Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564122
label
Transcripts - 04/05/1972, 04/20/1972, 05/11/1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564122
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 04/05/1972, 04/20/1972, 05/11/1972
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Conference Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564122
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f4c7f7c614cfb1f0
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -
04/05/1972, 04/20/1972, 05/11/1972
Box: P03
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at:
[email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
4/5
BRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD APRIL 5, 1972
Reported by
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(this rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is
furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their con-
venience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
o00
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release #185)
Budget
Q.
Governor, the Democrats are only up there by 190 million
and the Republicans went along with them in the Ways and Means
Committee. It is 190 million over what you asked for.
A.
That's right, I think some of the objections, as I say
here, this is one. Some of the other objections are things that I
can't -- couldn't do anything about. Because I cannot put back what
has been taken out and the changestthat they have made in the
Executive Department's ability to run its own affairs are even more
grevious. But in the committee I think you'll find that the same
thing followed, that I have just said will follow on the voting on
the floor, that there is no sense in trying to win the battle there.
The thing to do is to move it along and get it to the eventual
process of conference committee.
Nobody else?
Well--
(Laughter)
Q.
Is that it? --
Q.
Governor, can you give us an example of the kind of material
you deal with that requires putting into a shredder after you finish
with it so no one can see it?
A.
No, all I know is that this has been a standard procedure and
I guess in most government offices, and it has been in ours.
I
don't even know where the thing is, I just know what I want to throw
in my waste basket I only have to tear in tiny pieces, that it is
all destroyed that way. And as I say, it's been standard operating
procedure as long as I know of.
Q.
Governor, on a political matter, this week-end Republican
organizations are going to meet and I understand that you have had
some of the leaders in to urge them to endorse Nixon, is that true?
A.
I haveehad some of the leaders in as Chairman of the Nixon
campaign to tell tem that -- yes, I'm campa ning for him and that
I discussed with them what I think is some of the problems and urged
them to face this issue in the importance of --
Q.
Have you any --
A.
-- supporting the President.
Q.
-- you might not get 60 per cent?
A.
What?
Q.
Have you any fear that they might not round up 60 per cent
of the delegates to endorse Nixon, thereby defeat what you are
trying to do?
A.
I don't know, I'm quite sure that there are people tn that
organization who have different views, but I know also it takes
two thirds, I think, Squire to -- to endorse, and I don't know
the count intthere.
Q.
But you have discussed with some of the leaders the necessity
of this?
A.
Oh, I've discussed with as many Republicans as I can get
in -- of activists in leadership groups this way, the necessity for
having unity in the party and going forth in support of what I'm
sure is going to be our nominee.
Q.
Governor Wallace has said that -- in advance of the Wisconsin
primary, and also he thought that he did well, and the effect of that
would be to get President Nixon to change the policies of the
administration that are existing.
Devernor Wallace did very well
in Wisconsin. Do you think that President Nixon ought to respond
to that showing by altering his policy?
A.
I don't know that the President needs any counsel or advise
from Governor Wallace. I think that any President needs, certainly
within his own party -- needs counseling, and the opinions provided
to him from every facet. This has been one of my criticisms of
the so-called conservatives in the Republican party, is that we haven't
and I ude me because you put me in with that group anyway --
we haven't expressed ourselves on many issues, either in support
or in criticism as mush as we should. For example, the President
told me that with regard to the Amchitka blast, which I'm sure a
great many people felt should have gone forward as a necessary part
of our defense, that all he heard was pressure from those people who
wanted it cancelled. He didn't hear from any of the people who
supported it and believed it should go forward. And I think
judging by my own position here, it is nice to know sometimes that
there is -- when you are facing a controversial issue. that all of
the pressure is Y
coming from just one gro
that wants it one
way, that you can turn and weightagainst that the opinion of other
people.
&
Governor -- the point Governor Wallace was making is that he
wasn't going to advise the President that he did well; the people
in Wisconsin would be sending a message to the President, do you
agree with that?
A.
Well, the only message so far that I've gotten out of the
Wisconsin primary is it confirmed what some of us are saying for
a long time, that the leadership of the Democratic party is in
complete disarray.
Q.
Governor --
A.
Heresand then there.
Q.
Governor, are you saying that Governor Wallace is showing --
perhaps is a valuable counterforce to the more open and more obvious
comments of the liberals?
A.
No, I was trying to get away from the question of Governor
Wallace advising anyone and get it back to our own f- our own team
advising. No, although I think anyone in public life watches
everything of this kind as a measure of public opinion, what people
are thinking and what's on their minds. You wouldn't be in public
life very long if you didn't.
Q.
Governor, speaking of advising, given the current situation
in Vietnam, do you think it wouldobe politically wise for the
President now to resume the bombing of the north?
A.
Well, we have around a hundred thousand Americans still left
in Vietnam. All that is between those hundred thousand Americans,
the majority of whom are non-combat groups, all that's between them
and being overrun and captured or killed by the enemy is the
Vietnamese ground forces and our own air force, and I would think
that the commander in Chief, in our country, would do whatever has
to be done to protect those hundred thousand men. In the process
of vietnamization, I think I said this to all of you a long time
ago, when this program started, that we were well aware that as we
started to withdraw we would come to a point at which the American forc
left would be SO outnumbered that they would be endangered unless
there was some protection for them and this was the purpose of Viet-
namization, to guage the -- its increase and our withdrawal, to
make them proportionate.
Now, we know that Vietnamization for
sometime to come is based on American air support, that we -- it
takes a little longer to build up their forces and their capability
in the air; the *raining that's required, the organization and
so forth, as well as the providing of planes. So I think the
President has no choice but to do, as I say, whatever has to be
done to protect our men.
Q.
Does that include bombing the north, Governor?
A.
That includes yes, bombing the north.
Q.
Do you think the offense in the last few days indicate that
vietnamization is failing?
A.
I think it is a little too early to decide. I know sometime
ago -- we have been expecting the offensive since the first of the
year and I know in a briefing sometime ago in Washington to some
of the Governors, it was explained that when this came there was no
question but that like any massive offensive drive, it would have some
gains, it would even capture some cities. This was expected. But
there was confidence then that the South Vietnamese would in the
long run be able to stop them and while they bend, they wouldn't
break, and they would stop the enemy and blunt this drive. And I
think in just these first few days, as the offense was lauched,
this is no time to make a judmgant. I think also there is a tendency
to report some of the doings over there the way the Tet offensive
at Hue mifew years ago was reported, which militarily was a disaster
for the N rth but which still was hailed in many areas of the media
as somehow a great victory for North Vietnam.
Q.
New subject.
Q.
Governor, excuse me, you say hailed, why would you use a
word like "hailed" by media as a victory for Vietnam?
A.
Maybe that was a bad choice of word, at least it was announced
as that. As a mtter of fact, iteprobably was one of the most
significant things with regard to the previums President, his dealine
in popularity.
. :
Do you see the President in a kind of dilemma in the election
year, political dilemma because of the current situation in Vietnam,
because on the one hand he faces criticism for stepping up the war
and criticisms in another quarter for not acting on it. Would that
present a dilemma to him politically?
A.
I think you've got a dilemma, there is no question. The
years are just going on in a war which two previous presidents wouldn't
attempt to win and apparently couldn't end, build up a place where
the man who occupies the White House knows that there is no great
public support for wars of containment at this time. And he has to
deal with that. At the same time he has the responsibility of the
men who are still here. And It may be. the there are some who
would write off those hundred thousand men and who will be blind
to the fact and refuse to see the danger to those men. We hear
those voices all the time. And quite a bit of that kind of talk.
But I think -- I don't have any question but the President will
fulfill his responsibility as Commander in Chief even though it
might be unpopular with some.
Q.
Governor, you say you hear these voices all the time that
are willing to write off the hundred thousand men over there.
Who
are some of these voices?
A.
Well, they don't say write off the hundred thousand men.
They simply say accept the enemy's word that he won't do anything
to these men and that he will release our prisoners and so forth 1f
we will just simply lay down our guns and wait on the dock for the
boats to bring them home. And I just don't think that a President
can take that chance. Now, most of the Democratic candidates
have urged this policy. The President can't take -- as long
as there is even a thousand to one chance that there is danger to
our men, the President can't be as reckless as some of the would be
presidents are.
Q.
On a Califonia matter, Governor.
A.
All right.
Q.
When the question of Perry Mulligan's firing or the point
when you asked his resignation to be withdrawn -- when you asked him
to resign, you deflected a lot of questions on that subject by
saying your office was engaged in a continuing re-examination of
potential conflict of interest cases, and that this would probably
be available to reporters because of your administration. What is
the status of that re-examination?
A.
What 1s the status of that re-examination?
MR. MEESE: Agency secretaries and department heads have
very carefully gone over the situation with all appointees, both
full-time and part-time and are reviewing with these people any
potential or possible conflicts or incompatible activities.
Q.
So, would it be possible to find out about these specific
cases, about the various outside employment situations and that kind
of thing?
A.
Well, we are in the process of review now. It isn't some-
thing that's done overnight.
a.
But it would be made available to the press?
-5-
MR. MEESE
There is some question a
ut whether a
person's business affairs will be made available in its entirety.
Until we see them, I don't know, so I don't think we could answer
at this point.
Q.
Governor, can you tell us how soon you expect to have
those findings.
MR. MEESE: It is not a matter of finding, it is going
through with each individual person their situation. Mostly for
them to be aware of potential conflicts so they can avoid them or
handle the situation. As yet we know of no resignations or changes is
status because of this process.
A.
The possibility remains that a person may not be aware that
some ownership he has or some activity he has constitutes --
Q.
Is there a uniform policy, Governor? Do you have a written
stated uniform policy in this area so that your appointees know
what they can do and what they aan't do?
A.
Well, a general policy, yes. And certainly everyone has
been pinned down on this. Then you may find that some individual,
as I say, doesn't even realize that something constitutes a conflict
of interest.
Q.
Governor, Mr. Mulligan said yesterday that if the truth were
known that most of the state department heads would be guilty of
moonlighting, and he said he's aware of one state official who
is on an annual retainer with a private company, in the same field
in which his statutory responsibilities lie. Have you any comment
on that?
A.
Yes, if what he says is true, frankly I -- I think there
must be some exaggeration on that because I don't think we are that
blind to what all has been -- that happens with our various depart-
ments. But this is the type of thing that the cabinet secretaries
are seeking to find.
Q.
Governor, Mr. Mulligan also said that he wanted to meet with
you again after you returned from your vacation this week to talk
about his situation. Has he contacted you or do you intend to grant
him an appointment?
A.
Well, I'll certainly grant him an appointment, if he asked,
but he hasn't contacted me.
Q.
Governor, just so we can put this in proper context, could
you outline briefly what your stated policy is on this conflict of
interest with the department heads.
A.
T think it is the obvious thing
interest explains what it is right there. That a man accepting the
position must -- must give up anything which he could conceivably
make his other interest or his outside interest or private investment
profit from his position in government.
Q.
Under the circumstances --
A.
And very frankly I would be inclined to doubt that there was
anything more than here and there some inadvertent and unknowing
conflict of interest.
I think there are very few people that come
and
into government/willingly give up what they have to give up to
come into government, that would attempt to do this. I think the
government is far more honest than most people are prepared to
beliefe.
Q.
Mr. Mulligan told some of us that he accepted an airline ticket
to Hawaii on behalf of E.S.I. and is that the reason that Mr.
Meese's suggestions -- well, Mr. Meese reported to you at that
interview. Was Mr. Mulligan's acceptance of the airline fare,
did that figure in your call for his resignation?
A.
Yes, I said it was a mistake in judgment, I think, for a
man to go at the request and on the expenses of a company that was
attempting to -- to arrange a contract with our own state which
he would be involved, to go and act as a kind of salesman for that
company and attempting to sell them to the city of Honolulu. I said
it was a mistake in judgment. I said also I didn't believe that
the -- that it was deliberate on his part, that he wasn't aware--
this is one of those cases where he hadn't seen through this as the
possibility of it being viewed as a conflict of interest and I made
it perfectly clear it had nothing to do with the later charges which
came uprregarding the meeting in Honolulu and which I am delighted
to say now verify my original statement about Mr. Mulligan, that they
have been dropped, those charges have been dropped.
Q.
Governor, under the circumstances could you consider appoint-
ing Mr. Mulligan to some other state post?
A.
Well, so far there's been no request to do such a thing and
I wouldn't know what that post would be right now.
Q.
Well, theoretically, could -- under the circumstances and in
view of this conflict of interest which you say is there, could you
appoint him to any state post?
A.
Well, I'd question that, whether I could or not, yes.
Because, as I say, a mistake in judgment was made.
Q.
Mr. Mulligan sent in a letter to your office asking that your
resignation -- his regisnation be withdrawn. When was the letter
sent and what was the nature of that letter?
A.
I don't remember the exact dates, but I had already accepted
his resignation and he and I had met personally.
Q.
What was the general thrust of his letter? Why was he asking
you to -- to withdraw that resignation?
A.
Well, he just -- simply felt that -- I suppose changed his
mind and felt that he shouldn't have resigned at my request.
&
Governor, you think -- seem to think that anything that may
be going on in the Executive Branch along this line is asa.result
and
of
inadvertence. What do you think about the legislature/conflicts
of interest?
A.
Well, I think they have the same problems there. The legis-
lative branch, and I'm not going to get over into their -- crossing
over the lines of -- even though they may be willing to violate
the separation of powers, I don't want to -- I think the legislative
branch from its past has some problems that they themselves have
been looking at in these last couple of years, and must look at
in that they have come to a virtually full-time legislature from
a past in which it was so part-time that you obviously expected
your legislators to have their own private businesses or employment
or whatever it might be, and they only served a few months at a
very nominal salary as state legislators. It was a side-line
activity. Now you also come up to the national situation in which
obviously Congressmen, Senators, are full-time employees of the
federal government but there has never been any restriction on them
having businesses or being partners in law firms and that sort of
thing. There again I think your conflict of interest is not so
much over holding the job as ensuring that you never participate in
anything that -- as a legislator, that has to do with some outside
interest of yours. Obviously it would be a conflict of interest if
the Chairman of a committee was handling the legislation that would
affect favorably his own personal situation.
Q.
Governor, on the legislature, but another subject. Assembly
Finance Committee this week cut your $150,000 request for the
mansion to $25,000 in order to assure it wouldn't be used as an office
as well as a home. What is your reaction to that?
A.
Well, my reaction is, once again they shot from the hip,
-8-
because if they' have picked up the phone a called they would
have found out that I am on their side as never wanting the
Governor's residence to be a combination residence and office, a la
the White House, or the Capitol of -- the Governor's mansion of
Georgia or some others I can name. Now, the great opposition, as you
know, to the site and the plans that have been agreed upon at one
time under Governor Brown for having it across the street from the
capitol here was that they were going to construct not only a home
but it was going to be the Executive office suite of the Governor.
I don't agree with that. I think the Governor should be here in
the Capitol and all of the advanced plans of the citizens who had
started out to raise money for a Governor's residence had been
predicated on the fact and that's why they bought that land way out
there on the American River -- it would be a residence. Now,
admittedly, it has to be a residence of a little more capacity than
the average home because of the official entertaining that must be
done. It is pretty hard to get 120 legislators at a dinner in a
30-foot living room holding the plate on their lap. At the same
time you try not to build some vast hotel that when you are not
entertaining leaves you rattling around in it. And I think that
the -- that the people who had started the idea of contributing
a mansion to the state had some very fine ideas in that regard.
You have to add enough bedrooms to recognize the fact that pelple
in politics are getting younger and you may have, as we have had in
the past, a Governor with several children. I think there have to
be guests accommodations in a structure of that kind. But this
is the thinking and there is no office suite included in anyone's
planning or anyone's thinking and maybe the Senate now, ifyou
Fellows will harrow this far and wide, will see their mistake and
come rushing back in to put the money back in the budget.
Q.
Governor, do you see the forthcoming primary in California
shaping up as any kind of pivotal point or major election in this
election year?
A.
As any kind of what?
Q.
Of a turning point or watershed in this election.
A.
Well, I don't know which of the 19 primaries might wind up
being considered the watershed with the Democratic party is
concerned or whether the decision is going to be made there.
I
think in the Republican party it is pretty well confirmed who our
candidate is going to be, the encumbent President. So I
think
we just have to wait and see and I don't know. There are
19
primaries yet to D. And some place along e line someone is going
to emerge or they are going to come into the -- to the convention
in Miami, the Democrats, with Ibestill a wide open race to be decided
at the convention. So I wouldn't -- I would think that California
is one of the last of the primaries you could tag now as predicting
that will be the watershed.
Q.
Governor, what do you think the impact of the acquittal of
the Soledad brothers would be on the state penal system? What did
you think of that jury's decision?
A.
Well, I think it was another evidence of the fact that our
court system does work and you do get justice in our conrts. And
on the basis of the evidence the jury decided that they -- they
were not guilty, and that's our system.
Q.
Governor, the track record of so-called social revolutionaries
involved in alleged crime has not been too good in terms of
prosecution, the Pit River Indians hung up in a jury. Do you
suppose prosecutors are going to court too soon with insufficient
evidence?
A.
That's possible. I don't -- I don't know, I've never
analyzed all of them. I know that a very healthy percentage of
the -- all of the cases to the rash of violence in the Black
Panthers, the overwhelming majority of those were either
dismissed or found not guilty or resulted in hung juries, and this
would indicate to me that some place they evidently couldn't tie
up their case beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt.
Q.
Governor, do you think Congressman Ashbrook should withdraw
from the race?
A.
Well, of course on the side I'm on I thought he shouldn't
have entered.
Q.
But do you think the handwriting is pretty well on the wall
now, that he's creating maybe divisiveness between the party?
A.
No, if he is -- if he is still of the mind that -- when he
entered this race inthe first place, to indicate that there was
dissatisfaction with some of the procedures of this administration
on the part of some elements of the Republican party, I think he's
made his point. Back there.
Q.
There have been some reports that your administration is
considering removing Mr. Hearn as the head of the department of
Indústrial Relations.
What is the status of Mr. Hearn at the present
-10-
time?
A.
No, there is -- there's been no decision of any kind on
that. I suppose rumors of that kind come from the fact that as we
move and as some of our people returnsto civilian life, and so forth,
we review first our own shop system, as utilizing our own personnel
or transferring or moving them into some other department. But I
know of nothing of that kind.
Q.
Governor, did you have a state income tax liability for 1971?
A.
Well, maybe on the basis of the orders that I've sent to my
taxman, that I've got to have a state tax liability. He hasn't
sent it to me yet, so I don't know.
Q.
Governor, what is your reaction to the federal government's
announcement that they will expand the use of furiding of methadone
within the next year?
A.
We ourselves are expanding this as we have gone forward under
a controlled program and to identify, classify as correctly as
possible those people. We are continuing to research it and so I
would think that would be fine. I think that every branch of
government is involved in this whole problem of the dope culture --
drug culture, and --
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
A.
-- and support it.
Q.
Yes. Governor, in supporting-the Senate Rules committee
killed the equal rights amendment, the fedemal use equal rights
amendment, what is your reaction to that?
A.
First, I've heard about it is what you have just said, so
I have no comment here. I don't know what the reason was.
Q.
You don't have a position on that amendment on the equal
rights issue.
A.
I just -- I'm not even familiar with what was in the bill or
in the amendment. I don't know.
Q.
Equal rights for women, that's the bill.
A.
Well, the one thing is I would hate to have to see them
give up their superiority. I've always liked that kind of --
seems kind of comfortable this way with leaving them on top, I'd
hate to have them come down to our level.
Q.
Governor, would you comment on the merits, if any, on the
baseball strike?
(Laughter)
-11-
A.
Well, I r ret to see it and I -- I ! ehow think it was --
I think it is 111 advised.
a.
Governor, the State architect has suggested that the whole
an
capitol building maybe in some imminent danger.
Now,/Assemblyman
with some background in the field has suggested that this building
too is unsafe. Do you feel any apprehension? You are sure you
don't want office space in the mansion.
A.
No, but VIu want to tell you, I haven't felt very safe in
this building since I came here.
(Laughter)
A.
But I don't know that it has anything to do with the founda-
tion or the walls.
Q.
Governor, do you still plan to sponsor a coastline bill
of some sort?
A.
Yes, I think there will be legislation from us within --
with regard to this line.
Q.
Any timetable?
A.
No.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
o0o
-12-
1/20
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD APRIL 20, 1972
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript, of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, we have some journalists here,
I understand, some students from Contra Costa College. Maybe
afterward we can have a few questions from them, when you finish.
Welcome, observe and think of some questions yourselves.
&
Governor, tax reform has become somewhat of a small
issue again in this session of the legislature. There is a bill
that the Speaker and the county supervisors are pushing. What
are your plans insofar as tax reform this year are concerned.
A.
Well, we have been -- we have been having meetings on
this and we have some continued meetings we hope that we are going
to come up and we want to come up with a proposal ourselves. It
isn't a case of lack of interest. It is a -- I suppose this happens
on both sides in the legislature, it is a case that over these three
years we have run into so many road blocks, so many things, that
seem to be insoluble that the problem gets more complicated, not
less. The more we learn the more things we know are unacceptable
to -- to some sides and some people in this. We hope we can --
we feel now that it's been complicated that you could not discuss
tax reform without taking into consideratinn the possibility of
the Serrano decision and the change in funding for education. This
has complicated things very much.
Q.
Governor, you don't have a tax -- there is no program
for tax r€form, nothing yet for no fault insurance. Where is your
legislative program?
A.
Well, no fault insurance, there are five bills right now
in the legislature. And all of those bills contain Incone way
or the other the -- some or all of the six basic principles that we
we outline. We are watching very closely and working with the
-1-
legislature on this
And we are quite positive
that
:
what
the
administration is seeking in no fault insurance will be on the floor
and will be presented to the legislature, whether incorporated in
these bills or whether in a separate bill of our own.
Q.
Do you think it may be impossible to have tax reform at
this session?
A.
Well, the -- the one thing that I think isvvery important
about tax reform here, how cauld you ask me to predict and be
optimistic about tax reform in view of the close calls we have had
in the recent years, the strenuous attempts that we have made and
the failure to achieve tax reform. We can't be optimistic. But
I do think that the legislature has a responsibility that they
should meet before the balloting, and that is with regard to the
tax structure that they would foresee the tax structure the State
would have to have accounting for more than three billion dollars
in revenue if the Watson amendment should be passed. I think the
People of California before they vote on that initiative are
entitled to know exactly what the tax structure will be in California
if they should vote affirmatively, because I think they will be
surprised at what a tremendous shift that is going to be when you
start shifting to the State level some three billion dollars in
revenue.
Q.
Can you respond -- I got the impression you do think it
is impossible to have tax reform.
A.
No, I just said that it was impossible to be optimistic
in view of the attempts and the failures that we have had.
Apparently both sides still believe in tax reform, but approaching
it from two different angles and we are still working on it.
As a matter of fact, we have another meeting scheduled today with
regard to our own studies and findings.
Q.
Governor, how could it be solved this year if it does
indeed, as you say -- I'm not trying to argue with you on that at
all, but with the connection with the Serrano decision, when there
is no finality on that at this point.
A.
Well, there is no finality, but the principle that has
been enunciated is to find an equalization:factor and the Serrano
decision seems aimed in one way in a general direction at what has
always been the basis of tax reform, the need to have less reliance
on property tax, particularly the homeowner's tax.
Q.
Governor, with regard to no fault auto insurance,
various sources had indicated that you had attempted to sway the
State Bar from taking their no fault auto insurance bills to
Senator Moscone, is there anything to this?
A.
No, uh-uh.
Q.
Governor, to get back to taxes, who were you working with?
You say you are working with people. Who are you working with?
A.
Well , people in our own Finance Department and our own
staff and that have been involved in the proposals that we have
made and have come up with the programs that we had over the last
few years.
a.
Are you talking todany Democrats, like Moretti?
A.
No, we haven't gotten over to anything like the 16 day
experience yet.
Q.
Governor, areyou now taking a position for or against
the Moretti tax proposal?
A.
Well, I think our Finance Department testified against
it yesterday, yes. The Moretti proposal, as far as I can see,
is very similar to what was advanced on their side of the table in
our attempt to find a compromise agreement. And lacking two --
two points. One, it is a massive tax increase contained in a
tax reform and two, it still does not present any control to prevent
the homeowner from -- from having his taxes increased right on back
up to where they are, after the reduction is given.
Q.
Change of subject, please, Governor. What efforts is
your office making, if any at all, to try and save the Republican
convention in San Diego?
A.
Well, actually this is in the hands of the national
committee. All we did was advance California because there was more
than one city interested in it -- advance California as the site.
We would hate to see the convention removed from California and all
I know is whate I have read in the papers. I have not been contacted
in any way. If I was called upon and had an opportunity with
regard to this, I, of course, would favor the retentinn of California.
Anyone who would rather spend August in Florida than August in
California has got to be out of his mind.
Q.
Governor, if you had a bet right now, where it would be,
how would you bet?
A.
I'm going to bet on California.
Q.
The White House has given you no assurance one way or the
-3-
other on that?
A.
I have heard nothing directly. All I know is what I read
in the papers.
Q.
Governor, what's your reaction to the treatment accorded
Lieutenant Governor Reinecke by the Senate Judiciary Committee?
Q.
May I ask another question on this.
A.
And then we will come back to you.
Q.
You say there is some other California cities interested,
are there any other cities interested attthis time?
A.
No,
not
now. Once the decision was made,
Q.
Well, if San Diego --
A.
Then San Diego had our support and backing, of course.
Q.
-- San Diego can't put on the convention, which other California
city would you suggest?
A.
I doubt if that would happen. You know, every four years
there is a great pressure put on by your own employers in -- oh,
mainly the electronic media, great pressure, and I can understand it.
The mechanical -- the mechanical advantage and the economic advantage
to the electronic media, particularly to have the conventions in
the same city where they don't have to duplicate facilities and
rebuild in another area, the scheduling problem that doesn't have
a three-hour time difference when you switch from one convention to
the other, all of these are advantages that -- I don't know what
part that's playing and I don't know what -- what are the problems
that are causing them concern. We have always known that San Eiego
was going to be stretched to the -- to its utmost capacity with
regard to hotel rooms and so forth.
a.
Is your office doing anything, though, right at this time
to try to keep the convention in San Diego?
A.
No, because no one has asked us to.
Q.
Do you think your administratinn fears anti-war demonstra-
tions in San Diego?
A.
Oh, heavens there have been the same threats made to the
Democratic conventinn in Miami. I have a hunch if you are going
to have those kind of demonstrations they are going to happen wherever
you hold the convention. Chicago didn't turn out to be exactly
Shangrila, a few years ago. No, we have no fear at all, and we have
no question but what order can be maintained and any crowds that
have any other ideas can be controlled in San Diego. We have perfect
confidence in our people to do that.
Q.
Governor, are you going to try to in iate action in
your office to find out what the trouble is in San Diego if these
reports you have been reading are true, you may lose the convention.
A.
No, as I said, we did -- we were not involved in the
decision to be there other than to do the usual Chamber of Commerce
touting forth, and if we are asked for any help with regard to
that we will do anything we can.
Q.
What: was your usual Chamber of Commerce touting about?
A.
What?
Q.
What was your usual Chamber of Commerce touting about?
A.
Well, the usual Chamber of Commerce talking, I think that
is anything that is planned any place in the country can be done
better in California than it can any place else.
Q.
Colleges add universities are closing down all across the
country because of American escalation of the war in Indo-China.
It looks like the same thing is going to happen in this state.
If it involves state colleges and universities, what action would
you take to keep them open or keep them closed?
A.
I don't know, you are talking about decisions that, of
course, are going to be made at the campus level. Ifrit comessto
the university, I'm not a governor there. I am 1/24th of the
body of the Board of Regents. I am a Regent. If you want my
opinion as to whether they should close down or not, I think that
it's been a mistake in past years and it would be a mistake now.
No one can speak for the university as a whole. There is a great
diversity of opinion among students, aamong faculty, alumni,
administrators on a campus and for a university orea college to
chose to speak officially to some -- to any public problem of this
kind is a prostitution of the -- the very purpose of the university.
And it is a disservice to a great many people on the campus.
Q.
If they close down would your office provide pressure to
open them back up?
A.
I would just have to see what the circumstances are and
where the -- where, in any way, the state government is involved in
that. What -- you know, what would call for official state action,
I would do nothing that was simply an interference on the part of
government or politics in the running of the university or the
colleges, but I would hope that they'd have better sense than that.
As a matter of fact, I still say that this is a time when any thinking
-5-
person should be ? ding his support to what' going on. There
are a hundred thousand young Americans there. The omemy has come
across the border as its reply to the -- to the President's peace
plan. For anyone to suggest that there is no threat, no risk to
those hundred thousand young men who have no -- nothing between them
and the enemy except the Southern Vietnamese with our air support,
I think we should be urging the President to do whatever has to be
done to protect every single American there and to continuo bringing
them home as he has been bringing them home. And I think the
tragic misinformation, stupidity and ignorance of those who would
call this aggression instead of a defense of our -- our own young
men is just reprehensible, and I -- I can't expross my contempt
for those that would do that.
Victnam
Q.
Whatever has to be done, Governor? Would you include
nuclear weapons, that kind of thing, that's --
A.
Oh, come -- I know, isn't that always the question.
Ron Zeigler, I think, gave the answer the other day, you are talking
to an enemy and I think you should say to the enemy, we don't make
any qualifications, we will do what has to be done.
Q.
You are not concerned, Governor, about the alleged dangers
of bombing Haiphong?
A.
I am not a bit concerned. And I think the California
Senator who is so fearful that we might be winding up to World War
III is talking through his hat.
Q.
Which one?
Q.
Are you concerned --
A.
Senator Cranston.
Q.
Are you concerned about Russian vessels being hit at
Haiphong Harbor, what this might do to Soviet-American relations?
A.
I figure if you are in a saloon when a fight starts between
two drunks and you stand too close, you got to expect to get your
nose bobbed.
Q.
Governor, do youthink it is inappropriate, though, for
the President to go to Russia when the Soviet Union has been supply)
ing the North Vietnamese?
A.
What's wrong with going and talking with somebody about it.
Maybe that's a good thing to talk about when he gets there.
Q.
But you don't feel it is inconsistent to have open diplo-
matic relations of this nature between heads of state when you are
fighting against the --
A.
I think he's made it very plain to the Russians how he
feels about their irt in this invasion and this naked aggression
that is taking place, and he's the one who has access to all the
information. If he feels there is an admantage to the United
States in his going there, then I'm sure he'll go, but I think --
I think his trip was planned with the best interests of the United
States in mind.
Q.
What about the civilian populations, Governor, in cities
that are being bombed in North Vietnam?
A.
What about the civilian populations in the cities that
are being shelled by rockets from the north Vietnamese, that have
already killed scores of civilians when they were obviously not aimed
at any military target at all.
Now, you hope to limit your bombing
to military targets and I think our country!s had a good record of
that.
You regognize there is a margine of error and you recognize
there are tragedies to civilians who are caught in the war zone
and this has been true of every war that has ever been fought.
&
To return to the question that started to be asked --
Q.
Let him finish one subject here.
Q.
Well, you interrupted the question about Reinecke and
Gillenwaters' treatment --
A.
We still will get back to that.
Q.
We are on the war here.
Let me ask one more question
on the war, would you favor reintroducing more American troops,
ground troops in Vietnam?
A.
I don't think it is necessary.
The President -- the
President based his withdrawal of troops when he started it on the
vietnamization program, which was to bring the ground forces of
the Southern Vietnamese up to the place where we could withdraw
proportionately as they increase their ability. At all times it
was made plain that we could not in this same span of time prepare
the Southern Vietnamese to take over the air support and naval support
and so forth. These highly technical branches would take longer
time. But it was also made plain that this was a part of our
Vietnamization, that eventually they will take that over for them-
selves, too. The President warned the North Vietnamese, he said,
"Don't interfere with our taking the men out." He recognized there
would come a point in which our forces would be so far outnumbered
that they would be vulnerable to attack as they are now. And he
-7/
warned the North Vietnamese, he said, "We are taking them all out.
If you let us do it, but if you interefere and you start an action
that endangers them, he warned them months ago, he said, "We will
do whatever we have to do to protect our men." And I think he
is duty bound to protect even as long as there is only one man there.
Q.
I've got one other question. Have you been in personal
contact with the White House or any of the defense department on this
subject in the last week or two?
A.
No. Uh-uh.
a.
Governor, on that same subject. Four years ago the
President campaigged on the promise that he had a plan to end the
war. Do you feel that those who have lost faith in that are being
impatient?
A.
He's been there -- less than three and a half years.
A
few months less than three and a half years. In that time he has
brought the war down from a casualty -- from a death toll of 500
a week American death toll to an average of two a week. He has
refuced, I think the figure now is about 85,000,bby May it is to
be 69,000 -- from 542,000 at peak. He brought home about 2 and
a half million tons of supplies along with the men. There is
another -- about a million and a half tons to -- still to come.
It's been orderly, it has been a withdrawal. The ground fighting
has been turned over to the South Vietnamese. I would think that
he's making very good on his promise. And again, as I have heard
recently, these charges that he is guilty of escalation, and that
this is not a defenseive move in the protection of our own men,
just betrays a complete lack of understanding of the problems of
logistic and the-- first of all, the problem that in the disengaging
from an enemy, whether it is in a patrol action or in an army, is
the most difficult military action and maneuver that there is.
And he's been doing it.
Q.
Governor, on that same subject, do you think that the
abandonment by the President of his present course of action would
be too high a price to pay to assure that the Moscow Summit would
go on as scheduled?
A.
I don't think the Moscow Summit is as important as the
hundred thousand young Americans and the war prisoners that are there.
Now, we have tried President Johnson -- I don't recall whether
any of the bombing halts were under Kennedy, I think they all came
under Johnson -- I think there were 18 different bombing halts were
offered to the ene in which we voluntarily opped the bombing
and plead to the enemy to come down and sit at a table and legitimately
negotiate for peace. All 18 of them were failures. This President
has now said in defending these men, I think has indicated to the
enemy that if he wants the bombing stopped it is very easy, stop
the invasion and come sit down and once and for all talk peace.
Q.
Governor, when you say you have nothing but contempt for
efforts of a students strike, are you implying that their concerns
are not legitimate?
A.
I am concerned that they have been fed so much misinforma-
tion that they honestly -- a great many of them sincerely believe
that our men could suddenly now just wherever they are in their
various places, drop their arms and stand there looking at the sky
waiting for American plans to take them home, and that this enemy
who has broken every rule, who has broken every humanitarn rule,
who has violated his word back all the way to the 1954 accords,
that that enemy would do nothing to our men, would not capture them,
take them hostages or kill them. He's lobbed rockets into their
bases, right now, and he knows that the bulk of them are non-combat
personnel. I think this is just stupid, to accept that this is a
chance that a President could take or a chmmanding officer could
take with regard to his men. I think you have'to face what is the
worstthing that could happen to these young men and you must guard
against that. And this is all that I think the President has been
doing and I think the American people ought to let him know that
those young men are that important to us. We are not a country
that's been in the habit of writing off thousands of men for the
convenience of the rest of us, because the rest of us might fear
some trouble. We have been based back through our history on a
principle that if there is one American unjustly imposed upon some
place in the world, the rest of us will go to his rescue and I
think we ought to keep that principle.
Q.
Governor, what if the President could safeguard our men and
get our prisoners back, but at the same time face the prospect of
South Vietnam falling to Communists, do you think that would be worth
it?
A.
Well, this, or course, is the -- the victory that apparently
some in government and some out of government seem to really be
hoping for. I think that if a great many of them when they talk peace
-9-
today, really are talking North Vietnam victory, but I think in
the program of Vietnamization I think the course we are following
is a proper one, and honorable one. And ifwyou mean a double cross,
that if some way the enemy would bargain with us, we will give you
back your men, you let us dump the South Vietnamese, no, I don't
think we could do that. On ther other hand, once the withdrawal
is completed, if Vietnamization is not a success, I think it's been
made plain that that would not be our problem.
Q.
What's your response to Pete McCloskey's position and
would you rather than continually discussing the subject in this
kind of situation, consider a debate with someone like Congressman
McCloskey?
A.
No, I don't think there would be any point in it. And
besides, he's a Congressman and he's in the federal government and
that's where the war policy is made, I've been expressing some
opinions of my own here. California can't stop the war, we didn't
start it. It is a federal problem, sobe's acting as a Congrssman,
I suppose. I think he's tragically wrong. And I -- I think he
should know better. He knows and has had experience in the military
he knows that many of the things he asks are totally impossible. If
he wants to continue for whatever personal advantage he sees in it
to carry that torch, why, that's up to him.
Q.
May we return now to --
A.
Now, if it is the other subject, he had his hand up first.
Q.
The hearing before the --
A.
What's that?
ITT
Q.
The Lieutenant Governor and Mr. Gillenwaters got a pretty
good going over at that hearing, especially from the Senator
perjury
in which the term/was used. I wonder what's your reaction to that.
A.
I think it is pretty obvious that this entire matter and
what took place the other day is political harrassment and I have
perfect confident in the Lieutenant Governor and in Mr. Gillenwaters.
And I know that they were speakingthe truth. And I know that
the stories that came out that admittedly have to be briefed down
over the many hours that were spent there, do not reveal the just
over and over and over again boring questioning from every angle
trying to find some meat to stay on the front page. I think this
has been revealed a long time ago as purely political. I think
the Lieutenant Governor was telling the truth, absolutely. I
haven't been to W: ington as many times as r. has, because he has
been there representing California and brilliantly, in some of the
successes we have had in aerospace contracts and things, but even
in the limited times that I've been there, if you suddenly ask me
at which meeting did I meet with the President or the Secretary of
State or the -- the Attorney General or whoever it might be, I would
not without actually looking at records -- I would not be able to
tell you. They all run together when you have that many trips,
and I think the Lieutenant Governor tried to make this plain to
senators that know he was telling the truth, but it is profitable
to them not to admit it.
Q.
Governor, it seems --
A.
Now, wait a minute, Iosaid he could be next.
Q.
Actually, that was my question.
(Laughter)
Q.
Same question, it seems that by the Lieutenant Governor
ITT
telling the truth, it seems the Attorney General was not. Because
he said he never talked to him about it at all.
A.
I remember the first question that was ever asked of the
Lieutenant Governor on this weeks and weeks ago, and the Lieutenant
Governor described accurately that at the close of a meeting on other
problems with the Attorney General he made some remarks about this,
that he thought the Attorney General might be interested in hearing.
And at the time he was asked what was the Attorney General's reaction,
and he said, "Well, there wasn't any reaction, he listened to me,"
and this hashhappened to me also in meetings in my own office, if it
was something that was not particularly in the Attorney General's
mind I'm quite sure that he could legitimately and honestly not
remember that in the closing remarks of a meeting he held that this
report was given, and the Attorney General never pretended this was
a discussion in any way calling for give and take with the Attorney
General.
Q.
Governor, you said if you were suddenly asked to recall
such things as what did you talk about, how many times did you go
and talk to John Mitchell and so on, that you couldn't recall.
Well, suddenly we have been asking those questions for about a month,
such basic questions as how many times did you talk to John Mitchell.
Those are pretty fundamental questions.
A.
Well, it is a pretty fundamental answer, and I've been very
-11-
ITT
consistent. The Lieutenant Governor had two visits there in April
and in -- in September. All right. Asked offhand did heever
talk about this, he said yes, and they said in May. He was --
he had believed the April visit was in May, when he saw the Attorney
General. Now, when he checked his records he found out no, that
what he was talking about was a meeting that took place in September
but yes, he was there and the meeting was not in May, it was in
April. Now, this was a perfectly legitimate correction and one of
the Senators questioned him -- questioning him had great lapses of
memory about an incident that involved him sometime ago, and I think
should be well able to understand that -- that a man can forget
the details of one meeting to the other.
Q.
Are we going onto another subject? Can we go onto
another subject?
SQUIRE: Wait a minute, one back there on this thing.
Q.
Yes, Governor, there's been a number of demands recently
that you fire Mr. Carlson. This morning you said --
Q.
Wait a minute --
A.
-- Mr. Hall. Do you anticipate any further departures
or shakeups in welfare and is there any chance that will hurt Mr.
Carlson?
A.
Well, it is a shakeup in welfare only to the extent that
it is a great loss to this administration, Mr. Hall's leaving. It
is a thing that's happened in several occasions in the past in
this administration. The young men that have come in and contri-
buted these several years to us had great opportunities on the outside.
They are not men who want government careers and Mr. Hall has
such an opportunity. He has discussed it with me, we have discussed
it at great length. He's staying through June with us. He is
going to be very -- very difficult to replace. As far as Mr.
Carlson is concerned, Mr. Carlson was equally involved in the
success of the welfare reforms that we have had. I -- there is no
limit inmmy confidence in Mr. Carlson and Mr. Carlson is going to
be staying there and doing that job just as long as I can possibly
keep him there.
Q.
Governor --
Q.
Same subject. Governor, on the same subject, welfare,
will you sign legislation to reduce the old age security payments
back to their original amount before welfare reform, relative to
responsibility contributions that were increased.
A.
Oh, that's a --
MR.
MEESE: Legislation hasn't come down yet.
Q.
If it comes down and it is already on the floor of the
Assembly, will you sign it?
A.
Now, again, you fellows know I won't comment until that
thing gets there and I see what they have finally done with it
and what they have in mind.
Q.
Do you have any comment about the controversy that is
caused among the relatives who are having to pay more? They have
written you and communicated with you.
A.
I'm quite sure that there are people who resent and resist
and perhaps here and there as in any major program there are
individual cases of injustice that should be corrected. But I
for one find it very difficult to be sympathetic to people who have
the means and who would throw the support of their own parents or
grandparents on the taxpayers when they have the ability to at
least contribute to that support. I'm thinking of one recent lawsuit
some -- well, recent, some months ago, ofta young man who actually
sued the county to avoid paying $20 a month to the support of his
mother and his own income is $800 a month. An unmarried young man.
I don't feel sympathetic to someone of that kind.
Q.
Governor, can we go to smog for a minute?
Q.
Still one more on welfare.
A.
We havehhad smog in here all --
Q.
Why would Mr. Hall be so difficult to replace when you
have Mr. Uhler standing right there.
A.
Well, beaause Mr. Uhler is already doing an important job.
I -- there are a great many men that would be hard to replace and
just shifting them around like checkers on a board does not make
up the fact that you have lost one in manpower and in very excellent
manpower.
Q.
Is Mr. Uhler sort of indispensible: where he is?
MR. MEESE: I would think that we don't comment on
personnel matters.
Q.
Governor, on your speech on environment at Long Beach
recently you said you would probably submit to the legislature next
year a program for mandatory automobile inspection of antismog devices,
-13-
following the recc endations of the task for that you just
appointed. Now, does this mean that you would be -- that it would
be un -- that you would disapprove any action on this subject by
the legislature this year as the Assembly has already done by putting
ten millionodollars in the budget.
A.
I didn't specifically -- specify mandatory inspection.
I said that following the report of the task force we would -- we
would undoubtedly present legislation. This is -- this is a compli-
cated problem, mandatory inspection, for smog. It is dependent upon
the cost of the inspection, the ease with which it can be done.
It is also in California, we found, that the Highway Patrol feels
that on a spot basis the theory being that if you stop every "x"
number of cars and check them the rest of the people without waiting
to be stopped go in and have something -- some corrections made
with regard to their vehicle, that this has enough ratio of
success that it -- it would be the law of diminishing returns if
you switched from that to total mandatory inspection. Now, whether
that's going to apply all the way through to smog and do the job
that we want it to do, that remains to be seen. Whether the added
cost is worth total mandatory inspection or not.
Q.
But basically do you oppose any action this year by the
legislature until your task force report has been made? That's
my basic question.
A.
Well, let me say --
Q.
Because there are bills moving now on that.
A.
Let me say that every one of those bills will be looked
at carefully and if it is a bill that we believe is -- is based on
incomplete information and that we might have more knowledge later
when we get all the information from the task forces, then I think
it would make good sense to not accept legislation based on --
Q.
And also the ten million dollars added by the Assembly
for starting its mandatory smog control program in the Los Angeles
basin, would that be unacceptable?
A.
Well, let me look at that when it comes down to my desk.
Q.
Governor, do you think the legislature should ratify the
women's equal rights amendment?
A.
The women's equal rights amendment. Let me apologize
to you.
The lastrime
when you asked that I didn't realize that
we were talking about the California senate, I was confused, thought
we were talking about something taking place in Washington. I made,
-14-
I'm afraid a facetious reply. As I understand it, the problem with
this legislation is not an opposition to the concept of women's
equal rights, everyone is in favor of it, but it is a little bit
like when we passed that citizenship role at 18, age 18 and then
discovered a great many technical problems that hadn't been foreseen.
It is my understanding that this was what was of concern here to the
senate, that they would suddenly have problems that would be problems
that would actually discriminate against women that would be created
by just such a simple single line amendment. Now, whether those
problems can be signed by additional legislation as we are trying
to do in the 18 year old thing, that's up to thellegislature to
find out. But I don't think anyone is in disagreement with the
concept. Iftthere are inequalities in the treatment of women,
certainly those inequalities should be erased. On the other hand,
I think there is some privileges that accrue to women that all of
us would like to see retained. Special privileges to sick leave
for pregnancy and so forth. I don't think you are gaining anything
in equal rights if you cancel some of those things out.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
Q.
No, no.
SQUIRE: Are we going to stay here all day or not, what
is it.
You have a chance, get in there, damn it.
Q.
The other day --
A.
What?
a.
-- at a news conference Senator John Burton was asked how
many law makers he thought smoked marijuana or have smoked it, and
his reply was, he heard some stories down in Malibu in the old days
about some of the guys down there were some of the movie stars
that are now in the Capitol.
A.
Oh, boy. You know, I always think that I have probably
of John
got my opinion as low/as I can get it, and then you come up with
one like that. I don't even smoke the other kind of cigarettes,
and haven't for years and years -- well, as a matter of fact, I never
did smoke them -- cigarettes of any kind. So, as a matter of fact,
some of the kids have found a poster of me advertising a cigarette.
And this wasoback in the days of Warner Brothers when they had it
in your contract that they could use your likeness for endorsements
of products. And you'd be interested to know that that cigarette
-15-
in that photograph was painted in. They just took a picture of
me, I never had one in my mouth for the picture.
a.
You've been seen with a -- photographed with a pipe in the
old days.
A.
Years ago I smoked a pipe.
Q.
Governor, maybe Mr. Burton was talking about another former
movie star that works in the Capitol, who might that be?
A.
I don't know. I don't know, are there any former ones
up here? Well, there is Charlie Conrad, and I don't think Charlis
has ever been suspect of that.
Q.
A couple of would be --
A.
Now, for whatever you want, you dan do what you want to do
but I said that I thought the young people out there ought to have
a few minutes of ghrowing some questions at me.
Q.
The California marijuana initiative is trying to get on the
ballot.
Trying to get enough signatures to put the petition before
the voters, to have marijuana use decriminalized. What is your
stand on that?
A.
Well, I'm in opposition. I'm in opposition because right
now, and to some of the legislation introduced, because right now
California has some of the most flexible penalties of any state in
the nation, giving a judge wide discretion as to what he does about
it. I'm also opposed because I -- I do not believe in the legalizing
of marijuana, and I think that there is an increasing body of
evidence with regard to its -- its harmful effects and I think
until the jury really totally comes in on this that we should err
on the side of caution and not on the side of recklessness, and in
a time when we are having virtually an epidemic drug problem I
also resist anything that psychologically would seem to be endorsing
any leniency in this regard when we are marshalling all our forces
to fight the total drug problem.
Q.
Even after all of the evidence from the past studies, the
study that MayeruhaGuardia had in New York and all the other studies
that tend to indicate that marijuana is not harmful or not addittive
that your stand is still against=
A.
Well, you see --
Q.
-- decriminalization?
A.
You see, this is it. You take some body of evidence and
-16-
proven there is some, and we study that as well as the other. But
somehow so many of you seem to ignore that there is an -- as I said,
an ever increasing body of evidence coming from the other side that
is refuting this. Now, if you have got these two bodies and
reputable men on both sides, I think that as long as there is that
much controversy we still should, as I said, err on the side of
caution instead of just saying I'm going to accept this fellow's
opinion and not that fellow's research or his opinion, and he may be
right. We are being a little foolish now, I do know this, that
in almost every country and I think every country in the world --
to my knowledge, I may be wrong, there may be some little countries
here or there in Asia, the Orient, or Africa, but every country
that down through the centuries has had this legalized has in recent
years turned the other way and has gone far beyond anything that
we have gone in its strictness, including the capital -- the
death sentence foreven the selling of marijuana, because over
the centuries they said they found it terribly destructive and
harmful to their people. Now, why should the United States with
all our ability ab research until we have a final answer -- why
should we fly in the face of those nations that have had a century
of experience or centuries of experience with it and who have now
finally outlawed it. Anybody else?
Q.
You stated, I believe, that you have nothing but contempt
Victnam
for students who participate in the students strikes and you felt
they were misinformed. And that perhaps they didn't care for the
welfare of the United States soldiers, is this what you were saying?
A.
Well, I think --
Q.
That they don't care.
A.
If I was, I -- I know I used some strong language there.
I suppose my real anger and contempt is for -- for those who lead
and organize and inspire this type of demonstration. My -- I have
equally strong feelings whether they are that harsh or not, about
students who have accepted one viewpoint on this problem without
looking at the other side of the question. And as I was asked
the other day by a student at UCLA, do I think you have a legal
right to stage such a demonstration. Yes, you do. Legally you
have that right. Morally I question whether you have the right.
I question whether anyone, if there is any doubt at all, has the
right to take an action that lends comfort and aid and encouragement
to an enemy that a the moment poses a death threat against our
young men. And I would think that all of us should do whatever
we can to say if there is any risk to even one young man we are
not going to take that risk. Now, the enemy has made it very plain
these are going to be greatly encouraging to him. These demonstra-
tions. These are going to encourage him to continue this aggression,
this invasion of South Vietnam which is endangering our young mon.
And therefore I would think that young people morally should stand
back and say, "Do we have all the information that the President
has." I would think that young people over a long period of time
in a search for truth would say here were three presidents, Kennedy,
Johnson and now Nixon, totally diverse views. No: two of the three
were in agreement on a great manythings or philosophy. And yet
these three men having access to all the information and all the
facts all felt it@seeential for the United States to be involved as
we have been in Vietnam. And I would think this would that
this should cause all of us to think a little bit and say unless
we have all the facts they had how can we say that all three of these
men were wrong. Now, I critizized President Johnson greatly,
not for involvement in the war or escalating it. I did not know
the things he knew when he said it is now necessary to increase
the number ofumen. I never criticized President Kennedy for sending
the first combat soldiers in there. My criticism was, however,
that once in there and once you are going to ask young men to fight
and die, then I think that the cause should be worth winning. I
always was critical of asking our mcn to fight with one hand tied
behind their backs in which they were told, "You can defend yourself
but you must do nothing to end this war or go forward and through
a victorious drive end it." But now this President, and I think
susceptible to the influence of the people and the war weariness of
our people, has made it plain that he believes that our role in combat
should be lessened, we should get out and he's trying to do that.
But, again, he knew there would come a time when the men left there
were so far outnumbered they could be overwhelmed. And he knew that
we had to be prepared if that time came and the enemy showed an
indication to do this, to protect them. Well, how much does he wait
for? They crossed the border with tanks and artillery support in
an all-out full scale invasion. They left only one division of their
entire military force in North Vietnam on guard duty, the rest is in
-18-
South Vietnam in V1 lation of everything that ey themselves have
claimed all these years. He can't ignore that and say that our
men are totally safe, that no one is going to touch them. Again,
even 1f they lay down their arms and stand there they are in the
position of that fellow I mentioned in the saloon fight, in danger
of being killed.
Q.
How do you feel about legalizing black holidays for the
entire State of California, Martin Luther King Day.
A.
Legalizing the black holidays?
Q.
Yeah.
A.
Oh, I think we are talking again -- I think we are talking
of something at a national level, aren't we, in recognizing those
national holidays.
:
I mean just for California.
A.
Well, then it would have to be a statewide holiday. I'd
prefer it: national and we have a history in this country of
recognizing people who have made great contributions to this country,
and I would think that certainly there are people who deserve the
same recognition. In the meantime I don't think there is anything
wrong with -- with people of various ethnic groups and backgrounds
from having their own holidays, such as the Scandinavians recognizing
and celebrating a day for Leif Erickson, whom they credit with
discovering America instead of Columbus. So this can go forward.
But I'm -- I have no -- no opposition to such a thing.
Q.
Governor, how do you feel about space exploration?
A.
About what?
Q.
Space exploration as a priority over --
A.
Well, I think that in government and I know from our own
experience in state government, you do assign priorities. And
certainly our priority in the area of social reforms has been
established. It is the number one spending item in the whole nation.
I am in disagreement with thas e people what say we shouldn't explore
space. They somehow remind me a little bit of the same people that
stood on:the dock and told Columbus that he was crazy, that he
shouldn't try it. When you stop to think, if you want to make
a selfish analysis, the actual value of the spinoffs from our space
research, in medicine, in construction and transportation and every-
thing, have been -- I think far outweight and certainly in their
future outweigh any expense that we have made. But there is some-
thing even beyond that. That here we are on this one little marble
-19-
this spaceship an every bit of scientific 1( we have tells us
that some day a generation of human beings is going to face
extinction because this spaceship is either going to freeze to
death when the sun goes out or it is going to blow up or have a
collision with someone, and for the first time we have established
a lifeboat. The first man that set foot on the moon said -- now
potentially just as when Columbus set foot on an island in the
Indies down here, we have the start of the ability for human kind
to go some place else if this earth should require our going there.
If it should disappear and I -- I think it is such an adventure that
all of us ought to thrill to it and to be glad that we still can
produce young men who are willing to go.
:
:
thSQUIRE: If we are going to see the next fellow step
on the moon, we getter get out of here.
A.
That's right. I think we are going to have to. I wish
we had more time. Thank you. Some good questions and I enjoyed
answering them.
oOo
-20-
5/11
/
PRESS DNFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONA
REAGAN
HELD MAY 11, 1972
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to themembers of the Capitol press corps for their con-
venience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly
as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and there is
no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning. I think I speak for
everyone of us in here. How sorry we are to heat of the very untimely
Beaudry
death of Rod Bowdry (phonetics) of the Capital Press Corps. We
always have sympathy for his family, and as I say, I know the sorrow
we must feel over this. I have some statements here that will be in
print a little later, or some words here, on the failure in the Senate
with regard to the -- two votes of the initiative with regard to
capital punishment.
(Whereupon the Governo read Press Repease No. 285.)
And so I would hope that these petitions would get the
required signatures and so that this could be on the ballot for the
people's decision.
We have as visitors here in the press conference this morning
journalism class from Consumnes River College. Welcome and maybe we
will have a minute or two when this is over and all of these gentlemen
are rushing for the phones, yelling "Stoptthe press,' that you can ask
a few questions.
Cyrus
Q.
Governor, Saurus (phonetics) Johnson, the Ventura Republican
State Precinct Chairman, was quoted as saying that the Republican party
last year decided not to go after the 18 to 20 year old vote because
they are not our kind of people. That was the quote attributed to
him, and they are of no advantage to us. He also said that the
Republican party had not gotten into bipartisan vote registration
drive because they help the Democrats more than they help the Republi-
cans. Can you comment on that?
A.
Yes, if that's a correct quote and he said those things,
he wasn't speaking for the Republican party. He had to be speaking
for himself. First of all, with regard th the 18 to 20 year olds,
I have said repeatedly that if they would open their minds and take a
look at the philosophy of both parties and what both parties actually
-1-
represent, I think the 18 to 20 year old young people would find out
that the Republican party has been in favor of much of what they have
been in favor of for a great many years. That ours is the party that
wants more individual freedom and less government control and dictation
and less gigantic impersonal government. And therefore my own desire
has been, and I've been trying to implement it in the last few weeks,
is to try and carry the message to as many young people as we can,
As to registration, of course we want them registered. We want all
the people registered regardless of which way they are going to register.
The only way to make this system of ours work is when you have a
greatest percentage possible of eligible voters voting. So there
aren't any people that I rule as not our kind of people with regard
to politics.
I think as I have said before, there is a great philosophical
difference in the land today and on one side is a determination to
preserve and enhance individual freedom, and on the other side are those
people that have lost faith in the citizenry and who believe that only
a few geniuses in state and national capitals can make all the
decisions on behalf of the people. And I'm opposed to that.
Q.
Governor, were you urging the citizens to sign this death
penalty initiative, does that mean that you have given up hope that --
or given up working for passage of the Deukmejian bill in the Senate?
A.
Oh, no, it just means that if I get on a boat I'm going to
make sure they got lifeboats. No, I hope that -- K know that this
is still open up there for reconsideration. And I hope that they can
get the votes, save a lot of time and trouble. But with a deadline
date for signing the petitions, you just can't take the chance.
Q.
Are you doing anything to help him out?
A.
What, upstairs?
Q.
Yeah, Deukmejian out.
A.
Well, so far I -- I have a meeting scheduled with Senator
Deukmejian. You know, usually you wait to find out if there is
something you can do and let someone who is on the scene conducting
the fight tell you what it is and then of course I'll be glad to
cooperate.
Q.
Will you personally sign a petition, Governor?
A.
What?
Q.
Have you personally signed apetition yourself or do you
intend to?
-2-
A.
I'm trying ti cemember, you know, I get onfused. I'm
trying to remember whether when they first started I signed one of
those some place, and if I didn't, I bet I'll sign one at home because
Nancy greeted me with one last night, but I don't want to -- I don't
want to suddenly be hailed as a cheater who signed twice, and I'm
wracking my brain trying to figure out did I sign one of those some
place along the line or not.
Q.
Is your wife circulating the petitions, Governor? Is
your wife circulating the petitions.
A.
She's managed to secure a few friends that agree the people
should have the right to vote on that.
Q.
Governor, using the line of reasoning that you did on the
capital punishment initiative, that the people should have a choice
at this point or be able to decide for themselves, will you apply
that same standard to marijuana initiative, that they should have their
choice?
A.
Look at everybody signal for that. I told a group of
students in a high school yesterday afternoon that yes, if something
came to my desk that -- I don't know whether that's the course that
would be followed, to require this to become an initiative on the
ballot, I would sign it from the standpoint of permitting the people
to vote, but I made it very plain to the students the way I would vote
myself on that initiative.
Q.
You would sign it to get it on the ballot?
A.
Yes, I respect the people's right on an initiative vote.
E.
Governor, you mean you would sign the petition or you would
sign a bill putting it on the ballot?
A.
Signaa bill, that's what I mean.
Q.
Governor, Senator Deukmejian was hoping that the -- that
he would have Senator Biddle'with him today and -- to help him with
the death penalty thing. He doesn't have Senator Biddle or anyone
in that scene. Are you going to go down and help Mr. Biddle in
that runoff campaign and also in the Assembly Pete Schabarum?
A.
I'm going to do everything I've done in office here, as far
as time from my duties will permit, I'm going to support all the
legislative candidates of our -- of our party.
Q.
Governor, where would you draw the line on where the people
should decide these issues that come up? Should they decide every
bloody issue that comes from the Legislature?
A.
No, I think there is -- there are a great many things that
should properly be decided by legislation. But when the Legislature
itself takes the action of putting something on the ballot with regard
to a constitutional provision, then I think that decision has been
made by the Legislature. I think that there is a danger, yes, that ---
too many times things that are being considered by the Legislature
force us to start to work to put them on the ballot. I think Proposi-
tion 9 is one of those examples, andI think there are thirgs of this
kind that -- aur representative government can handle. But I think
we were talking about in these instances here -- we are talking about
constitutional amendments that can start with the Legislature.
a.
Well, if I may just pursue that one more step. For example,
the majority of the present pro tempore of the Senate suggested a
popular vote today to determine if the Legislature should ratify the
proposed women's rights amendment to the constitution. To the federal
constitution. More and more we seem to see legislators and other
people in public office saying, let's let the people decide. Well,
are we going to have representative democracy or not?
A.
No, but I think the idea of the initiative and the idea of
the people, in the general referendum, has always been that when --
it is again one of those safeguards in oursgystem -- that if government
fails to resolve someissue or solve some problem to the point of
aggravation of the public and it begins to look hopeless, then the
people have the right of regress. They have the right
to take the action themselves.
On the other hand, our changes on our constitution, such
as this death penalty referendum, this of course has to be done by
the people.
Q.
Governor, the Chairman of the United Republicans of Califor-
nia resigned, saying that the organization was taken over by the
members of the John Birch Society and of course your office has
endorsed Congressman Ashbrook. Is there an internal problem of some
proportion developing within the Republican party because of John
Birch activity?
A.
No, not at all, and I would not think that -- UROC is a
recognized volunteer group within the party. I wouldn't suggest that
that is representative of any gigantic split. Actually, I question
some of the statements that have been made abounethe size of it. I
think we are talking about a very few thousand individuals who have
banded together under that particular charter. I was a little surprised
mysèlf about the whole thing of the Birch Society. It's been so
long since I heard the word I thought they'd gone the way of the buffalo.
Q.
Governor, on ongressman Ashbrook's chal nge, he said in
San Francisco the other day, "Governor Reagan is like Zsa Zsa Gabor's
fifth husband, he knows what to do but he doesn't know how to make it
interesting.
If
A.
You know something, I shall rest on Zsa Zsa Gabor's answer.
She said she found me very interesting.
y
(Laughter)
Q.
Governor, just for to point of clarification, would you support
the people voting --
(Laughter)
Q.
Would you support the people having a public vote on equal
rights amendment for women to the federal constitution as was proposed
this morning by Senator Mills?
A.
Now, what I'd like to do, I'd like to sit in the office with
some of my legal advisors and get refreshed, again,non what it requires
to change the constitution of the United States. I'm not a lawyer
and of course as a citizen I know I should be totally familiar with
that. But this again reveals that many of us don't know all we should
know about the govermment. I can't actually remember what it takes
to -- to amend the constitution or at what point it goes to the
people.
MR. MEESE: It takes ratification by three quarters of the
state legislature. But in this case what Senator Mills is proposing
as I understand, is that because the legislature appears split on it
that they get an advisory vote of the people of California as to how
the legislature should act.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Then this is the legislature's problem.
Here's one in which the representatives of the people, at leastoone
of them, is suggesting that the legislature does need the help of the
people.
Q.
Do you agree?
A.
What?
Q.
Do you agree?
A.
Separation of powers.
Ask Senator Mills and ask the other
legislatores on it. I disagree with enough things they do.
Q.
On separation of powers, you freely talked about your position
on capital punishment, and that doesn't -- didn't seem to bother you
as far as separation of powers.
A.
Why --
Q.
Originally there seemed to be some conflicts here. One,
-5-
when you objected to the Supreme Court's decision
capital
punishment.
You said your felt that they had gone from the judicial branch into
the legislative branch.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Very clearly you've expressed your position on the bill
that's now before the legislature on capital punishment. Also
you have expressed yourself about the initiative position which is
supposedly for the people to be devoide of the executive branch of
government.
A.
No, I don't -- I think you are coming to an assumption that
is not quite correct. The bill before the legislature is not one
with regard to capital punishment, it is one with regard to allowing
the people to make that decision. And you had to have an initiative
that says one thing or the other. So an initiative that calls for
it will be placed, ifthe legislature decides, and if not by petition
of the people will be placed before the people, which is the only way
you can settle this in the State constitution. And I don't see
anything wrong with that. I expressed my belief, there's been no
secret of how I feel about it from my own experience and the knowledge
and information that comes to me in my present position, I happen to
believe that capital punishment is a deterrent. I happen to believe
that it is a protection of the law abiding citizen, and I have taken
positions and campaigned for or against initiatives prior to this time.
And if I tried not to I think any of you would recognizo that you
couldn't possibly have an election campaign that every candidate for
office is not asked by the voters to express himself, and take a
position on -- on the issues that are -- that are on the ballot. This
is why sometimes in elections there are people runing for office
that wish sometthings weren't on the ballot, they don't 2ant to
publicly have to take a position.
Q.
Governor Reagan, would you then take a position on equal
rights for women? What is your position? What do you believe?
Would you --
A.
Well, I have to tell you that with all that's been going on
I have been aware and you asked the first question, and the first time
you asked it I thought you were speaking about the United States Senate,
not the senate here, and so I didn't give a very intelligent answer.
I don't know that I have one now. I haven't paid too much attention.
I realize just from the little I've read that there are some actual
technical problems, the same kind of problems for example that we ran
into with the 18 year O. situation when we discove that by making
them -- giving them full citizenship we had ignored certain problems
like the matter of member of the family on welfare and so forth, that
had to be corrected. I recognize I don't know what all those
technical problems are. I also recognize that there are still
certain discriminatory things that have come down from the past with
regard to women working overtime and that sort of thing that could be
corrected. Now, whether this requires a constitutional amendment,
miinclined to believe that we could legislatively correct the
inequities and not go through the process of passing a simple consti-
tutional clause, and then ha fing to go back and legislate to correct
all the things that we didn't intend to change with that clause.
Q.
Governor Reagan, that usually happens aftermmest legislation.
You can't anticipate all the problems.
Q.
Would you be in favor --
A.
No.
Q.
Senator Mills says Congress copped out when they sent it
to the states. Do you think they did?
A.
Well, I think that that's where the legislation could have
been developed to correct the things that are still inequities. And
to insure that the things that should be presented are preserved.
Yes, they could have done that. And again, that's all I say. I
think that to approach thas from the constitutional angle is again
to putosmmething in a constitutionathat is a single line that is open
to interpretation by courts, a dozen different ways, and could lead
to a chaotic condition, and would lead eventually to the kind of
legislation we should have right now, the states that waild then say,
well, this particular thing with regard to the difference in sexes
still prevails, this one still prevails and so forth. The same kind
of mish-mash that we got into up here with, as I say, our 18 year old.
Co
Do Be they have corrected 18 year old vote inequities, haven't
they?
A.
Well, I don't think we have, or whether we have caught up
with all of them or --
ED MEESE: There's still legislatinn.
A.
There is still legislation pending.
Q.
Governor, has your office made any plans or received any
court requests for law enforcement as a result of anti-war demonstrations
in California?
A.
Have we received any requests with regard -- no. No.
You mean like calling out the Guard or anything? No, no, there's been
no such requests.
a.
You weren't here yesterday when several thousand young people
streamed by your office.
A.
I was down in Santa Barbara where several thousand young
people -- it was several hundred here and only about a thousand down
there.
Q.
I'd like to hear what you would have said had you been here
and I'd like you to assess the political effect on Mr. Nixon's campaign.
in California because of it.
A.
What I would have said, well, I was saying it down in Santa
Barbara at the same time. First of all, I think that a great many
of those young people are tragically misinformed, uninformed. I
think they have a very incorrect perspective on the history of this
entire tragic situation that has been going on now for virtually a
decade. I think that a great many of the young people are misinformed
and they are misinformed by some in their m dst who are not misinformed
but who are professionals who know what they are doing and whose
interest is not peace, but it is =- their interest is the good fortune
that they hope the enemy will have. I think the President took
the only course he should have taken. I think if an American Presi-
dent had taken that course several years ago the war would have been
over a long time ago. Now, this nation has every right legall and
morally to be involved. Whether -- first of all, South Vietnamese
and the United States never signed the Geneva Accords of 1954. And
they did not sign them precisely because the South Vietnamese were
asking that any election to determin the future government of South
Vietnam be internationally supervised by the United Nations. And
the North Vietnamese refused this and it refused such international
supervision to this day. But I don't know the reasons why President
Kennedy put troops in there on combat in the first place. It was
in violation of the American policy that we would not get ourselves
involved in manpower in a land war in Asia, again. But he put the
first combat troops in. He alone has access to all the information
that is necessary to make such a decision. So I can't -- I can't
question, I can't challenge unless I have that same information. When
Johnson found it necessary to escalate the war and send in more troops,
again, I can't fault him on that. I have criticized President Johnson
because once having done that, once having subjected young Americans
to dying for their country, I think he and the rest of us had a moral
-8-
obligation to turn the loose, to get that war OVE with as quickly
as possible and he didn't do it. It was fought over the years to
no purpose. And this was one of the things that has caused the great
lack of morale now and tge spirit that we have in this country. We
are not used to sending young men out to die when there is apparently
no -- no end purpose and no goal in sight. And the President, I
think, has taken an action after 18 appeasing gestures that have been
made by previous Presidents of halting the bombing and asking and
begging the enemy to come and sit down and settle this across the
table, and now he has taken this action. I think it is proper. And
I think the young people out here in the sunshine and ease of California
are staging these demonstrations and thinking, for example that they
can settle the war and influence people by breaking the windows of a
little restaurant and the book store and a few offices and buildings
up and down Telegraph Avenue, and other places, are ignoring the fact
that 60,000 of their own age group plus the prisoners are over there
at the scene of danger and I would liketto ask them if they have given
any thought to what they'd do if they are wrong in their idea, and
if indeed those those men would be endangered by capture or death
if we did not take the action we are taking. And I think that the
President, as Commander in Chief, has that responsibility. I think
he enhanced himself politically because I think the bulk of Americans
have wanted for a long time to have some decisive action taken that
would bring this to a halt.
Q.
Governor, you said you thought the youths were led by
professionals that know what they are doing. Are you speaking of
what, communist agents?
A.
I'm speaking I don't know whether they are communist
agents, I think e- just think there is something phoney about a peace
march that usually takes place carrying flags of the enemy instead
of peace flags. But I think that men like Mr. Dellenger who can
hardly now in his 50's be called a student leader, and yet who's one
of the men who has been in the permanent organization of this peace
coalition and others like him, I think thesemmen are not really
dedicated to peace.
Q.
Governor --
Q.
Governor, each time the President Johnson or President
Nixon have escalated and they have promised that this is going to be
it, this is the way we get our boys home, and it never works. Now,
what happens what do we do next if this doesn't work?
-9-
A.
Well, I thin to lump the two of them together and say
each time they escalateu, that this is what's happened, this is an
unfair teaming or pairing. As I said, my criticism was that under
President Johnson we got up to more than a half a million Americans
there, and yet those half a million Americans were prevented from
ever doing anything but standing on defense waiting for an invitation
and waiting for attack and fighting them off when they came. They
were prevented from assaulting the enemy. Now, we did bomb enemy
supply lines and installations north of the demilitarized zone under
Johnson. But 18 times under Johnson he called off that bombing
and said to the ememy, "All right, I'll call it off, I'll show you
that we have no aggressive intent." We have made it paain we will never
invade. The enemy has been able to operate from a sanctuary .
He has no one left at home on guard. He knows that his home territory
is safe from any inchon type of landing such as we had in Korea, and
it is just -- it is unfair to ask men to fight and die under those
circumstances. So I've been -- I've been critical of that. Now,
President Nixon came in and discovered that there was no plan whatso-
ever, not one plan to -- to ever get our men home. There was no
plan that would -- to make the South Vietnamese able to replace them
and defend themselves. And he started the program of vietnamization
and he informed the enemy that as the South Vietnamese were able to
take over our troops -- proportionate numbers would be withdrawn.
Well, the proof is in the numbers. He has brought home more than
500,000 men. We are down to 60,000. He urged the enemy to let's
do this and he said on the other hand, if our forces are so reduced
that they are vulnerable that they have nothing but a South Vietnamese
between them and being overrun, there is no defense for our men to
stand there and say, "Hey, fellows, I'm just waiting for a boat home."
He said if the North Vietnamese make any move to interfere with
this withdrawal and to jump on our backs, then he said we'd have to
take action and would take any action to defend our men. And this
is exactly what's happened. Their response was this invasion. And
I think that as long as there is one man there he is the one person
in the United States, the President, who has the responsibility for the
safety of that one man.
Q.
Governor, as I understood the thrust of the question was
though, if this doesn't work what are the next options for the Presi-
dent?
If this thing does not work.
-10-
A.
Well, I don't think I'm in a position to we able to answer
that and I'm quite sure that the President if he -- that the President
would not answer it because, again, this was one of the previous faults
of this war. We literally told the enemy our location and our inten-
tions and what we would do, where and when. And gave him an advantage
that he shouldn't have had at the cost of American livos. And I
would think that the President would be well within his rights to keep
totally to himself and to his advisers what future steps he will take
in the defense of our young men. But he's made one thing plain, that
we are going to defend those 60 thousand men while they are coming
home and we are going to get our prisoners back and we are going to
do whatever is necessary to accomplish that.
Q.
Governor, when you talk about people who are tragically
misinformed, can you explain what you were talking about? a is couple
weeks at your press conference in this room, when you said that the
North Vietnamese had violated the Geneva agreement by
and
certain kind of order, do you remember that?
A.
Yes, if someone will only take the trouble to read in
succession the events that have taken place since 1954, even before
for that matter, they will discover the the Geneva Accords were
nothing more than an agreement that the military forces headquartered
in Haiphong, the Ho Chi Minh forces which was the only army in North
Vietnam, that that army and the French, neither would increaso thoir
forces, that in a two year period of '54 to '56 the French would with-
draw and by 1956 the people of Vietnam could by election detormine
the government that they wanted to have. But they also drow a
separation recognizing that Vietnam has not been a unified country,
thatSouth Vietnam for 2500 years has never come under the rule of
North Vietnam. Actually, they maybe should have made two divisions,
because Vietnam's history shows that there is a North Vietnam, a
Central Vietnam and a southern Vietnam, and all three have been pretty
much autonomous and separate. They drew the line right through the
center. They then said that for 300 days the people of North or
South of that line would be able to go either way, wherever they wanted
to live. Under Ho Chi Minh in the north or in the South Vietnam
where a government was to be created to replace the French rule as
the French took two years to dismantle and get out. And a million
people went from the north to the south. But before the 300 days
were up, because of that exodus, the North Vietnamese inviolation of
-116
the accords, they signed, they set up barricades, the own kind of
Berlin wall and turned back any more people that were trying to
escape North Vietnam who did not want to live under communism. The
second violation was that the North Vietnamese left in the south
several thousand of their own regular army units, to foster and promote
the Vietcong activity in the south. Now, all of this is a matter of
record. It is a -- the whole record of Ho Chi Minh is there and
plainly for everyone to see, and if there'asbeen a violation, that
has been the violation. And there could be no violation of those
accords by South Vietnam with regard to elections, they refused to
sign unless and until the North Vietnamese agree that there would be
international supervision. The only election the North Vietnamese
ever held was an election in which you voted on the street corners
on the sidewalks, on the tables, with no secret ballot and the tables
were manned by members of Ho Chi Minh's army.
Q.
O, K., then you remomber -- I assume you read the Geneva
Accords, right? I should ask that question first.
A.
Let me say I've had to read them as they have been presented
in various documents. I have not actually read verbatim the
Accords.
Q.
O. K. Then President Nixon -- President Eisenhower was to
have you know, said that there -- there were not going to be elections
involved two years later because he felt Ho Chi Minh would be elected.
A.
Well, this has been taken out of context a great many times.
What President Eisenhower -- when he made that remark was referring
to was the fact that without international supervision was one thing,
and this was one of the reasons we didn't sign, but the second thing
was to hold an election early and I don't think he specified by '56
was the fact that the only person on the scene for the South Vietnamese
as yet was the puppet emporer Bao Dai, and he had no illusions about
it. They knew that Bao Dai had to go. He said no one would vote
for this man who has been the puppet of the French for all these years
while they have been free, fighting for freedom of the French. No
one is going to vote for him. So the only other character on the
scene would be Ho Chi Minh.
a.
Governor, can we get back to a state matter. What is
your
reaction --
A.
I just like giving you a history lesson there.
Q.
What is your reaction to the State senate holding up three
of your four nominations to the state college board of trustees on
-12-
the charge that they dc ot accurately reflect the population?
A.
Well, I think that here again that the Senate -- here's
another violatinn of the separation of powers. The Senate confirma-
tion of Governor's appointees is supposed to be based on the Senate,
if it discovers some evidence of wrongdoing or something that I had
either overlooked or was ignoring. Now, malfeasance of some king,
moral terpitude and that reason the Senate could refuse confirmation.
But here is a simple case of the Senate now for the first time that I
know of in the history of this State, some senators refusing my
nominatinn -- my nominees because they agree with my philosophy and
not theirs. Well, I didn't think I got elected by the people to
come up here and find out just what it was that the opponents wanted
and give them everything they wanted.
Q.
You are not going to withdraw or make any changes in those
nominees then?
A.
No.
Q.
Governor, do you have any comment on the -- the Republicans
who are asking you to withdraw the name of the appointee -- Hubbard
to the Board of Education because he's for busing?
A.
There have -- I have satisfied myself as to Dr. Hubbarid's
views and have met with him for some hours. And this holds true
for him as well as for others. I am satisfied with the appointment
and I know that there has been -- there have been some people who
out of the bitterness of the controversy in Pasadena after that court
decision a few years ago are disturbed by his nomination. But I
am satisfied with that and that he would be a goodmember of the Board
of Education.
Q.
Governor, some of these people are getting ready to leave,
can you get one more and out of here.
Q.
On the coastline, are you going to have a bill or ar eyou
going to support one of the bills that are up there or are you just going
to wait for something to come down?
A.
Well, we have legislation that we are going -- we are either
going to amend into or have someone carry it on a pre-spot bill, our
own coastline legislation.
Q.
Do you know how soon that will be?
A.
Anybody got a date?
ED MEESE: Depends on how things develop upstairs.
A.
Well, depends on how things develop upstairs. That can
-13-
leave it wide open.
Q.
Governor, I was wondering, last week in Los Angeles at a
meeting you made some comments concerning underground radio, saying
that perhaps it lead people down the path to revolutionary action or
perhaps drugs or something like that. I was just wondering, where
you got your information. I was a little concerned because you live
in Sacramento and the station I work for is the only station of that
particular format here, and whether or not you thought that was some
action that AZAP was involved in or the stations you listened to.
A.
I didn't identify any. It is kind of a national phenomena
and I was talking to a national radio and television group, the
headsoof independent stations and I was pointing out again that there
were these stations that were going beyond the bounds of what most
radio and television stations go, in the electronic media with regard
to pornography, open advocacy of the drug culture and revolution.
And I said that I thought that through their association that the
industry should take upon itself the responsibility of gelicing itself.
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
Q.
Governoe, do you support the proposition on the ballot in
June which would require the State Senate to approve the appointments
to the Board of Regents, this is in reference now to the State --
A.
No, I think this is unnecessary from the simple fact that
when we starttoying around with this -- that system has worked for
90 years and it has created -- how many disagreements you may have --
has created the greatest public university system in the world today.
The highest prestige, and I -- if we were faced with some kind of
breakdown and failure at the university level, then it might make
sense, but I don't see any reason to start toying around with the
manner in which this great institution has been built up.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
Q.
No, one more question. One more question.
SQUIRE: Get it in early.
Q.
Governor, in your speechldast week on the bias in the news
media, you failed to spell out any names. Who are these people who
are biasing the news with arched eyebrows and skeptical expressions?
A.
Well, I tell you, I didnt point out any names because I
ohly had 20 minutes to speak, and I didn't want to just stand there and
read off a list of names.
a.
Are you now prepared to do so?
-14-
A.
No, because S. 're says that this meeting S over also.
(Laughter)
Q.
Next week. Come in next week.
A.
Listen, you young people back up there, you fellows can
rush for the phones -- you young people, you don't mind, I don't have
very much time, but would you like to fire away with a question or two
that you might have now. Student journalists.
Q.
You said that -- you said when Nixon mined the harbor
that he enhanced himself politically. Don't you think this is what
he was trying to do? To enhance himself politically?
A.
No, no, I think that if -- you want to make a case for
politics, of course, getting out of the war would be political
expedience. What I think is that he had the courage to make the
statement he made and take the action he has taken. We are discovering
that it did indeed enhance his chances, that the people of this country
were waiting for and wanted that kind of decisive action. I think
that he probably had -- in fact I'm sure he had political advice to
the contrary. That he had a great many people politically urging
him that this was a dangerous thing to do and yet he ignored that
advice and did what heknew he had to do.
Q.
O. K. If President Nixon's latest actions in North Vietnam
fail, would you support his use of nuclear weapons at all?
A.
This question always comes up and again it is a question
that really -- no one can answer exceptithe man in charge who has
access to all the information, what is the danger to the United States.
I would have to say, and I'm sure the President would agree, I don't
think there is any reason or any need for nuclear weapons in Vietnam
and I'm quite sure that the President and no one else in the world
today wants to see them used. And what I have said many times is
this, though, I've said again that I don't think you ought to go out
of your way to assure the enemy that you won't. I think that if you
are -- if you are fighting with someone, if he's -- if he's apt to
get nervous and worry that you might do something like that, let him
be nervous and worry, it is not a ping pong game, it is a war.
Q.
Yes, sir, Governor. I read where the utilities are getting
another raise. How come people like the State workers and teachers
aren't getting raises?
A.
Well, all the State employees this year, beginning in July
are getting a five per cent raise across the board. We now are sure
that we are going with the savings that -- unexpected savings that
-15-
we have made in ourwelfare reforms that we are going to have some
excess funds. Our only reason for holding down raises to state
employees has been money, no disagreement about their deserving them.
We have said repeatedly, simply not having the money. Now that we
are recovering and we are getting more money we have been meeting with
the State Personnel Board and we are going to -- once we know the
figure we have we are going to start on a program not of broad across-
the-board raises over and above the five per cent, but using the
additional money we have to correct some inequities that have grown
up over the years. We have certain departments that are more out
of line with their counterparts in, say, the federal government or
inprivate industry than others. And we are going to try to bring
specific departments up and one of those top priorities are those
few hundred employees in the water system. That because they are
way out of line with people doing the similar kind of work.
Q.
Governor, -- t =
tat'
A.
As to teachers, of course, that's local. If you are talking
about public schools, these are -- these salaries are determined by
the local school boards.
Q.
Mr. Reagan, have any dates been set for the raising of
tuition fees in state colleges and universities, yet? This is of
concern to allot of students.
A.
No the State university, there's been no talk of any increase
in their tuitions. The state university has a $300 for a three-
quarter year tuition. The state colleges trustees cannot -- the
trustees have voted that there should be a tuition at the state
colleges. This however, in their case, must be voted on by the
legislature and the legislature so far hasn't done that. We think
it is out of balance to have the universities with a tuition and
the state colleges without. But generally the thinking of the
trustees was a tuition that would be roughly about half what it is
at the university, labout $150, because the comparable cost of educa-
ting a student at the state college is roughly about half what it is
at the university. Not because there is any lower quality, but
because the university prorated out has much more costly graduate
programs. So that would be the extent of the tuition. But I
would think -- I know my own vote as a trustee would be that wish
such a tuition must come the same provision that we succeeded in
getting at the university, that any student who has real need and for
-16-
whom that would be a h: Trance to his getting an e cation, that that
student should be allowed to defer all or part of his tuition until
after graduation and pay it back in his earning years.
a.
Governor, you say that President Nixon's action is supported
because he has a moral obligation to the 60,000 remaining in troops.
Does he have any moral obligation to all the people that life there
as ending the conflict as soon as possible?
A.
Yes. The Vietnamese people have been at war for more than
2,000 years. Fighting one conqueror after another and fighting
within themselves, as I said before, south resisting domination by
the north Vietnamese. And in spice of all the propaganda to the
contrary, people have tried to point out the South Vietnamese, 17,000,000
if them have made it plain they do not want to live under communism.
A million of those 17 came from the north to escape. living under
Ho Chi Minh's military dictatorship. Now, I think the reason that
America was invited in the first place, when I said it was legal as
well as moral, was because Vietnam was adjoined in with SEATO,
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. And they asked for the help of
their fellow treaty signatories which included the United States,
Australia, the Phillipines, Korea and all those other countires
furnished manpower for this conflict to aid them. And I think when
you -- the thing that seems to be ignored by so many today who are
so hostile to this war is the great record of brutality and murder
of innocence by the Vietcong and by the North Vietnamese in their
attempt to terrorize.
Now, I know that difference -- at your age, in just several
years, and that back at the beginning of this war I doubt that you
were of an age where you were really concerned with it, and therefore
dim in memory are the repeated atrocities that were coming out of
Vietnam back in the beginning when we only had a few hundred men in
civilian clothes there helping the South Vietnamese try to organize
for the first time an army. But the terror in which school playgronnds,
schools, movie theaters were the target, just for indiscriminate tossing
in of bomhs, the killing of children, school buses were the target
more than anything else for the bombings and the killings. Village
leaders elected in their village form of government, in the night
the leader -- anyone who dared accept the election to headership and
the teachers taken out and usually they were tortured throughout the
night so the people in the village could hear their screams and then
-17-
in the morning they were found there in the village with their heads
cut off, as the end of the torture. Just this morning's paper carries
the story that evidently well authenticated -- that as the North
Vietnamese advaned they have already crucified two catholic priests
that they found in one of the villages who refused to leave and who
stayed with their parrish in this village. Now, it is -- it is
all easy to feel sorry and say that someone may be killed by a bomb
in North Vietnam, but somebody has -- is being killed very horribly.
Right now the total civilian casualty in South Vietnam, in this invasion
alone, in the last two weeks, is 20, civilians, just by the indis-
criminate shelling by artillery. Believe me, the rolling barrage of
artillery can still make the air force pump to try and equal it.
Q.
Because these atrocities have been committed in the past
and are being committed now, this makes it morally all right to
go ahead, just keep on going then because all it does is prolong the
war, right?
A.
No, the President's plan from the first has been to prepare
the South Vietnamese to the place where they can choose and have the
ability to defend themselves, so they can make a choice as to the form
of government they want to have, make their own -- their own decision
in that regard. And I think that there is a -- I think this is
highly moral on the part of the United States, to help them do this.
We have seen the idea of North Vietnam, they conquered Hue in 1968.
They held it for two months before we drove them out, and after we
drove them out we found the 5700 people who had been executed during
that occupation, purged, many of them buried alive. Now, I think
this is an indication of what's going to happen if the 1700 are
suddenly just turned over to the North Vietnamese. There will be the
same kind of blood bath that has followed the takeover, whether it
was by the Nazis or by the Communists in Russia when they entered
Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Q.
Do you feel, Governor -- you made reference to, you know,
atrocities by the North Vietnamese. Do you feel that as far as the
Americans are concerned, the American's atrocities are basically isolated
incidents and what do you feel about American atrocities because we
are also guilty of this.
A.
I suppose you are talking about a My Lai type of thing.
No one denies that in war and when men are in combat and in war that
things happen and men behave in some instances in ways that they shouldn't
-18-
Basically they have be isolated incidents, inció ts in a great
fever of emotion. I wonder how many of you who have read the accounts
of My Lai have read the book by the war correspondent there who
wrote fromaanother side and wrote how inevitable My Lai wasbecause
he described what had happened to this particular outfit and how in
reality that outfit should have been pulled out of the line because
they were in normental frame of mind to be normal. That they had
gone through quite a horrible experience and a blood bath themselves.
They deserved to have been replaced in the line and that -- it was
in that emotional frame that they hit My Lai. But these are limited
as are individual cases of rape that takes place in war. Things of
this king. Thisis a little different than a planned policy of
terrorism in which an enemy officially with government sanction says
this 1s going to be our policy. At least you have to say this, in
every war for the United States army, we have the utmost in severe
penalties for men on our side who practice atrocities. We do our
best to keep war as civilized if war can be civilized as it can be.
Q.
Governor, with the mining of Haiphong Harbor, how do you
think it will affect Nixon's trip to Moscow and relations with Russia, --
with Russia in general.
A.
So far it hasn't been called off. I tell you something
you probably find har d to believe. I have believed for a long time
and I think that I've done a certain amount of studying in this
particular subject, ranging all the way from having been a member of
a Board of Directors of a few Communisty Organizations and --
in earlier years, from then on up into Russian practices -- I believe
that when it suits the Communists to have a confrontation with the
United States, when it is to their advantage to have one, they will
have it, whether we do any provoking or not. It won't depend on
anything we may chose to do. If they are not ready, and it is not
to their advantage to have that, there is nothing we can do in provoking
them to do it. And therefore, I don't believe they are ready for that
confrontation right now. And I may be proven wrong, but it is just
ly hunch that the meeting will be held and there will be no -- there
will be a lot of rhetoric in Pravda and Tass about this. But I don't
think there's going to be any nose-to-nose or threat of nuclear holocaust,
I know we are runing out of time, I have to take some who haven't spoken.
Q.
Why this 2,000 years of fighting between the North Vietnam
and the South Vietnam have the North Vietnam not yet conquered the
South Vietnam?
-19-
A.
It's been bac and forth, it is not only ust between them.
They have been overrun by the Chinese. Southeast Asia has been
a target for conquerors down through the ages. The history of South
Vietnam in these 2,000 years is very fascinating and most people who
have ever gone into it -- I can't claim that I have, I haven't had the
time to do that, although I'd love to -- but from the little that I do
know, I know that most people find that you can understand much better
much of what's going on if you understand this -- this history. For
example, Ho Chi Minh under a different name back in 1925 was an
employee of the Russian Consolate in Canton, China. And the Soviet
Consolate, and in that capacity he used to invite nationalist leaders
from Vietnam to come up there for indoctrination and for training and
so forth, supposedly for help. And then getting them there he would
sell them to the French Secret police. He was eliminating the
nationalist leadership that even back in 1925 was fighting for freedom
from the French. And when he finally had -- was responsible for so
many deaths that they no longer -- they were onto him, he died.
Officially died under the name that he had. And then a few years
later he reappeared as Ho Chi Minh, which was his real name, and his
record has been one of the similar kind of thing.
When he finally came back into North Vietnam he formed a
nationalist coalition, but once he formed it then to get control of
it from whibhin he purged. He had one incident very similar to what
the Soviet Union did in World War II to the Jews in the ghettos of
Warsaw. I don't know whether you've had it in history, but when the
Russians were ready to retake Warsaw they got the word into the
ghetto and they said, "Rise up, sticks and stones against the Nazis
and we will come in -- you keep them busy and route the Nazis," and
the Jews in Warsaw and the ghetto did, they fought with their bare
hands and the Soviet sat outside, and never made a move until there
was no more fighting. Then they came in and drovethe Nazis out, but
they didn't have any Polish leadership to worry about. Well, Ho
Chi Minh with young people your own age, several thousand of them that
he put into Hanoi to fight the French, and promised that he would
bring his army in to help them. And he sat on the outskirts of the
city until all of these young men were killed off. Andthen his army
came on in and drove the French out.
Q.
Governor, do you think that any President or any leader of
our conntry will be able to stop this fighting after the -- after the
2,000 years?
-20-
A.
I think what the President is doing makes so much sense.
We have tried the other way. We have tried to hold out the carrot
and get the enemy to talk peace with us. Pretending ormaybe believing
that the enemy really wanted peace as we wanted peace. Now, there's
only one way to get him to that table. You have to make it so painful
not to come to the table that he will come and sit down. And your
question about nuclear weapons, let me point out something. When
President Eisenhower became President of the United States, we were
still having men killed by the thousands in Korea, and yet they had
Panmunjon
been sitting there for twoyears at Pan Mun Jonh (?) supposedly in a peace
conference. Now today it can be revealed that Eisenhower planted with
Krishna Menin at the United Nations, an Indian who was anti-American --
he leaked some information that Krishna Menin thought he had found for
himself and the information was that the President of the United States
was considering the use of nuclear weapons in Korea. Now, this was
a deliverate keak of false information. Within 48 hours the North
Koreans said, "o. K." The two years of this useless talk is over,
let's really settle it and we ended the war in Korea. We ended it
with a threat that they could not count, a threat they couldn't face,
and I don't think the President had any intention of dro pping any
nuclear weapons, but who said two years ofttalking peace is enough,
it is time to get down to basics.
B.
How long do you think the United States can continue to play
world guardian to small countries like Vietnam?
A.
I don't think -- well, in a sense, when you say world guardian,
we are guarding ourselves. I realize that today it is unfashionable
to pretend that there is some kind of an international chess game going
on. But there is. And I will never forget standing or sitting in
an audience in Los Angeles and hearing Golda Meir when she came here
last year from Israel and hearing Golda Meir tell this audience of
Californians, she said, "Don't talk to me about the danger from Egypt. "
She said, "The enemy is in Moscow where he has always been." Now,
ifthe United States just bugged out and let the 17,000,600ebe taken,
what a tipoff and a signal this would be to the Soviet Union that they
they could proceed by way of Egypt to Israel. I think West Berlin
would disappear in a minute, and a half. You could shose the spots
around the earth that would disappear. And then you've got to go back
to Lenin's strategic plan in which Lenin said -- and he said, "We will
take Eastern Europe, we will organize the hoades of Asia, then wewwill
-21-
move on Latin America." And he said, "Eventually the United States,
the last bastion of capitalism will be surrounded a we won't have
to take it, it will fall intovour outstretched hand like overripe
fruit." Now, those who have the intelligenteinfsrmation, those who
have all the facts are those who advise and have advised three
Presidents of the United States with regard to Vietnam. And three
Presidents who have nothing in common. Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon,
Obviously had nothing in common with each other. And yet faced
with the facts all three of those Presidents felt that it was necessary
for the security of the United States that we be involved in Vietnam.
And I would think that this would give less-informed people pause
to think. If it had been a succession of one philosophy of President
that had followedthrough on this plan, you might say that philosophy
was wrong, let's try something else. But three men, once they had
the facts and the fnformation have made this decision. And I don't
think any of us can actually say that our decision would be different
than a President's decision unless we knew the facts upon which me
made that decision. And it is not a case of policing just the world
out of great generosity. We made a lot of mistakes out of our
generosity, but I think it is a case that we are in a world that
is not at peace. You young people and all of those who demonstrate
for peace, there is you think that we don't love peace? Do you
think that those of us who went through World War II and that blood
bath did not come out with an all consuming desire for peace? But
it takes -- it only takes one to start a war unless you are willing
to become enslaved. And if the young people would direct their
attention not at us, as if we are against peace, but if this genera-
tion could start directing itself to the young people their own age
in the other countires, then we might have a chance forppeace. But
there is no chance unilaterally to say the United States should fly a
dove up here and be the only peaceful one when in China, in the first
few elementary grades they are teaching kids how to throw hand grenades
and use a rifle and bayonet, and when in Russia young people are
being indoctrinated in school to believe the noblest thing they can
do is give their life for their country. And why don't we start an
international type of thing? Why is it always the United States' that
must lay down its arms. What about those other fellows putting theirs
down, too, and this could be quite a garget for young people in the world
today. He's going to kill me if I don't go.
Q.
One more question from somebody.
A.
Well this young lady right in front of you.
-22-
c
Concerning tl. equal rights amendment.
Idn't your own
commission on women recommend its passage?
A.
You know, I can't remember whether they did or not.
ED GRAY: I don't remember.
A.
I don't know.
Delieve me, I -- if you are trying to
pin me down onequal rights for women, I happen to be one who thinks
already that you are so superior I'd kind of hate to see you come
down to our level. Now, if it wasn't for you, really, we'd all
still be carrying clubs.
ED GRAY: Thank you.
VOICE:
Thank you, Governor.
000
-23-