investigating stricter\nadsministrative procedues, because we think our first obligation\nis to protect the citizenry and even two per cent of those individuals\ncommitting crimes as they have recently is too much if we can\nprevent it.\n( V ED MEESE: Governor, could we clarify the decision was m.\nby Mr. Procunier in consultation with Secretary Holt but it was\nProcunier's decision.\nQ.\nGovernor, on another subject. On your proposal for the\nnew mansion. Who would decide the design of it? This has been a\nhassle in the past, there have been commissions appointed, and how\n-11-\nwould you work\n?\na\nVOICE: Governor, may I say something on that. I've been\nworking on that while the Governor is out of town and the State law do\nprovide for an architect to be appointed by the Director of General\nServices. The architect in connunection with the State Architect,\nthe Director of General Services and the Director of Finance to\ncome up with a plan.\nA.\nSay, that's very interesting, because I was worried about the\nanswer to that question.\nVOICE: That's in Government Code Section 8170, I just\nhappen to have that one in mind.\nA.\nThat's been one of the things that's been wrong in the last\nthree years, nobody has been able to get together with anything and\nnow that I know of that I tell you, there is a certain streak of\ndictator in me that makes that very attractive.\nQ.\nGovernor, what type of a design would you favor -- personally\nfavor or Mrs. Reagan?\nA.\nBack when there was a committee, you know, set up and was\ntrying to raise by public subscription funds to go forward with\nthis, it was the consensus of everyone and certainly included Mrs.\nReagan and myself, that the best historical link that should be\nevidenced in that structure would be the Spanish heritage of\nCalifornia. And that it should be of the early Monterey or the\nSpanish type architecture. I think -- I think to go -- someone\nsuggested modern, for example -- is to go with something that\nmight be sadly outdated just a few years from now, and I think the\nidea of going with something that is basic and characteristic of\nCalifornia would be best of all. I've also been interested to\nnote that the -- at least one paper that's been doing some polling on\nthis subject finds a great many people that are enthusiastic\nshout why don't we raise the money by public subscription, and the\nword must not have been carried very far and wide a few years ago\nthat we were trying that very thing.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you think that happily married women should\nbe able to establish legal residence separate from their faithful\nhusbands?\nA.\nI believe that happily married women who want to establish a\nlegal resident separate from their husbands are lyingabout being\nhappily married women.\n-12-\nSQUIRE:\nAny more questions?\nQ.\nYes, there is. Sometime ago, in fact it was at the last\npress conference, I think you in answer to some other question came\nup with the comment about state employees using public cars etcetera,\nfor non-official buciness. In any event last week we heard that\nsome of your cabinet officers are using cars destined by legislation\nto be used for law enforcement work.\nA.\nI suspect that some place upstairs there is a little bureau\nwhere they are figuring out the target for each week and so this is\nthe target this time. Yes, we are -- we are reviewing this and\nwe always do and continually review, and sometimes it changes,\nsometimes there are circumstances that we believe marrant plain\nlicense plates instead of the E license plate for individuals.\nAnd we recognize that it is a subject of ongoing review at all times.\nAnd we are doing that at this time. But I don't think that there\nhave been any great violations -- deliberate violations on our\npart. As a matter of fact, I think we have been pretty good about\nit and we will go on with this, we will look again.\nQ.\nThe question seems to be, though, not whether you think it\nwarrants it, but whether the law warrants it. Specifically it is\nfor law enforcement work.\nBRUMEBECK: As the Governor said, that statement has -- that\npolicy is being worked on and we will have a statement for you.\na.\nI was asking him, Paul.\nA.\nListen, I tell you, yes, and you know, I was informed this\nmorning as a matter of fact, and it completely slipped my mind, that\nthe review that we have going forward with on this, that before\nnoon you will all have a statement on this. So I don't think there\nis any need for me answering that, you are going to have a complete\nstatement on the review that's been going forward on this subject.\nQ.\nGovernor Reagan, you answered that question about women\nfacetiously, but the law right now says that if a man is transferred\nout of the state and let's say the woman wants to stay on and continue\nher education, she loses her residency, you don't -- now that's\nthe law. And Henry Waxman is trying to change it. Do you believe\n1y is a fair and -- or an archaic law?\nA.\nYou mean that she would no longer -- even though she was\nstaying here she would be bound to vote by his new residence?\na.\nShe would lose her right to residency, to serveon a jury, she\ncouldn't get a divorce in California Court, and she might have\ntrouble inheriting money. Now, that's the law as it stands and I\nknow you don't mean to be facetious about something that serious.\nA.\nNo, but I like my first answer best.\n(Laughter)\n8.\nYou were given a baited question, Governor Reagan.\nA.\nI'm a male chauvinist. No, let me say -- let me just say\nanswer one of these questions that involves legalities and then my\nlawyers over there get me aside afterward and tell me something\nI overlooked, but my first -- my first instinct would be back to you,\nI did not know of the existence of such a law, and it would seem to\nme that certainly some changes could be made because in this society\nof ours, particularly with regard to such things as education, what\nyou have just suggested is very possible.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor, again.\n---14-\n-14-\nPRESS ONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONA\nREAGAN\nHELD MARCH 7, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their con-\nvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no0o\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nThis isn't a big long opening statement.\nJust a note that Dr. Bill Rivers is here with his journalism students\nfrom Stanford again. About 20 of them. Welcome, glad to have\nyou here, so everybody here mind your manners. Now, that's\nmy\nopening statement.\nQ.\nGovernor Reagan, if it was your decision to make, would you\naccept the $400,000 from I.T.& T.?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nI'm going to leave that up to the Senate Judiciary Committee\nto continue with this.\nQ.\nBut if it was your decision, would you accept it?\nA.\nWell, I don't -- that would depend on how all of this develops\nand turns out. I just don't know enough about it.\nQ.\nDidn't you say the -- the UPI that you would not -- that you\nsuggested turning the money back?\nA.\nNo, I said the other day with regard to that and with regard\nto the Lieutenant Governor's statement, I can understand making it\nand it is true that as we have said before on several other intances\nin here, you have to be super careful, particularly when forces are\nout trying to portray something in one way or the other, you have\nto be super careful to not even subscribed to an appearance of wrong-\ndoing. And so possibly -- possibly there is some reason for this,\nbut I understand it is a moot question anyway, that the National\nCommittee has already made the decision to reject any such contribu-\ntion.\nQ.\nGovernor, Mr. Carlson says that that report on success or\nlack of success of the implementation of Welfare Reform Program contains\nincomplete data and really is no report at all. If there is no\ncomplete data on the efficacy of the welfare reform act, on what\nhave you been basing your contention that the plan is an outstanding\nsuccess?\n-1-\nA.\nOn the fac\nAnd the facts as we ha\nthem. Now, what he\nmeant by this being an imcomplete report, it is -- it has not been\nlooked over by legal counsel in the welfare department. But\nlet's -- let's set the pins up and get them all in a row here.\nWelfare reform started to be implemented in January, a year ago --\nmore than a year ago. When a great deal of welfare reform was\nadministrative changes that we could put into effect we started with\na whole change of the personnel over there. The change of the\ncabinet secretary's post, the Director of the department, and we\nstarted implementing the administrative reforms. Now, we hadea\nlegislative package, a great deal of the legislative package\nactually was to substantiate or give statutory backing to the admini-\nstrative changes, because we knew that many things we were trying\nto do would be legally challenged. Now, starting in January, it\ntook sometime until in April before we were beginning to see the\neffect of those administrative changes. The legislative package\ndid not go into effect until October. So a report was asked\nthat covered 25 per cent of thecounties. Our own department set\nout to have a report to watch and see what was going to be the effect,\nwhich counties were doing a good job of implementing, which counties\nwere dragging their feet, and so forth. This is the incomplete\nreturn that has been made. Therecorded some gains. It recorded\nsome things in which there was disappointment. It recorded the fact\nthat there were almost immediate court challenge to some of the\nlegislative forms. It comes down to the fact, however, that the --\nwe have never pretended that we can put our finger on which reforms\nsave which amount of dollars, and as you will recall, this was one\nof the big issues of dispute with the legislature. They wanted a\nprice tag on every single thing. We tried to give them estimates\nto the best of our ability as to what might result. But the plain\ntruth of the matter is that starting in January we began to take\neffect in April -- as we continued to collect the returns on --\nbasically on our administrative reforms, we found that each month\nwe had changed from an increase of 40 to 50 thousand people to an\nactual decline. People were leavint the welfare rolls or at\nleast there were lessnames on the welfare rolls. So that by now\nwe are able to say there are 182, 300 fewer people on welfare than there\nwould have been without the reforms. Or than there were last\nMarch. There are actually 538,000 people fewer than there would\nhave been without the reforms because there we would have to go by\n-2-\nour projections and our projected increase following the line, and the\ncurve of the increase we had known for a considerable period in\nthe past had indicated there would be that much growth in the welfare\nrolls. Now, this was purely for us within the department. This\nwas to begin to check and see if the legislative reforms, when\nthey were going to be in operating. We did not expect an immediate\nchange. They started in October. If you will look back to January\nto April, we expect that pretty soon we will begin to see the effect\nof these additional changes, but we have no way of judging how --\nhow much they are going to add to the savings that we have already\nmade.\nQ.\nGovernor, Secretary of State Brown has suggested a federal\ngrand jury investigation into the whole I.T.T. matter. Based on\nhis contention that I.T. & T. may have violated two federal campaign\nlaws, one forbidding federal campaign contributions from corporations\nand another Scrbidding firms holding defense contracts to make federal\ncampaignocontributions. Would you be in favor of such an investiga-\ntion?\nA.\nWell, I think this is a legal matter for the U. S. Attorney\nin San Diego to make that decision. Apparently, according to\nSenator Eastland, yes, there is -- this is not a campaignecontriku-\ntion. I thought he summed it up peetty well, about this was a\nbusiness firm making a contribution to the city of San Diego in their\neffort to get the convention to come to San Diego, but that's -- that\nthat decision is up to the U. S. Attorney to make and now -- maybe\nthe Secretary of State feels better qualified to render opinions on\nthat subject. But I don't.\nQ.\nGovernor, since Lieutenant Governor Reinecke's version of\nwhat happened appears to conflict with the former Attorney General's,\ndo you think it would be apprppriate for the Governor Reinecke to\ncome back to Washington to testify before the Judiciary?\nA.\nI don't know, I don't see what there is to testify. There\nwasn't any real conflict, he was caught on the phone and out of the\nstate. He tried from memory to recall when he had had the meeting\nwith the Attorney General, when he came back and checked his own\nrecords he found that he had given the wrong meeting. And I think\nanyone who goes back and forth as many times as any of us do on trips\nof this kind -- this is easily understandable. If you ask me what\nI discussed at the last Governor's Conference, or whether that was\n-3-\nat the one before, I'd have a hard time remembering which is which.\nThey begin to run together pretty soon.\nQ.\nGovernor, change of subject?\nCongressman Ashbrook in his\ncampaign is apparently using a letter that you wrote on August 24,\nin which you said we -- writing to Republicans, \"We have pretty well\nguaranteed the continuation of Taiwan in the United Nations.\nAt\nthe same time we areppretty sure the Red Chinese will not accept a\nseat under those terms. I hopeyme will be able to give the\nPresident your unqualified support.' He says this turned out not\nto be true, therefore why should we believe that deals were not made\nwith the people of the Republic of China.\nA.\nWell, if he's saying that, he's reaching a long way.\nWhat\nsomeone has evidently turned over a personal letter to him.\nI\nhave for a long time and ever since the announcement of the Peking\nvisit, I have been getting letters from Republicans I know throughout\nthe country. I've answered them personally with my own views.\nIt\nis true that everyone apparently in Washington and art believed that\nthere was going to be a U. N. decision that would admit Red China\nbut it would also preserve Taiwan. The great shock was when we --\nthey moved the vote up by a number of weeks and months and held the\nearly vote that -- and Taiwan was outsted, this did come as a great\nsurprise. It was also commonly believed by many that Red China\nwould not accept admittance to the United Nations on the basis of awo\ntwo China policy there. And I expressed my own personal belief\nin that. Well, we never got to test out whether they would or not\nbecause the U. N. ousted Taiwan.\na.\nGovernor, getting back to welfare, when you went back before\nthe Senate Finance Committee in Washington, why did you differentiate\nbetween the welfare reform and the administrative changes? It\nseemed to me you left the impression with the Senate it is the over-all\nact that is knocking people off of welfare, you don't think you did?\nA.\nNo, I don't. As a matter of fact, we have never claimed that\nthis is all due to the legislation. We couldn't. We didn't pass\nthat legislation until in August, it didn't go into effect until\nOctober. We were already announcing that the administrative changes\nwe made alone were resulting in these great savings.\nQ.\nWhat are some of those changes?\nA.\nOh, they have to do with eligibility, mainly.\nQ.\nWhich ones weren't blocked by the court?\n-4-\nBy special need eligibility, the court blocked that out.\nA.\nWell, many of these -- these court actions are with regard to\nthe legislative changes. But all I know is that the administrative\ntightening on that began, as I say, in January, was already recording\nlike 20,000 a month drops in welfare instead of a 40 to 40, thousand\nincrease long before we had ever persuaded the legislature to\neven negotiate that part of the package. But if you will check\nmy statement to the committee, you will find that we have repeatedly\npointed out that the basis of these changes have been from the very\nbeginning of our administrative changes. As a matter of fact, I\nhave suggested that if they'd wait until we see the rest of the package\nin operation, too, that we might be very modest in our estimates of\nsuccess.\nQ.\nWell, how do you know that the 50,000 a month perhaps weren't\nAFDCU people that were returning to the economy, therefore getting\noff\nAFDCU?\nHow can you identify them?\nA.\nBecause at the time when these started to go these declines,\nwe were still having an increase in unemployment. And because back\nover the years, this regular increase upon which we base our estimates\nour statisticians base the estimates, has been -- has held steady\nregardless of the state of the economy, even at a time of full\nemployment during the war we were continuing to increase that much\nin our welfare case load. Now, we have drawn some comparisons with\nother major states who are also declining in unemployment and we\nhave found that they are still increasing in their case load in\nwelfare, in AFDC.\nQ.\nGovernor, in your savings -- adminis trative savings,\nparticularly that went on before the act went into effect, how much\nof that do you attribute to the attitudes? In other words, case\nworkers who were no longer quite so careless, perhaps applicants,\nrecipients and so forth who were afraid, who were misusing the food\nstamps.\nA.\nBless you, I have used that very argument, I have said that\nwe think that a great deal of this could have been psychological,\nthat once they knew that someone was watching, that more care was\nbeing exercised, we think that not only did people who have been\ndrawing welfare and there was question as to whether they should\nhave been drawing it or not, but case workers who have been careless\nabout this -- I think I stated publicly some -- a short time ago,\n-5-\nperhaps even in here, that the change in the number of children on\nAFDC, we believe, is because they were paper children, that there was\nmiscounting and it was miscounting that was tolerated by many case\nworkers, and that we actually haven't ousted children from the rolls\nSO much as they are now counting accurately. And the case workers\nare being a little tighter themselves, because they know they are\nbeing watched. This is our claim. As of now, to date, we have\nactually -- savings we can count total 148 million dollars. Our\nestimate for the -- for that plus the balance of the fiscal year\nis 338 million in savings. Now, the savingscould have been more\nexcept that at the same time we increased the grants by 30 per cent\nto the people who are remaining on welfare and who are truly\neligible. Those people went from -- was it 221 to 280 dollars a\nmonth. And that was all done out of the savings that we have been\nable to make.\nQ.\nGovernor, arethose figures including state and county costs\nalso, such as state funds?\nA.\nState and county and federal. We can't save a dollar\nwithout saving everybody else a dollar.\nPAUL BECK: I think it is the State.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No, I don't think SO. The 708 million\ndollar reduction in the -- budget estimate for next year is the total\ncost.\nBAUL BECK: Yes.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: And I think the 338 so far this year is --\nthat is the total cost of welfare.\nEd\nGray\nVERNE ORR: Governor, that figure is 388, not 338.\n(Laughter)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: You have to watch the staff every second\nhere. Yes, sir, as I said, it is 388 million dollars.\n(Laughter)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: You know, a fellow like that --\nQ.\nNew subject, Governor, --\nSQUIRE: Why don't you get welfare out of the way first.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Anyone else on welfare before we go to a\nnew subject? The man in the corner has a new subject.\nQ.\nAll right, Assemblywoman March Fond said -- has said a while\na\nago you and she have reached an accord on/venereal disease instruc-\ntion bill. Can you explain how that happened.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nI don't know that it is an accord with me. I\nunderstand\nthat she and Assemblyman Barnes are discussing co-authoring both the\nappropriation bill for the money that we have asked, so that we\ncan have a V. D. instruction program, and also co-authoring the terms\nof the bill itself. Now, basically the bill that Assemblyman Barnes\nwas authoring was one that in addition to the appropriation finally\nput and clarified and put in clear language actually what the law\npresently is, to remove the fear from the teachers who were confused\nby the Schmidtz act and who believed that some way they could endanger\ntheir teaching credentials if they engaged in this program, and it\nis my understanding that they are talking about co-authoring both\nof these bills.\nQ.\nAnd also it gives parents 15 days notification so that they\ncould withdraw their child from the class if they wanted to.\nA.\nWell, they have always had that right and we agree to that.\nSee, the confusion was whether parents had to be notified and\nI think there was confusion last year that parents had to give con-\nsent and that's not true, to have this class. They only have to be\nnotified, and then if any one of them wants to take a child out of\nthe class, they can do SO.\nQ.\nWhy did you veto last year's bill and you are now endorsing\nher bill this year?\nA.\nWell, because her bill this year, if amended into the Barnes\nbill, will not be the same bill as last year. The only change --\nI could have signed her bill last year except for one change.\nI\ncould have signed it because it did not change the law at all.\nThere has never been any -- anything in the law to prevent V. D.\ninstruction in the schools. Her law did however --or her bill did\ncontain a clause that the parents didn't have to be notified. And\nas I have said in repeated occasions in here, I think the states\nhas stuck its nose into the family relationship too much already,\nand I saw no reason why the parents should not continue to be notified\nQ.\nGovernor, in 1970 did you veto some emergency funds for\nGerman measles innoculation that was designed to prevent the out-\nbreak that's occurring in Los Angeles County now? It is a bill by\nSenator Petris.\nVOICE: Governor, it seems to me that we vetoed that because\nthe doctors at that time were in great dispute about massive\ninccoulation for that subject, and I think we asked the public health\ndepartment to get a final position when the doctors were in more\nagreement that there was an -- an acceptable innoculation.\nA.\nThat's right, this had to do with a massive innoculation\nprogram.\na.\nIt seems that the outbreak in Los Angeles County is as a result\nof a lack of innoculation. Are you satisfied that the State has done\neverything it can to prevent that?\nA.\nI'm satisfied that we did what we had to do with that bill.\nThere's been noting to prevent people from getting innoculations\nagainst this.\nQ.\nOfficials in the county say that most of the cases have\noccurred in the poor neighborhoods where it is not available readily.\nA.\nWell, in the poorer neighborhoods it must be available readily.\nThey are the ones that have got the most complete medical protection\nthat's provided in the land today, right here in California.\nBut\nI tell you something, don't tempt me into going beyond this with\nregard to county officials, parricularly from Los Angeles County,\nbecause they have a method whereby almost on a weekly or monthly\nbasis they can purge themselves of any wrongdoing by laying it all\non the state. And I don't think the state is that guilty of the\nthings they wduld charge us with.\nQ.\nWhat else have they purged themselves of, Governor?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nWhat else have they purged themselves of.\nA.\nRegularly, whatever shortcomings they have down there, whether\nit is fiscal or otherwise, they claim because it is the state\nsomehow cannot either provide the money. They in advance have\nbeen critical of some of the changes we have made in programs before\nthey are emen implemented.\nQ.\nAre you saying that they are purging themselves this time, too,\nwith concern to German measles?\nA.\nWell, I do not believe that the State did or did not take any\naction which caused an outbreak of disease.\nQ.\nPreventive, though, that's the question. It is not causing,\nit is preventing. Would it have helped if that bill were signed?\nA.\nApparently --\nVOICE: Apparently as the Governor --\nA.\nI can go back and look at the terms of the bill. As you\nhave\nseen, when you try to remember back over several thousand bills that\nyou have signed, or vetoed -- I would have to tell you I have to go\nback and look at\nbill and pin down\nI\nk what Verne said\nis basically what was involved there, and the medical profession\nitself was not only divided but the preponderance of opinion in the\nmedical profession was against that bill in urging its veto.\nQ.\nGovernor, by your remarks about the officials in Los\nAngeles County, are you intending to say that by purging the roles and\nblaming things on the state they are somehow escaping the responsi-\nbilities that they ought to be taking or what did you mean by that\ncomment?\nA.\nWell I think what I meant was clearly said, and actually what\nI said was that if I got irked enough that's what I'd say.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nI haven't got irked enough yet.\nQ.\nCould you explain, though, in a little greater detail what\nyou\nmean. Are they doing something that's irresponsible in your\nmind, is that what you are charging them with?\nA.\nI didn't say that. I just said that whatever happens and\nwhatever they like to blame on the state -- and sometimes you get\na little irritated with this because we run our shop up here to the\nbest of our ability and try to give as much autonomy and authority\nas we can to local government, and many counties in the state, Los\nAngeles isn't alone, there are a number of other counties that it\nis easier to pass the buck. The only trouble is we haven't got\nanybody to pass it to when it gets up here.\nQ.\nWhat specifically are they blaming the state for that ought\nto be their responsibility?\nA.\nWell, I'd have to go back and make out a memorandum and list\nall of the complaints that they have uttered in the last year or so\nand provide you with that list.\nQ. Well, obviously it is in your mind, you must be able to think of\nsome specific events, what it is they are blaming the state for.\nA.\nWell, in this instance they blamed us for not passing a bill\nand therefore they have got an outbreak of disease.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you intend to endorse any specific coastline\nlegislation this year or intend to introduce -- have your own bill\nintroduced?\nare\nA.\nWell, our environmental goals and objectives/that we would\nhave by March 1, with a few days delayed because we are trying to\ncoordinate with them, our own approach on coastline legislation\nand a number of other things, powerplant sitings, and so forth, before\nwe present it to the legislature. We very definitely want some\ncoastline legislation this year.\nQ.\nGovernor, in some quarters Justice Donald Wright is being called\nbetraged\nRonald Reagan's Earl Warren.\nDo you feel somewhat portrayed by this\nman whom you appointed?\nA.\nI go no farther than what I said before, I was disappointed\nin the six justices and the decision they made on the death penalty,\nand I thought they had gone beyond the province of the court.\nQ.\nGovernor, just on the coastline again. Do you expect to\nhave your own -- your own proposal or your own administrative --\nadministration program or do you expect to endorse one of those bills\nthat's now beforethe legislature?\nA.\nI don't know what all is before the Assembly now. We always\napproach from the standpoint of either our own or if there- is some-\nthing suitable that maybe with some amendments could meet our own\nobjectives, that we go that route. But I would -- my own reaction\nis that we probably have our own.\nED MEESE: It is a distinct possibility.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: That's a pretty good phrase. Distinct\npossibility.\na.\nGovernor, what do you think of proposals bythe California\nState Employees Association for a four-day ten-hour work week?\nFor State employees.\nA.\nWell, we have some that have been experimenting in this,\nand we are interested in the experiments as they go forward. We\ndon't want to see this expanded. We think enough of them are trying\nit.\nWe really believe experiments of this kind could properly come\nfrom the private sector more than government because I'd hate to see\ngovernment then be accepted or be used as a leverage to force this\non private industry, whether they are willing or not. But some\ndepartments have been trying it and we are watching it very carefully.\nBut we have asked that no othess.go into it. We think enough are\ntrying it now to -- for us to learn anything we need to learn.\nQ.\nGovernor, Assemblyman Cullen for the second year in a row\nhas accused the administration of continuing jobs, some four to five\nthousand jobs which should be vacated because they have been unfilled\nfor more than nine months, and despite the fact they have been unfilled\nfor more than nine months they have been continued in the budget.\nCan you respond?\nA.\nWell, Verne could probably explain this much better, and I\nought to let him do it because he probably can put it in a single\n-10-\nsentence or two,\nare following a policy t..\nhas always been\nfollowed in the state. You ask departments after a certain length\nof time with regard to positions whether they want them held open\nor not. Sometimes there are cases where they haven't been able to\nfill a position satisfactorily. But they want it held in their\nbudget as a position they feel they need. And so we continue to\nbudget for that. We drop those that -- that on the department's\nhead's say so can be dropped. And there is a certain flexibility\nthat you have to have in there. Have I stated it correctly?\nQ.\nHe says the law specifically states, though, that if the job\nis unfilled for nine months it should be dropped, removed.\nA.\nYes, but sometimes you have the flexibility or use the\nflexibility that sometimes if there are -- are circumstances in\nwhich it hasn't been filled, but it is necessary for the department,\nwhy, you dontinue to hold it because it is going to be filled.\nVERNE ORR: I can answer to the legal question, I believe,\nGovernor. Section 20 of the Budget clearly says that when a job\nis vacant for nine months it shall be abolished unless the department\nof finance specifically accepts it to the controller, and wedon't\nfeel that we have been illegal. We have sent the controller each\nyear a list of those jobs which we take exception to and are not\nabolished.\n8.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Lady in the corner.\nQ.\nGovernor, the date mentioned for the state of the Workfare\nForce\nprogram has been April 1. Yet the Director of the Alameda County\nwelfare department says that the only -- he only knows about the\nprogram what he reads in the paper, and my question is, considering\nthat and considering the possibility of court challenges, is there\nany way that program is going to be operative by April l?\nA.\nWell, we have been -- maybe some counties are not up with\nothers, but we have been getting counties to line up what the work\nwould be and to tell us what community projects they would have.\nWe set a starting date on it. I don't think anyone of us expects\nthat actually on April 1 a lot of people are going to go to work.\nWe will start registering the people in the -- in the 35 counties\nas of that date. Some will get ahead of others, I'm quite sure,\nin implementing this, and it is possible that he hasn't received an\nofficial notice because it was only a few days ago, as you recall, that\nI called you together because we had been given finally the permission.\n-11-\nQ.\nGovernor,\nyou think Pete Schabarum\n11 make a better\nSupervisor than any other three incumbents?\nA.\nPete Schabarum would make one --\nQ.\nAny of the three incumbents or four incumbents, with one\nretiring.\nA.\nOh, listen, you don't want me to stick my nose into that.\nI think that Pete Schabarum will make a fine Supervisor. As\na\nmatter of fact, some of the other present incumbents recommended\nhim. It seems as Foreman of the County Grand Jury he greatly\nimpressed county government with his knowledge of government and\nof the -- of the problems of the county.\nQ.\nDo you think he'll be upset by your comments today about Los\nAngeles County?\nA.\nOh, I wasn't pinning those down to Supervisors, I was talking\nabout the bureaueracy..\nQ.\nAre you talking about all county officials then or just the\nSupervisors or which ones?\nA.\nI was talking about the bureaucracy and you know me, I've\ngot a thing about the bureaucracy.\nQ.\nGovernor, Curtis Patrick used your name as a personal\nreference on that Nevada County land deal for which he has now been\nindicted. Did you authorize his use of your name as a personal\nreference?\nA.\nNo, but I suppose if he did that -- I didn't even know if --\nthat he did. If he did that, I'm quite sure that Curtis probably\nknowing of our association, that he felt confident that I would\nspeak well of him.\nQ.\nDid you in fact do this?\nA.\nNo one ever asked me.\nQ.\nGovernor, Assemblyman Brown says the two doctor visits per\nmonth permitted under Medi-Cal now is too restrictive on the recipients\nthat the -- and that the proposed legislation should be listed, as\nlong as you permitted only 25 per year they could all be in one month.\nA.\nWho wants to do this?\nQ.\nAssemblyman Brown.\nA.\nWell, no, this thing is working very well. It is two visits\nwithout prior authorization.\nThe request for prior authorization\nwere passed on by medical men as to whether they require more than\ntwo visits. So far around 99 per cent of the requests are being\n-12-\ngranted. But ev so, this has been very ef ctive because the\nsavings are around 15 per cent. And you wonder how those figures can\njibe. It simply means that a great many people just don't even\nbother to ask because they know themselves that they don't have a\nvalid reason. So again it'ssbeen one of those things in which\nyou have -- you have cleaned up the rolls of excess use and weight\nsimply by making someone commit and declare themselves.\nQ.\nGovernor, on another subject, Senator Collier is again t\nstudying the need for a new state capital building. What are your\nthoughts on the matter? Do you think it is necessary or not?\nA.\nI would hate to think that somebody is still talking about\nchanging this one. I think this is -- old historic capitol is one\nof the most beautiful of any state in the union. I would hate to\nsee it supplanted with some glass and aluminum tower, it seems to\nbe the modem concept. If he's talking about some additional office\nspace for the ever-growing staff of the legislature, they might have\ntwo investigations, whether they need theoffice space or whether they\nneed that much staff.\n0.\nSQUIRE:\nAny more questions?\nThank you.\nQ.\nYes, one. There was another question.\nSQUIRE: Get it in there, will you.\nQ.\nYes, sure, all throughout the western United States Indians\nare coming here to the tapitol particularly throughout northern\nCalifornia because they among other things said they are being\ndeprived of basic due process, basic citizenship and they are citing\nthe case of an Indian who was killed in northern California and\nthey have asked your office for help. Where is that letter at\nthis point in your office?\nA.\nI don't know.\nQ.\nNobody knows anything about it?\nA.\nI would -- I'd suggest the Indians have a valid complaint,\nand a valid complaint not here, the valid complaint is one of a\nnational policy that has done what a great many of our do-gooders\nwould like to do, it has totally taken over the running of the\nIndian lives by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and it has proven when\nthe State tries to do something of that kind -- not the State, the\ngovernment, when the government tries to do something of that kind\nit usually falls on its face, and it's been falling on its face\nfor many years with regard to Indian affairs.\n-13-\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RON. REAGAN\nHELD MARCH 21, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press confernce is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their con-\nvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand thereeis no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no00\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: We have three classes of journalism students\nEinspahr\nwith us this morning. One, Richard Einsbar's (phonetics) journalism\nclass from the C. K. McClatchy High School here in Sacramento.\nAnd Ray Canton's journalism class from the University of California\nat Santa Barbara and Eddie Chavez and his government class at\nTamalpais High School in Mill Valley. You are all very welcome,\nso everybody mind your manners now.\na.\nHave you got an opening statement, Governor, of any kind?\nA.\nNo opening statement other than that announcement.\nQ.\nGovernor, what prompted you to replase Mr. Dibble as Chairman\nof the Water Resources Board and yet retain him on the board?\nIs there some significance there?\nA.\nYes, as a matter of fact, the Board itself asked that we\nname someone from the Board who would not be under consideration\nunder any circumstances for permanent Chairman of the Board. They\nmade that request and we acceded to it.\nQ.\nIs Mr. Dibble under consideration for permanent Chairman?\nA.\nI don't know, whether he is or not.\nQ.\nGovernor, another subject. Governor, your catastrophic\nhealth insurance plan apparently has not been introduced yet. Mr.\nCampbell now has gone off the campaign for supervisor. What are your\nplans on that program?\nA.\nNo, Bill Campbell is going to handle that legislation.\nQ.\nHe will?\nA.\nYes, he'll still carry that.\nQ.\nCan you tell us when it will be introduced?\nED MEESE: Soon.\nA.\nSoon.\nQ.\nGovernor, some people in San Diego were concerned when the\n-1-\nconvention talk was going on that it might give the city a bad\nimage. Do you think the GOP convention has already given the city\na bad image?\nA.\nNo, I don't think SO. As a matter of fact, I hear on the\nother side that their convention bureau has had a great stimulant\nwith regard to interest in conventions in San Diego. This usually\nhappens when a national political convention picks a city and\nthat they have had several times the requests they normally have had.\nQ.\nGovernor, Laurence O'Brien said yesterday that the Life\narticle on -- on accusing the Republican administration of inter-\nfering in justice in San Diego may become and should become a\npolitical issue. Do you think that's the case?\nA.\nWell, I think Laurence O'Brien would make what you order\nfor breakfast a political issue if he had his way. I agree with\nwhat the Vice President said about it, that you have to remember\nLife is the magasine that bought Irving's story on Hughes.\nQ.\nAre you calling the story a hoax?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nAre you calling the story a hoax?\nA.\nNo, I'm just reminding you about Life's editorial policy.\nQ.\nAre those --\nQ.\nGovernor, is Mendocino State Hospital going to be closed?\nA.\nThere will be an announcement within the next -- I hope\n48 hours or so on the entire program of mental health, where we are\ngoing and what's going to be done.\nQ.\nBack to the previous subject.\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nBack to the previous subject, about the GOP in the national\nconventinn, in your discussions with President Nixon did he ever\nexpress to you his concern about having the Republican convention\nin California?\nA.\nNo, I've never discussed the subject with him at all.\nQ.\nGovernor, tomorrow the federal commission will recommend that\nthe laws on the use of marijuana be lessened, and the current penalties\nfor sale only be kept. There is also a possible initiative in\nCalifornia to do the same thing. Do you think voters should have\nthe opportunity to decide on that?\nA.\nWell, I don't think that that's perhaps necessary. I don't\nknow what the Commission is going to recommend. Here in California\nwe have been very progressive in allowing judges flexibility to\nreduce a penalty based on the circumstances, or reduce a case from\nfelony statys to misdemeanor.\nWe have also given judges flexibility\nwith regard to the other way, to where when a known pusher, when there\nis evidence that even though he has been caught with only a small\namount of marijuana that there is evidence that he is a large dealer\nand so forth. I believe in that kind of flexibility. Because it\nis true that sometimes a severe and extra severe penalty with no\nflexibility car. become counter-productive, it can make a court\nreluctant to find someone guilty knowing the nature of the penalty.\na.\nSo you would favor that approach to enforeing juana laws?\nA.\nSimilar -- yes, similar to -- similar to what Caiffornia has.\nAs I say, that kind of flexibility I can -- I can appreciate.\nI\ndon't know what the Commission might report.\nQ.\nGovernor, a San Francisco Superior Court Judge saysthe\nState should have a law providing heroin to certified drug addicts.\nWhat would be your reaction to such a proposal?\nA.\nWell, I think -- I've answered that before. This is somewhat\non the English pattern that we discussed sometime ago, and I don't\nthink that there is any record that that has proven successful and\nthat that is the answer to this problem. That's a kind of a\ndefeatist policy. You've got some very ill people who need help\nand it is almost like saying let them keep the disease and we will\njust put them over here aside, and let them go their way to their\neventual doom. I don't think that's the answer.\nQ.\nGovernor, Assembly Committee yesterday moved to the floor\nof that house a constitutional -- a proposed constitutional amendment\non a statewide lottery. Would you tell us what your position is\non that at this point.\nA.\nWell, as I said before, I -- first of all, in those states\nwhere they have lotteries and where they have turned to gambling\nof one kind or another in an effort to raise revenues for the state\nthey haven't proven all that successful. As a matter of fact, they\nhave made very little impact on the State's financial picture. And\nI just think that a state like California, the size and wealth and\npower of California, that we should -- we should appeal to people's\nstrengths rather than their weaknesses, in order to get the funds\nwe need to run state government.\nQ.\nIn other words you are against it, is that right?\n-3-\n(Laughter)\nA.\nI just talked myself into being against it, Squire.\nQ.\nGovernor, getting back to the ITT thing, do you agree with the\nSecretary of State's action in filing a lawsuit to require the pledge,\nwhatever it was, to be returned to ITT?\nA.\nIt is my understanding it was never accepted, as of about\nfour months ago, but --\n&\nIs it still --\nA.\nI think many of these things you just have the -- the\npolitical season is on.\nQ.\nGovernor, that same context, an old political ally of yours\nand of President'Nixon's, C. Arnold Smith, in San Diego, is now\ninvolved in that latest flap down there. What is your reactinn\nto Mr. Smith's involvement in the alleged involvement in it,\nand do you think it further tarnishes the image of the convention\nand of the party?\nA.\nWell, I'ver never thought that the convention or the party\nhas been tarnished by anything that has taken place, and I haven't\nread the Life article so I don't know what all of that fuss is\nabout. And I doubt that I will get around to reading it.\na.\nGovernor, several Legislators from both parties, some other\nofficials in state government, and just about every court that\nwelfare comes before has been critical of Mr. Carlson's operation of\nwelfare in California. Has everybody had a step at hand, was there\na giant conspiracy against him or just what is the problem with\ngetting the message across?\nA.\nYou can call it whatever you want. There is a giant\nconspiracy or whatever it is, but I take little credence in the\nmost recent charges and I have all the confidence in the world in\nhim. The program is exceeding far beyond our greatest expectations.\nAnd the committee that has the Chairman Beilenson that has been\nbringing the latest charges, I would only point that Chairman\nBeilenson was opposed to welfare reform to the extent that he\nkilled in his committee every effort that we have made, he finally\nauthored his own welfare reform bill, so-called, which was to further\nkill It by passing an: innocuous bill that would not create any\nwelfare reform at all. Finally, in the negotiations that led to\nthe compromise and the acceptance of about 70 per cent of what we\nhave he was opposed in those negotiations to everything that was\nfinally agreed upon. I think there is a certain element of hypocrisy\nevident there an the truth is you cannot di ute the figures.\nNow, in the recent hearings last November and December, so-\ncalled hearings that his committee held, and upon which his report\nis based, we have gone to and Robert Carlson had gone to the Attorney\nGeneral and had an Attorney General's opinion that what we were\ndoing is legal and is carrying out the program of welfare reform.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you have any comment upon the planned parenthood\ntheory that abortions and birth control have had as much to do with\ncutting welfare rolls as your reforms?\nA.\nI think that is something that Mr. Beilenson would hope had\ntaken place. Actually, no one can put a finger on what particular\nadministrative decision, what part of all of the tightening that\nhas gone into this has caused the great decline in the welfare\nrolls. I said the other day, and I still insist that a part of\nthis decline has simply been the elimination of non-existent people.\nThat we had paper people. There was no way prior to these reforms\nthat anyone was making any effort to find out how many people were\ncollecting several checks instead of just one. We had instances\nof families that were claiming more children than they have.\nAnd as we tightened up administratively, both the welfare workers\nwho had been lenient in this and the people who had been getting\naway with it discovered that someone might be watching them and\nthey straightened up. But I have to point out that basically the\nwelfare reform part of the logislative package has attually not\nbeen fully -- well, it's boen implemented, but we have not seen the\nresults of that as yet. The bulk of our savings has been as a\nresult of the tightening on eligibility and administrative procedures\nthat we began way last January, a year ago.\nQ.\nWhy did it take so long to get the thing in -- to take these\npeople off the rolls?\nA.\nWell, because when you -- when you get down to the actual\nremoving of someone, Squire, from the roll, then this person is\nentitled to a fair hearing and they must be maintained on the rolls\nuntil they have it and right now we have a gigantic backlog of\ncases demanding fair hearings.\nQ.\nGovernor, another subject.\nGovernor Reagan, there is some\nfederal and state laws that are now encouraging people to live to-\ngether because they have more funds, even the over 65's; to maintain\ntheir Social Security they live together without marriage.\nNow,\ntwo single people get a better break on income tax than a married\ncouple. And a woman on welfare doesn't marry she\nshe gets more mor\nDo you think the law\nnow encouraging this?\nThe law is encour aging it, but what will you do about it?\nA.\nI'd rather have our welfarepeople answer that, but this\nhas been of concern to us, that for a long time we think this whole\napproach, the MARS approach, the man assuming role of spouse and so\nforth -- the ruling that a man living as the father in a household,\nsimply because he is not the father of the children should be exempt\nfrom any contribution to their support, even if he is fully employed.\nWe think that a lot of these things are part of the ridiculous hodge-\npodge of regulations from Washington that should have been corrected\na long time ago. It's led to the kind of thing, for example, in which\na divorced woman remarrying a man of means with no problems requiring\nwelfare or anything of the kind, he out of deference to her previous\nhusband does not legally adopt the children, her children in this secon\nmarriage. Technically, according to Washington, she and the children\nare eligible for Medi-Cal, because he is not the legal father of\nthese children. Now, this is an extreme case of how far the\nregulations can go in opening the rolis and making it difficult to\nemploy common sense. I'd like to see a lot of things. I think\nif a man is living in the house as the head of a household, with or\nwithout a marråage license, I think that he should be considered as --\nas the husband. And it should be considered as a family unit.\nQ.\nWhat about the two on Social Security, two elderly people,\nthey only have a little over a hundred a month and they can't marry\nbecause one of them will lose their Social Security. This is\nencouraging sin in the aged or something.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nI meet this one with mingled feelings. One of somewhat\nawe and envy of the people of that age who have that problem.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nAnd secondly commiserationtand sympathy for --\nQ.\nWould you change the law?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nWill you change the law?\nA.\nWell as I say, all of those I would like to see -- I'd like\nto see us have the right to look at this and put them adl in a common\nsanse perspective, yes, something should be done, they should not\nbe panalized for getting married.\nQ.\nSir, John Philip Sousa of San Diego Union. Do you have a\n-6-\ncomment on Mr. Moscone's 7 and a half billion dollar health plan?\nA.\nOn Mr. Moscone's 7 and a half billion dollar health plan,\nwhich I very much fear if it were implemented would become a ten\nbillion dollar one to start with, not 7 and a half. Yes, I think\nthat there is a great difference between what we have proposed for\ncatastrophic -- the catastrophic coverage and what he has proposed.\n90 per cent of the people in California already have some kind of\nmedical or health insurance. We have had to resort to the compulsory\nfeature inour own catastrophic plan simply because here is a coverage\nthat cannot be supplied by the private sector. He in turn is\nproposing a plan which simply puts government into competition with\nprivate insurance and simply eliminates private health insurance,\nmoving in favor of a government plan. I don't think government\nwas set up to go into business in competition with the private\nsector.\nQ.\nGovernor, a bill was introduced today to exempt school bonds\nfor earthquake repair and allow them to be passed at 51 per cent.\nAnd notwithstanding the money you have or in the budget for repairs,\nhow do you think voters will react to the seriousness of that\nproblem and the need for money?\nA.\nWell, Ihope that the voters will recognize -- we are talking\nnow about a great protective plan. You can call it a health and\nsafety plan in this need to bring our schools up to earthquake\nstandards in California. I myself favor the bond issue. Now\nwhere I'm -- I'd have to give some thought and I haven't given any\nthought, I didn't know about this until you just mentioned it, the\nidea of now and then because of the particular goal that we set,\nthe precedent of changing the rules withrregard to the bonding,\nI'd have to give that some consideration, but I am -- I just can't\nbelieve that the people of California would not pass such a bond\nissue, with what is at stake.\nWe have had in recent years, as you know, two or three severe\nearthquakes in which we were very fortunate that they occurred\nat an hour in which the schools were empty and when you went around\nand looked at the buildings and visualized those buiddings filled\nwith children you have to know the great tragedy that would have\nhappened.\nQ.\nDo you think the problem is serious enough to exempt that\n-7-\nbond requirement\nA.\nWell as I say, I would want -- I'd want to give serious\nthought to whether you set that precedent because everyone feels\nthat there -- that a particular bond issue is of some great\nimportance. And I'm one who believes that the two-thirds passage\nof a bond is a pretty good protective device.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you support the decision of the national board\nin Washington to cut back the mage increases that were granted\nto the ILWU workers?\nA.\nWell, if you are going to have a board and you are going to\ntry to fight inflation, I think you are going to have to go along\nwith their -- their decisions, whether it is on prices or wages.\nAnd the problem they are trying to solve, it isn't an easy one.\nAnd certainly no one is going to be happy when the ruling goes\nagainst them. But no one would have been happy either if\nthey had to go to work carrying their money in a basket and some\nof us in theroom are old enough that remember in Germany they\nused to dismiss workers on the hour, every hour, -- pay themsevery\nhour so they could rush out and spend their money because they knew\nthat by the time another hour was up the money would only be worth\na fraction of what it was when they were given the money. And it\nis awfully easy to say that could never happen here. I don't\nthink they thought it would happen in Germany either.\nQ.\nHowever, the consequences would be another West Coast dock\nstrike, is that not worse than granting the increase under the\nbargaining?\nA.\nWell, some place along the line both labor and management,\nif there are emergency measures necessary and evidently the govern-\nment thinks there are, to curb this inflation at the same time cure\nthis economic dislocation of the slump, and get us back into\noperation -- some place along the line both have got to be willing\nto take the responsibility of accepting the bad with the good, as\nfar as they themselves are concerned. And I feel that there was a\ncertain lack of responsibility. I assess no blame on either side,\nbut to let that dock strike go on as long as it did, when ibevictim\nized as many as it did who had no place at the bargaining table.\nYou had your hand up? No?\nQ.\nGovernor, there is now an attempt to repeal the Priolo's\nbill last year on the workman's right to sue. Why did you insist\non a trade-off between that and the Fenton bill on Workmen's\n-8-\nCompensation last year? Or did you in fact:\nA.\nNow, wait a minute here. Now we get into those 5,000 bills\nor so that were introduced.\nED MEESE:\nThis is a situation, Governor, in which there\nwere some bills -- it was a package of bills which increased the\nWorkman's compensation benefits and other bills in the package which\ntook care of some loopholes and problems that had occurred. And\nit was jointly negotiated with members of the Legislature and the\nother interested parties that the package would go through as a\nwhole. That's what the gentleman is talkingabout.\nA.\nIf that's a trade-off, well that's what took place.\nQ.\nThere's now reports that you and the A.F. of L - CIO are lined\nup against Speaker Moretti, the AFL-CIO is still -- is against\nrepealing the Priolo bill. Do you know anything about it.\nA.\nI don't know, but it sure brings back that old line that\npolitics make strange bedfellows, doesn't it? I don't know what\nthey are talking about, I really don't.\nQ.\nGovernor, have you cooled off on asking the Legislature to\nenforce Fresident Nixon's vietnam peace plan?\nA.\nHave I what?\na.\nHave you cooled off on it?\nA.\nWell, I think the time is past in which it cauld have been of\nany great value, for them to do it, and they didn't see fit to do it.\nI just felt that here was a worthwhile peacepplan that could have\nended the Willing and I believe, and have believed for a long time,\nand there is evidence to support this, that North Vietnam places --\ndue to their own govermmental structure in Vietnam, they place a\ngreat deal of emphasis on what they think grass roots sentiment\nis.\nWhat they think the people of America believe and they still\nthink that the government is out of step with the people and there-\nfore they are going to win politically what they have been trying to wi.\nin the battlefield. And I thought with -- with a good and legitimate\npeace plan offered that there could have been a service done if the\npeople of this country had made it plain that they were united\nbehind this peace plan and that it might have shaken Hanoi into\ngiving it better acceptance.\nQ.\nDid you ever meet with the Republican Legislators on this\nissue?\n-9-\nA.\nNo, I sim y expressed my will and If it in the hands of\nthe Legislature.\nQ.\nGovernor, how would you evaluate your estäblishment of the\nEcology Corps and emphasis on conscientious objectors in terms of\nsuccessfully fulfilling the gap between inmate firefighters and\nthe need for new firefighters?\nA.\nWell, the people who are in charge, contrary to a few\ndissidents who found that they didn't like the blisters that they\nwere geting on their hands, find it has been successful. It is\ncontinuing to grow. And we are continuing the program.\n8.\nHow about the specific emphasis that you gave at first on\nrecruiting conscientious objectors?\nA.\nThat's right, we continue that. But we\nalso\nhave\n:\nhave now -- we have taken -- we have taken others into the program\nalso. But that is still an emphasis.\nThe conscientious objector.\nprovision in the law requires, I think it is two years service in\nsome kind of public service work. And this fite that requirement.\nIt is hard work. I think the few dissidents that have sounded off\nhave not been able to see the big picture. They only see what\nthey are doing and they -- it is hard for them to relate moving\na rock to ecology. But it is part of the whole pattern. And I\nsuppose this would be true in war. We know that the man with the\ngun in his hand is very often -- cannot reconcile his particular\nposition to the over-all strategic plan.\nQ.\nWhen you announced the program you said there were 10,000\nC.O. 's in California. Are you satisfied that enough of those or\na large number have volunteered for the Ecology Corps?\nA.\nWell, we wouldn't have been able to take all 10,000 of them\nif they all wanted to go your way, there are many service jobs\nthat they are doing but I know that we have been expanding and I\nthink we are opening up additional facilities in the very near\nfuture and Jim Stearn who is in charge of this is very satisfied.\nQ.\nOn the same subject, besides the blisters, some of their\ncomplaints are along the lines that they are getting $40 a month,\nthat for example 2 of the Corps people have died and their families\nreceived no benefits, there is no health insurance plan, no\ndeath -- life insurance, etcetera. Those are a bit more than\nblistersproblems. What sympathies do you have on those?\nA.\nWell, I have the sympathy for the family of anyone who's\ndied. I don't know just -- this is a brand new program. I'm\n-10-\nsure that everyth g that needs to be worked it will be worked out\ninconnection with this.\nED MEESE: I think the question is, Governor, if anyone has\ndied in the program.\nA.\nYes, if anyone has died. I had not heard that anyone had\ndied in the program.\nQ.\nWell, the life insurance policy that's one of the things\nthey said, in addition to blisters. If that were not the case,\ndo you know of them getting life insurance? Do you know of thom\ngetting medical care assistance?\nED MEESE: They do get medical care. They don't get life\ninsurance.\nA.\nWe know they get full medical care.\nED MEESE: If they want life insurance, they can join the\nArmy.\nQ.\nGovernor, on another subject.\nSQUIRE: Wait a minute, just a minute, before we get away,\nhow do you feel about the proposal of the Democratic organization\nthat amnesty be granted to the draft-dodgers.\nA.\nNo, Squire, I can't believe in a blanket amnesty for\ndeserters or draft-dodgers that fled the country. I think after\nevery war, I think every case is an individual case, it should be\ntreated as an individual case. If someone wants to make his\nplea with degard to why he did what he did, and go through the\nlegal processes regarding this, that's the way it should be done.\nBut DO simply give a blanket amnesty with the knowledge that logic\nwould indicate that some of these people just simply -- well, they\nwere not sincere objectors and that they simply ran out, I just\ndon't think you can do this.\nQ.\nGovernor, what's the size of your budget proposal now?\nDo you expect it to increase any more before the Legislature votes\non it?\nA.\nWell, there are always augmentations and things that come\nalong in a budget. The size of the budget isabout 7.68, I believe.\nI realize that question ispprobably prompted by the new mathematics\nthat was practiced by the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.\nI sent him a card yesterday on his 19th birthday.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nGovernor, back to the Priolo bill of last year, you said that\n-11-\nyou played no par\nin the negotiations on th\nWorkman's Compensation\nplan, is that right?\nA.\nWell, as Ed just told you, we negotiated out a package of\nbills that did all of the things that were needed to be done and\neveryone was in agreement on it and a single package went through\nand it was a very progressive bill and it was a great improvement\nwith regard to labor and their gains.\nQ.\nOne question on the Priolo bill itself, that biill would\npreclude the admission of evidence as to the violation of safety\nworkers -- it would be a violation of state law. How can your\nadministration justify the admission of such evidence in cases --\nA.\nI don't know that we have to or that it is necessary. You\nare -- again, you are asking about something now, and as I say with\nalmost 5,000 bills introduced, the thousands that I had to sign\nand the hundreds that had to be vetoed, it is impossible for me with\nno notice and without looking back at the record and the minutes\nin our discussion, on this, to tell you what was the rationale\nbehind the action that was taken. But I'm sure it was a sound\nrationale.\nQ.\nGovernor, on another subject, have you decided on your\nbuilding plans for your ranch in Rivorside County?\nA.\nNo, as a matter of fact I just own it and pay taxes on it\nbecause so far the nearest power is eight miles away and the nearest\nwater is a long ways away. And when we bought it we were told\nthat all of that would be in and available within two years and then\nthe people that told us that, they are no longer connected with\nthe company we bought it from. And we should have had it in writing.\nQ.\nIs that why your Real Estate Commissionermis: reorganizing\ndepartment?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nI don't think the reorganization of the department can\nhelp me a bit. I've got some beautiful scenery and some beautiful\nland up there, but if you go take a canteen of water with you.\nQ.\nGovernor, does Mr. Beck's new assignment signal for you some\ndoes\nnew speech making roles nationwide or what/ix Mr. Beck's assignment\nmean?\nA.\nNo, it just means a reshuffling in the department, it means that\nthere is only a limited time that a fellow can take you fellows and\nchanges have to be made. A certain element of combat fatigue\nenters.\n&\nHow does that affect Mr. Jenkins' position?\nED MEESE:\nHe remains the same.\nA.\nRemains the same.\nQ.\nMr. Beck is not taking over any of his functions?\nA.\nNo, no.\nQ.\nThe move then was made more out of sympathy for Mr. Beck\nthan out of sympathy for the press?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nYes, try as I might, while I enjoy your companionship even\noftener than this, once a week, at the same time I find myself\ncrying for you very seldom.\nQ.\nGovernor, would you comment on Speaker Moretti's poll showing a\ndeclire in your popularity. There have also been articles in the\nnewapapers, Harper's on the same --\nA.\nSo far he hasn't revealed that poll and I haven't had any\nsuch poll, só I don't know what he's talking about. Sometimes\nit just seems to me that he goes on knowing more and more about\nless and less until one day he may know everything about nothing.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nYou don't feel your mandate with the people is slipping?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nYou don't feel your mandate with the people is slipping?\nA.\nWell, all I know is I'm still trying to do the things that\nI said I would do when I was elected the first time, and when I was\nre-elected, and we have gotten some of them done, most notable\nbeing the welfare reform. And I would appreciate all the help that\nBob wants to give me or anyone else in achieving the rest of those\nobjectives. The people seem to approve them when they voted and\nI see no reason to change in trying to get them.\nQ.\nGovernor, back to welfare briefly, you said there was quite\na backlog of fair hearings for reducing the welfare rolls. Does\nthis mean you anticipate a continuation of reductions in case loads\nor another great reduction or what do you mean?\nA.\nOh, no, we know that it has to level off. As a matter of\nis\nfact, every indication/that it is coming to a leveling off period.\nThat was just logical. We were surprised, I think, as long as it\nwent and with the great reduction, particularly when we had to counter\nthis against the unctrollable rise we had. But it is under control\nnow and it was out of control before.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nGOVERNORE REAGAN: Say, while the rest of you don 't think\nI'm cheaing on you or anything, I thought if we had about two minutes\nI'd go back here and see if some of our student journalists had a\nquestion or two. I'll go back to the back of the room for that.\n-13-"
}