Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564140",
    "label": "Transcripts - 01/15/1974, 01/31/1974, 02/21/1974",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564140"
}

{
    "id": "118564140",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564140",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 01/15/1974, 01/31/1974, 02/21/1974",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564140",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-007-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-007-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-007-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564140",
    "naId": 118564140,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-007-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "101c7f673e592f30",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual\ncollections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -\n01/15/1974, 01/31/1974, 02/21/1974\nBox: P04\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHeld January 15, 1974\nReported by\nBeverly D. +oms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the press conference is furnished\nto the members of the Capitol press corps for their convenience\nonly.\nBecause of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as\npossible after the conference, no corrections are made and there is\nno guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n---000--\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: We have some visitors this morning.\nOberst\nMrs. Alma Oburst and -- who is the journalism instructor at the\nContra Costa College in San Pablo, a class of 20 journalism class\nthere. And, incidentally, they have got to be regular visitors.\nOberst\nMrs. Oburst brings her class here and has for the last several years\nat least once each year. I have an opening statement.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 27.)\nO\nGovernor, what promoted you to make the statement now?\nwas it Lieutenant Governor Reinecke's comments that were reported\nlast week about his urging the support --\nA\nNo, no, and let me just say with regard to that, that I've\nhad two Lieutenant Governors during my term in office, and it\njust seems to be a habit of the political process that from the\nfirst day in office there seems to be a desire to indicate that the\nLieutenant Governor and the Governor are at odds with each other and\nsplitting. My relationship with Lieutenant Governor Reinecke\nremains unchanged and on the sound and good cordial basis it always\nhas been, but you yourselves have frequently asked me in press\nconferences, and this is the first one in considerable time, and\nwe are getting closer to that -- that date, but you've asked me\nwhenher I would remain neutral or whether I would take stands. And\nincreasingly some of you just in individual contacts have brought up,\nwell, am I going to take a stand in this (primary) race or the other, but also\nit's been coming in from -- from the people themselves, these\ninquiries. And SO this was based -- this statement is based on\nthe fact that I have sent a letter to Gordon Luce, the State Republican\nChairman stating this very thing, that I believe the best service\nI can be is to continue what I've done in every election SO far, is\n-1-\nto remain totally n. tral. And I have done tl in all primaries\nsince I've been Governor.\n0\nGovernor, does this apply to your staff as well'\nA\nYes. Yes, it does. And I have asked them to observe that.\n0\nHas the Lieutenant Governor asked you for support in\nthe primary?\nA\nNo. As a matter of fact, he is in complete sympathy with\nthis and always has been. He's known from the first day that he\never talked about running for Governor that I would be -- have to be\nneutral in the primary.\n0\nThen why would he say something like he did, if you were\nsmart you'd support him?\nA\nWell, there are other news stories that seem to indicate\na -- different things. Things that -- that did not put that\nemphasis on the one particular story.\nSo\n--\nyou\ncan\nask\nhim\nas\nto what his attitude is.\n0\nGovernor --\n0\nGovernor, didn't you sometime earlier sort of leave the\ndoor open for possible primary endorsement if youthought it was\nneeded?\nA\nYes, I did. This was one of the reasons I felt a responsi-\nbility to you to come in here and make this statement. I said at\none time that I was going to leave -- that while I said I felt that\nI would be neutral, if you will recall I said at the same time I\nwas going to leave the door open, that ifin the interim something\ndeveloped that I thought I could serve the party better by aaking\na stand, I would do so. And I wanted to leave that option there.\nAnd nothing has happened and I believe that the time has come now\nto clear the air and make it plain what I'm going to do.\n0\nGovernor, you said the Lieutenant Governor had not asked for\nyour endorsement. Have any of the prospective primary candidates\nasked you?\nA\nNo, no, and others -- young men in our administration that\nhave talked about running for office, have come to see me and the\nfirst thing -- and I've encouraged them, I've told them this, that\nI think they are the kind of men that should be running for public\noffice, and in each case -- and they will testify I have told them,\nthey understand, of course, that no matter how highly I regard them\nwith regard to their service in the jobs that they have been holding,\n-2-\nthat I am neutral in the primary.\nO\nHasany other candidate, particularly the Controller, asked\nyou not to endorse?\nA\nNo, none of them have discussed this. All of them, I\nthink, have taken it for granted that this is the -- what I would\ndo.\n0\nGovernor, did members of your staff discourage Mr. Kehoe\nfrom his intention to run for Controller?\nA\nIf they did I didn't know anything about it. I doubt it.\nO\nGovernor, what about Lieutenant Reinecke's statement that\nyou would be -- that you'd -- you'd be weakening your prospective\nbid for President in 1976 unless you dropped your stand for\nneutrality in the race for Republican nomination for Governor?\nA\nWell, however that was written, or whatever it was was said,\nI know the Lieutenant Governor has assured me that he was in a\nconversation having to do with -- thesolidarity of the party,\nparticularly in the present climate in '74, and that it did not --\nhe did not intend that to mean that I should be in any way involved\nin the primary or violate neutrality.\nO\nWell, Governor, nevertheless, whether he intended it or not,\nit came out that way. Do you feel he was -- it wastaken out of\ncontext?\nA\nNone of you read the other story. There is a UPI story\nout that seems quite contrary to the one you refer to.\n0\nHave you seen the Lieutenant Governor since those stories\nwere published?\nA\nYes, just left him a little while ago.\nO\nHave you talked to him about it?\nA\nYes.\nO\nWhat did he say?\nA\nSame thing he's already said, we have no difference of\nopinion on this.\nO\nDid he say he was misquoted or anything that was printed\nmight have been misleading?\nA\nHe said that in the general discussion that this was not the\npoint that he was intending to make. That the point he was intend-\ning to make was that obviously if -- if I were going to be involved\nin a campaign in 1976, and he didn't know whenher I was or not, that --\nthat if I was that a good solid Republican party and a unified party,\n-3-\nRepublican\nparty,\nTA\n1d be of benefit then.\n1\nobviously it\nwould be.\n0\nGovernor, do you say you would support him?\nA\nNo.\nO\nGovernor, now that you raisethe question, will you be in\nthe contest in 1976?\nA\nSquire, that's too early to say. I'm --\n(Laughter)\nA\nAs I have said before, I've got about 11 more months to go\nnow to -- to concentrate on what we have to do here, and that's\nwhat I'm going to do.\nO\nGovernor, along thesame line, why wasn't the fund raiser\nfor Assemblyman Jerry Lewis not held in a local hotel last night and\ninstead at your residence?\nA\nWell, they asked me if they could hold it at the residence\nand I was very pleased to cooperate and to -- to do that. And I\nsee nothing wrong with it.\nO\nYou see no -- what is your reaction to the issue that it\nmay be improper to hold an event like that, inviting lobbyists,\nspecifically, in a state-supported residence?\nA\nWell, I was not responsible for the quest list. I knew\nthat\nit was a fund raiser in connection with the party. The man who was\nGovernor is automatically the leader of his party. And I think it\nmight be interesting for some of you to check back and find out if\nthis was a new and unheard of thing. I don't think it was. I\nthink you will find that it's been customary even when the state had\na state-owned mansion instead of just renting a house for the\nGovernor to live in. That is my home. I don't think there is\nany restriction in the constitution on who I invite or allow into\nmy home.\nO\nDo you think it is proper, though? Would you support that\nsort of thing at any other state building?\nA\nWell, I think when you get into these state offices and\nstate buildings now -- I don't know what the policy might be on\nthat. I doubt if it would be for -- for partisan affairs unless\nit was open to both and to all parties to do the same thing, but\nI wouldn't see a particular need for that. I doubt if there\nwould be anything that -- where there would be an appropriate state\nbuilding for that. But I think you have to recognize that while\n-4-\nthe state is supposed to provide housing for the Governor, that is\nhis home. That is his residence. I don't think the state says,\n\"Well, we will provide the home but we will tell you who you can\nhave in your home.\"\na\nBy the way, Governor, what's the status of building a new\nmansion? That's kind of slowed down, hasn't it?\nA\nNo, no, it was slowed down, but then when we didn't find any\narrowheads, to speak of, why --\n(Laughter)\nA\nIt's back on the --- on schedule although several months\nbehind schedule, because of that unnecessary delay. But the\narchitects are -- as a matter of fact, I have a meeting with them\ntoday, with regard to preliminary plans that they want to show.\nQ\nGoing back to that party, Governor, did your research\nfind that actually there were other times -- can you be specific\non whether there were other fund raisers?\nA\nI haven't pinned it down to any -- there's been general\nconversation of people who have been around longer than I have that --\nthis was more or less a routine thing and -- in times past. And\nthat would mean the mansion over there, but I don't know for a fact\nthat -- nor have I bothered to find that out. Young lady.\nQ\nI heard about a meeting that you had with young people yes-\nterday where you told them theyshould carefully look at the kind\nof morality involved with the Watergate scandal and yet a year ago\nyou told me that everybody had in their campaign staff somebody who\nwas involved in wiretapping or conspiracy. Why have you changed\nyour mind?\nA\nNo, I haven't changed my mind any. The young people asked\nme the question of what effect I thought this would have and they\nspecified on a party.\nAnd I tried to elaborate on what I thought\nthe general effect would be and the hope that there might be some\ngood out of this. That -- the Watergate certainly is not the\nfirst of the idea of a laxity with regard to our reaction to campaign\nshenanigans in the past, and that maybe this would be a good thing\nto finally jolt us into realizing the seriousness of the privilege\nof voting and that maybe out of this would come a new attitude on\nthe part of the people to politics in general, and to not being as\ntolerant as people have been. And not just now, but back through\n-5-\nthe past. A citizen has had a tendency to say, oh, that 's politics\nand dust it off. And, as a matter of fact, I can hark back to\nsome 1966 campaign speeches when I said then that we should cure\nthat. That we shouldn't say it is excusable because it is politics.\nThat we should have even a more stringent requirement for this just\nas we do for certain professions. I think we ask more in ethical\nconduct of a clergyman or a doctor than we do of some other\noccupations.\n0\nBut one year ago you were dusting it off. Why the change\nof mind?\nA\nNo, I don't think I was ever dusting it off. No.\n0\nAlso, in Shasta County there is a newly created Superior\nCourt position. Have you decided who you are going to fill that\nwith? It is in Shasta County.\nA\nI couldn't hear the first.\nQ\nThere is a newly created third Superior Court position in\nShasta County. Have you decided who you are going to fill that\nwith?\nA\nNo, we have not made a decision as yet.\nQ\nAre you thinking about anybody in particular?\nA\nWell, in the Superior Court, no, I'll have to explain\nthe\nthe process to you. I tried/first months I was up here to take\nthe appointment of judges out of the political influence and be\npolitical appointees, and I couldn't get that through the legislature,\nbut I have been doing it voluntarily. We submit all names that are\nproposed for judges to a series of committees, including laymen,\nthe local bar, the judiciary and the state board of Governors.\nAnd back come these separate committee ratings of these individuals.\nAnd we then get a --- a sheet that gives their ratings across the\nboard. And we have been appointing those who arechosen at the\nhighest level by those various committees. We have indeed taken\nit out of the area of politics.\nO\nWhich ones are you recommending? What ones that have\nreached the top are you recommending?\nA\nWell, we haven't had the meeting on that yet. I don't\nknow that all the returns are in, because see, one name will come\nin at one time, subsequently another name, and immediately you send\nthem out to these committees for that screening, and you don't\nhave the meeting then until you know that all the names that have\n-6-\nbeen submitted that you have the ratings back Use\n0\nGovernor, the technical advisers to Judge Sirica reported\nto him this morning that there had beenbetween 5 and 9 erasures\nwithin that 18 minute section in one of the subpoenaed Watergate\ntapes. Does that in any way make you somewhat suspicious of Rose-\nmary ---\nA\nI don't understand. I thought that the whole 18 minutes\nwas simply erased on the tape and replaced by a tone.\nQ\nApparently the experts, though, looked at it and found that\nthere were erasures and even they say rerecordings within the 18\nminutes.\nA\nWell, all I know is that just recently an expert in that\nfield, the head of an audio-visual company here in California, took\nthe exact same kind of device -- this was reported in the press --\ntook the exact same kind of device and revealed where, how\naccidentally, with the foot pedal, you can in twelve seconds erase\n18 minutes of tape exactly. I don't know, I'm not an expert.\no\nGovernor, in the Watergate discussion with the young people\nyesterday you said something to the effect that hopefully out of this\npeople will be more careful in making selections of people for office.\nor people they put into government jobs in the future. What did\nyou mean by that?\nA\nWell, no --\nO\nIs that a reflection on anyone who is --\nA\nNo, again we have to review the bidding with the original\ninflection\ninflexion. In the entire discussion of this with the young people,\nif you will recall, also, I cited and used the Will Rogers' quote that\nthe people in government are no better and no worse than the people\nwho send them there. And I also pointed out that -- that too\noften theelectorate turns away and thinks that they are showing\na disapproval of things political by staying away fromthe polls.\nAnd this is not the way to solve the problem. And I used the\nexample of a school board election recently, not too far away, when\nonly 5.7 per cent of the voters turned out. Now, I would like to\nknow how 94.3 per cent of the voters have any right to complain about\nthat school or the management of this school, what happens in that\nschool, when they missed their chance to vote in the board --\nschool board election. And so I meant that there is no substitute\nin our system, I think it is the best system that's ever been devised\n-7-\nin man's social structure and it's proven that 1. has a verility\nthat can withstand the nitpicking and the harrassment and the things\nthat go wrong better than any system ever devised. But the one\nthing that the founding father could not provide was a substitute\nfor the people. It is a government of, by and for the people.\nAnd that \"of\" is particularly important. It means that the\npeople cannot leave political decisions to someone else or the\nchoosing of candidates. They have got to take the time and trouble\nto be aware of the isses, to understand the issues and then to make\nthe decision on candidates. And most of what is wrong today, with\nour political system, is that these decisions are made by people who\ntoo often go to the polls without a knowledge of what is at issue\nand what the candidates stand for. And beyond that those others\nwho don't go to the polls at all and seem proud of that fact.\n0\nGovernor, back to the Shasta County Judge, has Senator\nMarler's name been entered into this process? And if he makes the\ncut would you appoint him?\nED MEESE:\nGovernor, we have traditionally not mentioned\nany names until they are finally appointed.\nA\nNever have.\n0\nGovernor, somewhat by the same analogy, onthat --- on that\nquestion, then do you think that it was improper then for the -- for\nthe Control of the Presidential elect campaign last year to be in\nthe hands of a committee under the President rather than within the\nparty?\nA\nOh, I don't think there is anything new of that -- about\nthat.\nEvery candidate has hisown campaign organization. Outside the\nparty organization. You cooperate, you work with them when you can.\nI've -- goth campaigns I've had my own organization outside of the\nparty structure. You have to if you are going to be involved in\nthe primary, you have to have such a structure because in California\nat least the state party structure cannot participate in the sense\nof endorsing or participating with regard to candidates -- individual\ncandidates. And it would be pretty late to start after the primary.\nAnd turn it all over to them.\n0\nGovernor, how could Watergate have been prevented by a\nmore alert electorate?\nA\nWell, I suppose if you are going to get down to try and take\na specific of that kind, I'll have to sit down and write a\n-8-\nscript for that.\nwas talking about an att' ude--a lax attitude\nthat has persisted long before Watergate, that goes back through\nBobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes and the Tammany Hall in New York,\nand Hage Machine in New Jersey, and Daley, and before that the\nKelly-Nash Machine in Chicago, and I think that all of those things\ntook place because of the willingness of people to go their way and\nlet George do it.\n0\nWas that true of voters in''72, five months after the\nWatergate break-in was revealed, still voting for the President?\nDo you think that's an example of the same thing?\nA\nWell, I don't know. I have often said I'm not going to go\nback on a statement that I madebefore, that I can't recall a Presi-\ndential election in many years in which the philosophies, the issues\nwere as clearly defined as they were in this one. You had two\nopposing camps as to issues, and I thought the people didn't really\nmake so much of a decision or choice of a man as they did they\nvoted against the almost revolution and reconcept of our American\nsystem that was presented by the McGovern campaign.\nO\nGovernor, do you think Watergate was no worse than any of\nthose other cases that youmentioned in terms of political\ncorruption and scandal?\nA\nI'm not going to get into that game.\nQ\nBut you keep equating every time you are asked about\nWatergate you say this has been going on all along, as if this is\nreally nothing different. And that doesn't make it right.\nAnd\nI'm not going to get into an answer to your question because I think\nthat it is just as dishonest to steal a dime as it is a dollar.\nO\nGovernor, what is your reaction to Secretary of State\nBrown's suggestion that the state take back its tideland oil lands\nand go into the oil business?\nA\nWell, I liked him better when he was picking up arrowheads.\n(Laughter)\nA\nI think it shows a great ignorance of our system. I think\nit is a very naive thing for him to propose, and I don't think that\nthe state should be getting into competition with the private sector\nin any field, and is this to suggest that if there is trouble in\nthe automobile industry that the state ought to jump in and start\nmanufacturing automobiles? First of all, when I say ignor ance of\nour system, I don't think that what he's proposing could be done\nunder California law and constitution.\n-9-\nO\nGovernor, in your State of the State address you suggested\nthat the Secretary of State's office be made a non-partisan office.\nDoes that have anything to do with the fact that Mr. Brown is the only\nDemocrat who holds the constitutional office?\nA\nNo, it has to do with the fact that he himself has brought\nthis out in the last several months. He brought it out; he's\nmilked it. And that is theidea of the new laws, the new regulations\nwith regard to campaign reporting, campaign practices and so forth\nthat the Secretary of State's office is in charge of, the supervising\nof -- of those campaign practices. Now, with that emphasis on that\noffice, to supervise elections, partisan elections between a major\nand whatever the third and fourth parties there are, it would seem\nto me that the character of the office has changed and in order to\ndo that and avoid any possibility of conflict of interest or of bias\nand partisanship in supervising those compaign tactics, it should be\nwhere\na non-partisan office,/mxx the man could stand above the gray and judge\neach party equally. Now, as you know, we have had criticisms\nrecently and particularly with regard to Proposition 1, and some other\ncampaign things, that there has not been an even-handed administering\nof the -- of the laws from that office.\nQ\nWhy did you also suggest that other officials with not\npartisan duties, such as you say the Attorney General, also be non-\npartisan office?\nA\nNo, I did't suggest that because the same thing doesn't\nprevail. They are not involved in partisan activities, supervising\nelections, supervising campaign contributions and the reporting of\ncampaign contributions and such. The Attorney General, for example,\nis traditionally the Governor's lawyer. And the other constitutional\noffices having to do with the Treasury and the Controller's office,\nthey don't have anything to do with the elections, SO there wasn't\nany reason to make those -- if you went that route, then you might\nas well say the Governor should be non-partisan, too, and then you\nend the two party system.\n0\nYou -- in Proposition 1 you said your budget is following\nthe guidelines of that.\nBut in Proposition 1 you suggested\na permanent reduction in income tax. This isn't in your budget.\nAre you going to propose it or what?\nA\nNo, it was voted down by the people. Right now, very frankly,\nthe reason we haven't proposed that in legislation is because since\n-10-\nthat time the energ, crisis -- now themoney is here, the surplus\nis there that would have been used in that tax cut, but I -- I am\nwilling to wait now to make sure that we don't run into an emergency.\nQ\nBut the energy crisis was brought up when Proposition 1 was\nin there and some people, including Alan Post, said it wouldn't\nwork because of the coming energy crisis. Does that mean Prop. 1\nwouldn't have worked?\nA\nYes, Prop. 1 would have worked, and our present budget\nindicates it. And our money is there and everything would have\ntaken place exactly as it has taken place if Prop. 1 passed. But,\nfirst of all, I don't believe with the majority we have in the\nlegislature there is any chance in getting the -- that tax cut.\nThat was one of the reasons the leadership was opposed to it. But\nthe - the money is hhere. It could have provided for that tax\ncut.\nGovernor, Senator Biddle plans to fight your appoint ---\nappointments to the State Air Resources Board, the four new appoint-\nments you made last month, on the grounds that they possibly aren't\nqualified under law and that he says they were appointed merely\nto obtain a particular decision on the '66-70 car license --\nCould you comment on why you made that much of a change and --\nA\nYes, I look forward to talking to Senator Biddle about that.\nI can understand his concern. He represents a district that has\na very great problem. Geographically, that area over there gets\nall the air pollution from Orange and Los Angeles Counties and piles\nup against the mountains and they live in it until the wind comes\nalong and blows it away. So K know the concern and I think we all\nshare that concern. But the board situation is -- has not been fairly\nportrayed. First of all, I was faced with three resignations, and\nsome of those resigning, Dr. Haagen-Smit, for a long time had intended\nto retire. He'd stayed on longer than he intended to and some of those\nretiring suggested that they felt this was a time now for a reorganiza-\ntion of the board. A fourth member's term had come up, had expired.\nThe individual was -- no one was fired. This person's term had\nexpired and long before the whole matter of the energy crisis had come\nthis individual had been warned or advised -- I shouldn't put it\nas a warning -- advised that very possibly might not be reappointed\nand this is true of many other boards. If you notice that we -- we\ndo make changes in personnel. So we went forward with this.\nI\n-11-\nhave never spoken to che board with -- to any O₁ these members\nindividually with regard to what their course of action might be.\nI think there was -- there's been question for a long time and\nwe have had numerous meetings about the smog control devices, their\neffectiveness, whether we were moving too fast or not. We finally\nwent ahead with them and they still will go forward. They will apply\nand be applied to cars when they change ownerships. Anyone\ntrading\nin an old car, from '66 to '70 period, before it can be resold it\nmust have one of these devices put on it. The only thing that we\nheld up on because of the energy crisis was the plan to go forward\nmaking every one -- while they presently own the car, install one and\nthat has only been a delay. This was done by the board on its own.\nBut there was no tie-in of any kind. I was faced with making three\nappointments, whenher I wanted to or not, by three resignations and\nthe resignations were, as I say, for various per sonal reasons. None\nof them involved with any policy dispute.\no\nOn that fourth one, are you aware that the members of the Air\nResources Board do not serve term appointments, they serve the\npleasure of the Governor and can be removed at any time? So her\nappointment did not run out.\nED MEESE: All of the appointments were vacated at this\npoint as far as the reorganization and then each one was reviewed.\nIt is not a term appointment, but it was -- all positions were vacated.\nO\nThen why specifically did you replace Mrs. Mead, the one who\ndid not hand inher resignation?\nA\nFor the reason that I told you, we were going ahead with three\nnew members, we felt that it was time -- just as some of them in\ngoing out had recommended to us, a total reorganization of the board,\nso we did.\nO\nAre you --\nA\nAnd we have done this before with other boards.\n0\nWhen you were asked about the board several months ago you\nwere asked at a press conference what you thought about their record.\nYou thought they had done a prettygood job.\nA\nI do, I think that we have been themost fortunate state\nin the union to have Dr. Haagen-Smit as the Chairman of that board,\nand it wasn't through my choice or desire that Dr. Haagen-Smit decided\nhe'd come to the end of the line.\n0\nGovernor, in light of what some of theoil companies are\nsaying as far as reserves on hand, fuel reserves on hand, are you\nhaving any second doubts that the energy crisis .S as serious as\nthey say it is?\nA\nNo. No, I haven't. As you know, last May weheld a state-\nwide seminar here with the best input that we could in the round-\ntabling of this. More than a year ago we had a seminar and a\nreport to us by the best experts in the field at the National\nGovernor's Conference. We have had such a -- demonstration here\nand by some of the same people before our own cabinet. And it's\nbeen known for a number of years that two things were happening.\nOne was a vast increase in consumption. But the other was a\ndecline. Now, just in the years that we have been here we have\nvastly increased in California the need to import energy and fuel into\nCalifornia. And there has been a decrease in our own production.\nAnd these two things coming together were giving us the picture of\nan increasing problem. Now, what really happened to that, maybe it\nwas in a way a favor to us, because youcouldn't get much public\nattention as long as you could still go in and get your tank filled\nwith gas, it didn't do too much good to say to people each year we\nare getting more in trouble and up here, two or three years from now,\nwe are going to be in real trouble. The real trouble came earlier\nthan that, simply because the Arabs cut off the oil supply and that\nprecipitated the emergency quicker. In just a few years, if\nthe Arabs -- let me put it this way, if we don't find some of the\nsame answers we are talking about now, even if the Arabs start\nshipping the oil tomorrow, we still are facing an energy crisis that\nby - within the next ten years is going to find us in a situation\nlike England is, right today. So the energy crisis is for real.\nO\nGovernor, back to your Proposition 1, and the budget. You\nsay that the money is there for the tax cut that Proposition 1 would\nhave called for, With a seven and a half per cent income tax\nreduction you have got something like $105 million surplus, not\ncounting federal revenue sharing money -- you say that would --\nand that -- and Alan Post says that doesn't count for any increase\nin welfare costs because of the energy crisis, you are saying that\nthat would have covered that income tax cut that the Proposition 1\nwould have called for?\nVERNE ORR: Governor, the combination of $105 million in the\nfree surplus, and $167 million, is 272, and the income tax rebate\nof seven and a half per cent the first year would have been in the\n-13-\nneighborhood of $155 million.\nΩ\nBut wecan't spend the revenue sharing money without special\nallocation. We can't use it for general.\nVERNE ORR: You can with special allocation by the legisla-\nture, use it for almost anything you want.\nA\nIt is simply up to the legislature to appropriate it.\n0\nGovernor, in your State of the State message you recommended\nsome constitutional changes which would require that the legislature\nprovide revenue sources for programs it advocates, expenditures. But\nyet in the same State of the State message you made a number of\nreommendations for programs which would cost a great deal of money,\nlike expanding the Oroville Dam andother dams, new geothermal research,\nsolar energy research, some changes in the Department of Education\nwithout suggesting how those could be financed. Well, now, aren't\nyou at odds with yourself there?\nA\nNo, everything that was suggested there is within the budget.\nAnd is presently being financed. I intend to pursue and to follow\nup-- I can find that no one has givena logical answer or any\nanswer at all as to why the things I suggested with regard to taxing\nand spending should not be implemented. No one can suggest any\nreason why a legislator should be able to pass a ppending measure\nwithout indicating how the measure was going to be financed. And\nI think for legislators to go on proposing hundreds of millions of dollars\nbillions of dollars in spending with no responsibility whatsoever\nfor suggesting a method of paying for them is just -- is just\na ridiculous kind of government. It's what's led tothe present cost\nand size of government. Now, what we have proposed is two things.\nWe have proposed a constitutional amendment and I sti 11 think it\nis a good one, the Governor has to submit a balanced budget to the\nlegislature or submit a budget and a revenue measure with it that\nwould make it balanced. The legislature, on the other hand, turns\naround and sends back down tothe Governor, not just this Governor,\nbut any Governor, and has in the past, sends down a budget with\nhundreds of millions of dollars of added spending that puts the\nbudget out of balance and provides no tax revenue, and if anything,\nyou almost suspect that they wait for the Governor then to pick up\nthe responsibility of saying, well, all right, I'll sign that and\nnow I'll have to ask youfor a tax increase. I think they ought to\ndo the same thing the Governor does. The other thing is a way to\napproach this, and to have some control and in the battle over\nProposition 1 the legislature repeatedly -- or those legislators\nwho were opposed to it, repeatedly said this was a problem\nthey cauld solve, that they could handle this. Now, I'm saying\nthat a legislator with a spending measure should either indicate\nwhere the money is coming from, in other words, that is is going\nto supplant something else in the present budget, or suggest a\nrevenue measure to pay for it, and if anyone can show me why that\nisn't sommon sense, I'd like to know.\n0\nCan I have my question back? I didn't mean to ask you\nabout that. I asked you about -- and my question was, why didn't you\ndo that in the State of the State message? I don't see any\ngeothermal research money in the budget.\nA\nOh, yes. The state and the Water Resources Board in connec-\ntion with their own state college and universities is engaged in\nresearch, but the most of the research is going forward as it properly\nshould by the privately owned utilities in our state, that are going\nforward with this. The Water Resources Board is right now\nengaged in a study of how much more capacity we might be abl e to get\nin hydroelectric. I'm sure it isn't going to be much because we\nhave pretty much exhausted that field.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: But those things are going forward.\nSQUIRE:\nThank you, Governor.\n000\n-15-\nPRESS ONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONAL\nREAGAN\nHELD JANUARY / 1974\nReported by\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nI have an opening statement, but before\nthat, we have in the back of the room once again some visitors,\na journalism class from the University of California, Berkeley,\nunder instructor Richard Reinhardt. Glad to have you here.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 60.)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nBill, I' m going to ask you if you'll\nstep up here so they see you and meet you as the new head of this\ndrive, and you ladies and gentlemen have any questions on this\nparticular subject, Bill and I will be very happy to answer these.\nI'll leave it to him.\nMR. LANE: Well, thank you very much, Governor, it is a\ngreat pleasure for me to serve as chairman and as we are referring\nto it, the new Proposition 1, which we feel that this is an\nexcellent bond to take to the people. The $90 million that the\nGovernor referred to goes back into local government which not only\nmeets the needs of the elderly add the invalid and young people, but\ncertainly is very timely with the energy crisis and so for that\nand many other reasons, I feel this is an excellent act and I'm\nvery proud to be a part of the organization, and I want to thank\nthe Governor personally for his very strong support. Thank you.\nQ\nAre you able to tell us how much of this -- how much land\nin Lake Tahoe would be purchased?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: You'd better get back in front of\nthat mike.\nMR. LANE: It varies somewhat. Bill Mott and the\nwonderful people in the State Park organization have made recommenda-\ntions, and this is part of the ten million dollars I think you'are\nreferring to, and there are three pieces of property and it depends\nin part upon how much those pieces of land are going to cost.\n-1-\nBill, do you have a specific answer to that, in terms of numbers\nof acres, if, say, all three were able to be purchased?\nBILL MOTT: No. Not the total acreage.\nBILL LANE: It will vary somewhat. There are three spe-\n(park)\ncific, sites, however. I have personally inspected them, ont at\nNorthLake Tahoe, one around Cascade Lake, just south of the Emerald\nBay, and another one that is -- in the southern end of the plateau\narea, down by the South Lake Tahoe airport. There are three\nexcellent sites, but the exact determination still has to be made.\nQ\nMr. Lane, are you concerned the voters might confuse this\nwith the old Prop. 1?\nMR. LANE: Yes, I am. I happen to be one who supported\nProposition 1, or the old Proposition. 1. I am going to do every-\nthing I can and so is our committee, to make sure that that\nconfusion is minimized, and I certainly look forward to the sppport\nthat I hope we would have from you ladies and gentlemen of\nthe press, to be sure that the re is not a confusion on that matter,\nBut I anticipate that there may be some.\nQ\nWhere will you operate your headquarters out of?\nMR. LANE: We will be headquartered, I suppose, in one\nsense where my office is, which is Sunset Magazine. But we will\nhave a northern and southern Califo rnia headquarters for this, and\nhopefu lly a San Diego and perhaps one other.\nQ\nWhere is the Sunset -- where are you?\nMR. LANE: Menlo Park. Yes, sir.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Bill, thanks very much--\nMR. LANE: Thank you very much.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: -- for doing it. I'll make one suggest-\nion now. Not the new propositional, that might sound like it is a\nnew version of the old one, the different Proposition 1.\nMR. LANE: Thank you very much, Governor.\n(The following answers were given by Governor Reagan\nunless differentiated.)\no\nGovernor, several members of, as itis called, your kitchen\ncabinet, Mr. Tuttle, Mr. Firestone, Mr. Smith, Mr. Packard, have\nendorsed the candidacy of Mr. Flournoy for Governor. What does that\nsay to you about the dandidacy of Ed Reinecke?\nA\nWell, first of all, let me make something plain. I have\nnever used the term kitchen cabinet'. That's one that has been\ncoined. I don't recognize that there is such a kitchen cabinet.\nWe have got a pretty fine cabinet here. A few of the names that\nyou have mentioned there are men who were personal friends of mine\nfor a long time, and yes, they were political supporters, also. But\nI've noticed in the stories of those men that have already taken a\nposition and women, in regard to the candidates for Governor, that\nthere are among them many who didn't support me in my first time out.\nSo I don't think that there is any block of so-called Reagan\nsupporters that go any direction. I think this is in keeping with\nwhat I announced a few weeks ago, that I was going to personally\nremain neutral, ask all of the staff and the administration here\nto remain neutral in the campaign, and I urged everyone then to go\nout and choose their candidates and just remember that after the\nprimary to unite behind one. And I - I find nothing surprising\nin this. I think there is going to be - apparently now has\ncome down to a primary between Controller Hugh Flournoy and the\nLieutenant Governor, Ed Reinecke. They both are good friends.\nThey are goth good Republicans, and I think that they will -- they\nwill have a fine and open primary, and the people will make their\nchoice.\no\nGovernor, my question was, that these men are -- I think\nthey have earned the reputation as being astute political activists.\nNow, when they go over to Mr. Flournoy, who hasn't always in the\npast shared their philosophical perspective, my question is, what\ndoes that say to you about the candidacy of Ed Reinecke who phise-\nsophically, it would seem, would be more compatible to these men\nthan Mr. Flournoy?\nA\nWell, I don't feel that I have any answer for that, than\nto maintain my position that I am going to be absolutely neutral.\nThere is no way to answer about a comparison between primary candidates\nwithout having it being able to be interpreted one way or the other.\nSo I just don't feel I can answer your question. I think that\nRepublicans, various shadings, are making decisions. I imagine\nthere are going to be some that, as they have in the past, are going\nto remain neutral until after the primary. I think some of these\nEv\nare men who might very easily have been the supporters of Ed,\nYounger, the Attorney General, if he had gone for Governor. They\nwill support him now for Attorney General, but they have now made\nanother choice. And I'm not going to read any significance into\nit at all.\nor\nGovernor, do you have any decision made on the basis of what\nRepublican is best -- best capable of winning in November?\nA\nWell, you are going to have to ask each individual what\nhis reasons were. And I'm not going to -- to speak for them.\nI'm sure that many people take into account the chances they\nfeel that a candidate has. But this would be true then of those who\nare supporting the Lieutenant Governor.\nQ\nGovernor, is there an understanding that Hugh Flournoy will\nsupport you for the presidency if, in the event that you do run for\nthe presidency?\nA\nI have had no conversation with Hugh Flournoy at all. And\nthe only conversation I've had with any of these men is when Holmes\nTuttle, a long-time personal friend, called me late in the afternoon\nto tell me that he made made a decisionto go that way. And I told\nhim that's your -- \"That's your decision and your choice.\"\nO\nWhat afternoon?\nQ\nGovernor, almost everyone else said Ed Reinecke's candidacy\nis in serious trobble. Do you disagree with that?\nA\nI'm not going to make any comment at all because I think\neven comments of that kind, one way or the other, can be construed\nas having some meaning with regard to my feelings.\nO\nWell, Governor, why would Mr. Tuttle callyou then and\ntel 1 you what he did?\nA\nBecause he's been a very -- we have known each other for\nthirty years, been long-time friends. And I --- Holmes is aware\nthat his name has been associted with mine in efforts -- in the\nsupport of Proposition 1. He supported me in everything I did,\nand he just felt that he wanted me to know that - the course he was\ntgoing to follow.\nQ\nDo you think he may have called you because it would have been\nexpected that he would have supported Lieutenant Governor Reinecke\nbecause he was a supporter of you?\nA\nI didn't ask him anything of the kind. I made my statement\nto you publicly and to all of them, sent copies of my letter to\nGordon Luce, to all the potential candidates in all the races of what\nI was going to do about staying neutral, and I've had no conversation.\nO\nGovernor, when did Holmes Tuttle call you? What day?\n-4-\nA\nYou know, I can't remember.\nED MEESE: I believe it was Tuesday afternoon, Governor.\nA\nWas it Tuesday afternoon? I can't remember the day.\nAll day yesterday I thought yesterday was Tuesday and then I\nremembered I wasn't here Monday.\nQ\nGovernor, what about the trend of some of these people\nsupporting Flournoy and Senator Harmer as sort of a moderate\nconservative ticket? Does that appear significant to you?\nA\nNo, because I have a hunch you'll find a number of those\nnames that I've read them in the -- in the press stories already,\nI think you'll find a number of those names that won't. This -- so\nI don't think that there is any -- you know, agreement that --\nQ\nWell, would you say if you see any trend developing at\nthis point overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate, or do you think\nit is pretty wide open at this point?\nA\nAs far as I'm concerned, it is wide open.\n2\nGovernor, do you think a Republican will win the governor-\nship next year?\nA\nI certainly think they should, and I'm most hopeful, I think\nthey will. I just would -- I would hate to believe that the things\nthat have been accomplished so far might be reversed.\n&\nWhen Holmes Tuttle called you, did he discuss with you\nat all the possibility of your running for President and what\nhis endorsement of Flournoy might mean at that contest?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nHow, to the best of your memory did he approach it?\nA\nJust told me.\no\nDid he -\nA\nHe told me he had finally come to a decision, this is what\nhe wasdoing to do, and told me that he was also going to meet with\nEd because they are good friends and tell him of his decision, and\nthat was it.\nO\nGovernor, are you running for President?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nAre you running for President?\nA\nNo, I'm running for my life right now.\n0\nGovernor, is it true you are going to be spending about a\nweek very month on cam -- on making speeches out of state from now\n-5-\non, the rest of this year?\nA\nNo, it's turned out that for three months here -- each month\nI had a trip that took me out of state. And this means that I\nwill do what I've done for seven years. On the way to and from\nI will then pick up some of the invitations and let me explain what\nI mean by the invitations. And I think this istrue of a great\nmany of us in the party, this happens to us. I get invitations\nf rom governors or party leaders in other states, will I do a fund\nraiser. Sometimes it is a specific invitation, they say, \"We are\nhaving a fund raiser on \"x\" date. Will you come to that fund\nraiser?\" Many times I can't accept. Sometimes they say , \"If you\never are in the area, will you let us know in sufficient time that\nwe could arrange a fund raiser. Would you be willing to do one?\"\nNow, this is what happened on the last trip. I had two engagements\nin Washington, almost a week apart. And it was a case of sitting\naround waiting for the next one or trying to come back here and\nturn around and go back. And I was able to get in the vicinity\nthere in the east, I had some of those standby invitations. I\ndid four fund raisers, in that interim. Now, the same thing is\ntrue in these other trips. I have accept an invitation to appear\nin Dallas, Texas, for a citizen's group that is very effective on\nthe whole subject of crime and law enforcement, and I'm going to\ntalk about our own task force here and our own plans and what it is\nthat we found in our task force. I am going to do some fund raisers\nof this same kind that I did last week. I'm going to do them on the\nway back to Califórnia. The third one, in March, happens to be\nthe Governor's Conference in Washington. And there I'm going to\npick up a couple on the way in and I'm going to do two on the way\nback, and that's the reason for the. But so far -- and we have\nscheduled no trips in which I am simply leaving the state to go\nout and do some political chores. I think as we get into the\ncampaign, like a great many other people in my position in other\nstates, I will be doing that when I can. I will be accepting\ninvitations to go out and help other candidates.\nQ\nGovernor, during your eastern trip you were hosted -- you\nwere hosted in the board room of what Spiro Agnew used to call the\nEastern Establishment Press. You've been critical of the press\nin the past, did you have a message for them or didthey have a message\n-6-\nfor you?\nA\nWell, a mutual friend. I've known the newspaper business\nand the publishing field clear back to my sports announcing days.\nAnd it was also a mutual friend of the Publisher of the New York\nTimes said again, if I was ever in New York, would I let him know\nwith enough time, he'd like for me to have lunch with him just to\nget acquainted, and this is exactly what we did. And after they\nscreened me and found out I did n't eat my young and theforked tail\ndidh't show, why, they let me in. We had a very delightful lunch\nand got better acquainted.\nO\nDid you have a mesagge for them?\nA\nWhat?\na\nDid you have a message for them?\nA\nNo, I answered some of their questions about things that\nare going on in California. That was that.\n0\nGovernor, are you going to cut back on your fund raising\nin this state this year?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nFor Republican candidates.\nA\nNo. As a matter of fact, I've committed to a number of\nfund raisers to the Central Committee, doing it all through the\nState Central Committee.\nQ\nGovernor, both Governors McCall and Andrus have expressed\nconcern about the Air Force's plan to fly a Minuteman missile over\ntheir states, and this missle will also fly over parts of California.\nDo youshare their concern?\nA\nNo, because -- and maybe because I wanted to say something\nuntil I -- I had a chance to have a briefing. I've had a briefing\nwhile I was in Washington from the Air Force. And I was greatly\npleased with what I learned. First of all, I have to say I agree\nwith the necessity for such a firing. This is the principal defense\nweapon of the United States. And it is a gun we have never fired.\nAnd to leave the fate of the United States dependent on a weapon\nsystem, and you don't know whether it will go off when you pull the\ntrigger seems to me rather foolhearty. I would think that the\npeople would be demanding and would have before this, that such a\ntest be fired. But what Impressed me in the briefing was the thor-\noughness of the study that's going forward. We are talking about\n-7-\nsomething that will take place a year from now. And the Air Force\nis conducting the most thorough study throughout this year that I\nhave\never\n--\never\nseen. Itwill involve element of risk as compared\nto crossing the street. It will involve all the environmental\npossibilities. And all of us who are concerned, such as the\ngovernors here in the West Coast, are going to be completely informed\nat every stage of this study, you might say, before final decision\nis made.\nQ\nWhy would two governors be opposed ---\nA\nWell; as I say, they spoke up evidently before they had\nsuch a briefing, and I think they just envisioned that somebody\nwas just going to go in there and pull the trigger and that was\nthat. I have now learned that this is going to be -- there is\ngoing to be a year-long study leading up to this. Every possible\nfacet of environmental harm, of risk, people or property, everything\nis going to be thoroughly studied, and evaluated by the Air Force, and\nwe are going to be kept informed. Now, if something developes in that\nstudy in which there is reasonfor controversy for concern on the\npart of the western governors as, say, against the Air Force's\ndecision or determination to fire it, then is the time to go in on\nthe basis of those facts and register a protest.\nQ\nAre you the only governor that has been given a briefing?\nB\nI don't know whether it - it is availabl to the others,\nbut I happened to be there. I was going to be in Washington and\nthis was another thing, I asked for it.\nO\nGovernor, you've said a moment ago about something about\n(minuteman missile)\ncrossing the street. Are you saying this test firing is going to\nbe no more dangerous than crossing the street?\nA\nNo, what I'm saying is we hope it won't -- but what I'm\nsaying is that when they go into the incidents of risk, they are not\nonly going to just come out with some statement, they don't think\nthere is any risk. They are going to statistically rate whatever\nelement of risk there is, to all the normal things in our daily\nlife. Driving to work, flying to Los Angeles, Crossing the street,\nwhatever it might be. They are going to -- so that people can see\nactually statistically what is the percentage of possible danger\ncompared to all the normal pursuits of our daily life.\n0\nA candidate, -- how would you assess the enthusiasm and\n-8-\nsupport of people back in the east on your last trip for the\npossibility of you running for the presidenty? I'm sure they came\nup to you even if you didn't bring up the subject yourself.\nA\nOh, of course, like any phace, there are people that talk\nto you and that say this and express a hope and so forth, but I\nwasn't keeping any ally. And I wasn't doing anything except\nappearing at those four fund raisers. And that was the purpose of\nthe trip.\nO\nThey expressed a hope for what, Governor?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nExpressed a hope for what?\nA\nWell, what's the standard question here that was being\nasked?\nAbout a possible future candidacy of mine.\nQ\nGovernor, more --\no\nGovernor, what did Admiral Zumwalt have to say about navy\nbases in California and their future?\nA\nWell, we know that there is a re-evaluation going on and\nhas to be of bases of all kinds, military bases. We, on the other\nhand, had an opportunity to express our concern about some of them\nand I have already received word from the Deputy Secretary of the\nNavy regarding one that was of principal concern to us, over in the\nBay area. And I have received just received a message that there\nare no plans for phasing that out. It gives employment to several\nthousand Californians.\nQ\nWhat was that Bay area base?\nA\nOver in Alameda.\nQ\nAlameda Naval Air.\n0\nGovernor, the Senate says you haven't sent the names of\nyour Resources Board appointees, those controversial ones for\nconfirmation of -- and they can't act until you send the names to\nthem.\nA\nHave we --\nED MEESE: They should have been. Should be.\nA\nShould have been if they haven't --\nO\nOh.\nA\nI don't understand that. We will try to find out why.\n2\nGovernor, was anything said about the naval base of San\nFrancisco? Was anything said about closing of the naval base in\nSan Francisco?\nA\nI can't recall that there were any specifics at that time.\nEverything was under review.\nO\nGovernor, what was your personal reaction to being the first\nman overridden in twenty-eight years in the State?\nA\nExactly what I saidto you. You know, it's about time the\nother shoe fell. I don't think it was very important or earth-\nshaking, at all. And I think it was a very minor thing. It\nhappened to be on a bill that doesn't change anything, in reality.\nIt doesn't accomplish anything. The hospitals weren't going to be\nclosed. My one concern I've already expressed to you, I think\nthat -- I think it is poor administration to have it this way. I\nthink the legislature this opens up the possibilities now of log\nrolling with regard to institutions that are in various legislative\ndistricts.\nO\nWell, it's been suggested that as a lame duck Governor\nyou are going to be losing your grip on the legislature and that\nwe might be able to see more of these. How would you rate your\ninfluence with the legislature on this last year?\nA\nWhat grip has a Governor had on a legislature that outnumb ers\nhim in both houses and has been fighting tooth and nail to stop him\nfrom doing everything he's ever tried to dosince he's been here?\nI'm talking through the third person, but I mean me. I don't know\nif that's a grip on a legislature, it is a pretty strange one. You\nknow, the welfare reforms came about only because the people of\nCalifornia finally made the legislature realize they couldn't\nhold out ay longer after they had held out for five months. That\nisn't a governor's grip on the legislature. They came to see me\nand frankly said, \"We can't take the heat any longer, let's sit down\nand talk.\"\nQ\nWhat was said to Senator Marks, and why was he called?\nA\nWhat?\no\nWhat was said to Senator Marks and why was he called on\n(veto)\nthe override?\nA\nWell, any time that's going on or any time you are trying\nto get a bill passed, you do what's -- they term, \"working the\nlegislature.\" You call legislators and try to persuade them on a\ncourse that you'd wish they'd take. But there were no threats made\nto him. There were no threats made to anyone. Never done business\n=10-\nthat way.\nQ\nWho alse was called besides Senator Marks on that bill at\nthat time?\nA\nWell, I imagine-I didn't make them, but I imagine calls\nwent to -- to everybody who seemed to be a possible aye vote.\n0\nAre you sorry, now, Governor, that you called Senator\nMarks?\nA\nI didn't call him.\nQ\nI mean are you sorry that he was called?\nA\nNo, not really.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nIs it true that you said you'd campaign in his district\nfor him?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nDid you say --\nA\nI've made no changes.\nI campaign for everyone that is a\nRepublican nominee.\nO\nGovernor, in the conversation was relayed to us -- related to 1,1\nus by Senator Marks, as confirmed in essence by Mr. Meese, what\nwas said was, \"You should support the governor in this, or it is\ngoing to be difficult for him to support you.\" The bill itself wasn't\neven discussed. What was at stake here, the bill -- the merits\n(veto)\nof the bill or your override?\nA\nEveryone was aware that the bill didn't change anything.\nIt didn't suddenly change a plan of ours.\nThelegislatre\nhad\nbeen\nassured that the hospitals were not going to be closed. And, as\nI say, the -- I felt there were two things franklyinvolved there.\nI thought one, as I said before, it was bad administration.\nSecondtly, I think that it further ads to the confusion of a lot\nof people in California who are not aware of the fact that outside\nthe boundaries of California this state is recognized world-wide\nas having made the most progress and being farther ahead in the\ntreatment of the mentally ill than any place in the world. Our\nnational government recognizes that. We have world-wide visitors who\ncome here, to study what we are going in this system. And I think\nthis was just another case of further confusing the people who --\na great many in California who have some misconception that somehow\nwe are practicing economies at the expense: of mental health. And\n-11-\nit isn't true. Our budget has gone up tremendously. We are spend-\ning eight times as much on the subsidizing of county mental health\ncare clinics. We have 1400 such institutions in Los Angeles County\nalone. And a thousand of them are doing a betterjob than we have\ne ver been able to do in the state hospitals. Dic, you had your hand\nup or did I get yours?\n0\nYou got me.\nA\nOh.\nQ\nGovernor, what is your position on the --\nA\nI tell you, I've just noticed that you fellows have a\nnew custom here, you have given up hands and the fellow that just\nraises his hands doesn't get called on because somebody else has\nstarted talking already.\nQ\nWhat is your position on the state lottery?\nA\nMy position on the state lottery? I've always been\nopposed. I think in a state -- first of all, I've studied the other\nstates, and the other state lotteries. I have betters from New\nYork, for example, where every legislator and every committee\nchairman and so forth that had anything to do with that has written\nme, all individually, and in each one of them in some place in his\nletter said, \"If I had it to do over again, I would vote on it the\nother way. But they are not as successful financially as people\nhave been led to believe. But, more than that, I think that a\nstate like California ought to be getting its revenues by appealing\nto people's strengths and not their weaknesses. The other thing\nthat bothers me about it is I haven't seen any of the proponent S of\nit suggesti what tax would be reduced, dollar for dollar. If it was\nreplaced by a lottery. In other words, it is another tax increase,\nit is getting more money for gobernment and I think government should\nbe getting less.\nQ\nThat means you would not sign that bill under any cirsum-\nstances if it came to you?\nA\nI think they are suggesting a thing on the ballot. I\ndon't think U have anything to do with signing it or not.\n0\nWhat do youthink of -- I raised my hand.\nA\nYeah. Almost as fast as you started asking. Go ahead.\n0\nWhat do you think of the Assembly Speaker's proposal to\n-12-\nlower from two-thirds to a majority the vote as to change bank and\ncorporation tax and its pledge to lead an initiative on there if\nthey can't get it through the legislature?\nA\nWell, I'm opposed, for one reason. I agree with the idea\nthat they shouldn't have any consideration more than any other tax-\npayer. But I believe that we should make it two-thirds vote for any\ntax increase, because I think it should be harder to increase taxes,\nnot easier.\nQ\nGovernor, for the past -- for the past year the state has\nbeen Sacramento and Stockton that its unemployment rates were around\nfive per cent. Now, the federal government has come in and told\nus they are really up around seven per cent. Who are we to\nbelieve?\nA\nWell, I'm glad you asked that question because that reveals\nthe kind of donfusion that is going to follow what I think was a\nridiculous move by the Labor Department in Washington. They have\ndevised a new statistical system for calling unemployment.\nWe\nthink we have had a pretty accurate system. Now I can give you the\nexample. By our system WE know that unemployment in January went\nup over December. By the new statistical system they make it look\nlike we have seven and a half, not five and a half per cent,\nunemployment, but under their figures your unemployment goes down.\nNow, we know it went up from December to January, but under their\nnew systemthey're figuring it we went down in unemployment in this\nmonth. And we know itisn't true. But we think a great many people\nare not going to understand and they are going to suddenly,\nparticularly in the energy crisis, see unemployment rates suddenly\nof seven and eight per cent. And they are going to think it is an\nincrease of that much because they won't recognize that where last\nmonth our figures showed 5.3 per -- unemployment, under the newly\nadopted system, which we announced today, those figures would have\nbeen 7.5. Now, what they have done, among other things, is go all\nthe way down and include 14 year olds as unemployed. The truth of\nthe matter is the federal system for declaring unemployed is nothing\nmore than a bottery itself. They make 50,000 periodically -- 50,000\nphone calls to households in the United States and ask them if they\ngot anybody there that wants work. Now, if yougot a 14 year old\nkid going to school, and mama wants to say, \"Yeah, I wish he did have\na job after school,\" bang, he's now unemployed. And I have used\nthis figure before. Sweden, where, being socialist, they have an\naccurate count of the unemployed. know exactly how many people are\nof work - Sweden, a few years ago, used the American system as\nan experiment and found that their actual unemployment of 46,000 went\nup to 137,000 under the American system. And we are in disagreement\nwith this shift to this new method. But we are a little confused.\nWe don't understand it and we particularly don't understand it\nbecause apparently Washington, for the national level, is going to\ncontinue to use the old figures. And this one's got us really\nspinning. So, it is bureaucracy at its worst.\nQ\nGovernor, what's your view of the propriety of Bob Moretti\nremaining as Speaker while he's out running for Governor?\nA\nWell, that's a legislative matter. There is no question\nbut that he gets advantage of a position and the risk is there of\nthe use of state funds by way of staff and so forth, involved in\nthe campaign. But this, I think, is something for his primary\nopponents and others to --- to bring up and cal 1 to people's attention.\nQ\nWell, if you were Speaker of the Assembly and you were\nrunning for Governor, what would you do?\nA\nThat's a hypothetical question, because I can't conceive\nof ever being Speaker of the Assembly.\n(Laughter)\nA\nI know, I say it is a hypothetical question and I don't go\nfor hypothetical answers.\no\nGovernor, do you welcome the possibility of Jesse Unruh coming\nback to the Assembly?\nA\nWell, I got to tellyou, in the last year or so I've missed\nhim more than I thought I would.\nQ\nGovernor, just on the point, on clarification. On the\nresponse to the question on would you campaign for Senator Marks,\nyou said that you -- you made no changes and you'd campaigh for\nevery Republican or every Republican nominee.\nA\nWell, when you do that you can't actually personally\nget into that. Let me say, I've gone to the aid of every Republican\nnominee whenever I could and I have no intention of changing that --\nthat plan. I believe the St ate would be in better hands if we had\na Republican majority.\nQ\nGovernor, last night your proposal' to change the\nexclusionary rule died in the Senate without coming to a vote,\nSenator Lagomarsino's bill. Do you plan to take that up to the\nlegislature again this year in some form or another?\nA\nWell, I have encouraged them, yes, to keep trying on that\nand I certainly inte.\nto keep trying myself, because I think there\nis wide public acceptance for it. And I think this is another\nexample of legislative leadership that is out of tune with the\nis\npeople's thinking. I just think that if somebody/stopped for going\nthrough a red light and he's got a bucket of heroin on the front\neaat, there is something pretty ridiculous about some rule that says\nhe can't introduce that bucket of heroin in court, all he can do is\ngive a ticket for going through a red light.\n0\nYesterday, in a follow-up question, Senator Moscone said\nthat if that bill were passed it would would be all right for\npeople to break into the Ellsburg psychiatrist's office.\nA\nNo, it wouldn't, and that is a complete distortion, and\nSenator Moscone must know better than that. He was -- there is\nnothing of the kind. Nothing endangers what we are really\ntrying to do is put two letters back into the application -- or\nin the constitution, U N, unreasonable search and seizure. And\nthis is what we are supposed to be protected against. And what we\nare actually doing under this exclusionary rule is protecting a --\nsome possible criminals against reasonable search and seizure. The\ngreat diaper case is the classic example. A nine-month old baby,\nthey found the heroin in the baby's diapers, and the judge ruled that\nthe ninemonth old baby had not given permission for a violation\nof its constitutional rights.\nQ\nGovernor, your example of a policeman finding a bucket\nof heroin on the front seat of a car when he stops a speeder, is\nthat an actual example that you are citing, or is that -- was that --\nA\nYes, yes, we have had we have had actual examples of that.\nWe have had several times examples of -- of weapons in cars that\ncould lead to the belief that - there might have been involv ement\nin a crime of violence, and so forth. And the exclusionary rule\nhas made all of that. The list of horror stories of cases that\nhave been thrown out -- now all our change is based on is the\nopinion that was given by Chief Justice Berger of the United States\nSupreme Court and Chief Justice Berger said that this rule had\nbeen abused, and what still is required is the warrant for a search,\nbut if in the searching you find something beyond what you were\nlooking for, but that is evidence of a crime, that this can be\nintroduced in evidence. At the same time what we do, and that\nwe don't have today, is we give the citizen whose rights might have\n-15-\nbeen violated -- say, If a policeman barged in W. hout the warrant,\nwe give the citizen now redress that he can sue and government must\nprovide the legal counsel for him to sue for damages. So that he\ngets his damages. And certainly law enforcement is going to be\nconstrained to obey the constitution rather than constantly being\ntaken into court in lawsuits, and at the same time you don't have to\nthrow out evidence of a real crime.\nO\nGovernor, how well did you like the President's State of\nthe Union message, and what do you think it is going to do for him\nto weather the sough times ahead?\nA\nWell, I -- you realize now you can't talk in specifics on\nthe legislative proposals because those are contained in the longer\nreport which we will have to wait and see what wasinvolved.\nIn\nthe spoken address, I thought that it certainly should have cleared\nthe air on a number of things. I thought the effect -- it was\napparent that for a great many people there it did. And I would\nhope now that on top of that that the President would continue to\nmake himself available now to the press in more frequent press\nconferences so that the people could have a chance to see the\nquestions and their answers on the various issuea. I frankly\nthought it was fine and I thought that his closing -- it was\nimpossible for him to make that speech and not discuss Watergate,\nand I thought he did it very forthrightly, and I hope that the --\nthat the issue will be resolved, as he asked. I hope that we will\nmake the decision, and, as he said, punish the guilty and acknowledge\nthe innocent.\nQ\nGovernor --\nO\nOn another subject --\nO\nOn that same subject. Governor, how can the President\nexpect to have the air cleared if he, as he did in his State of the\nUnion address, he would volunteer no more information on any of the\nquestions that are being raised in connection with the scandal? Now,\nhow do you clear the air by keeping the door closed?\nA\nNo, I understand that he said he would cooperate with the\ncommittee of the Congress that is doing the investigation -- the\nJudiciary committee, that he would make available and had made\navailable to them all the information that was pertinent to the case,\nand the only reservation he held back on was -- and I think had to,\nthat he could not suddenly open up the entire presidential files for\nhunting expeditions, and I don't think anyone would expect him to.\nThis is a tradition. He didn't start it. It started with Thomas\nJefferson'and has been going on for a long time.\n0\nGovernor, what's your opinion of the President's income\nmaintenance or negative income tax plans he's coming up before --\nA\nWell, I don't know the plan. I know that I was in favor\nof what he said about philosophy when he said that he did not believe\nwe should have a welfare plan, that it made it more advantageous\nto not work than to work. And this is the very basis of our\nreforms. I have to feel that Cap Weinberger, in there as secretary,\ntogether with the other people, Jim Dwight and Bob Carlson, and these\nother people he has hired with this real push forward he has made,\nand some of our reforms and the changes he'd made back there --\nI don't think it is a revival at all of the family assistance plan.\nI know there was a leak to the press that might be forthcoming,\nbut all of the evidence I've had is that -- that's not true.\nO\nGovernor, have you given the final O. K. now to the plans\nfor the new mansion and what do you think of the bill passed by\nthe Assembly to shift the location again downtown?\nA\nWell, I think they are foolish. I think this should be\na residence. I think they have got to contemplate that the person\nthat's going to occupy that residence, and it won't be me, as you\nwell know, is very likely going to have a family. And many of the\nmen who arerunning for Governor now have younger children. I had\nthe experience of living for a while in the old residence here down\nin the downtown section and with an eight year old who came homefrom\nschool and what did he do, and where did he go? And the same is\ntrue with the site they have downtown here. It is like living\nin an office building. And the residential site has been picked, it\nhas been donated to the state for this purpose. The plans are\ngoing forward and I hope that we are in construction by August or\nSeptember onthis new residence. Mery beautiful plans have been\nadopted and they are just now being submitted. The preliminary\nplans, and the estimates, and from there, if approved by the committee,\nthey will go forward with the working plans.\n2\nHave youapproved -- you have given your approval to it?\nA\nYes. I thought they were lovely. As a matter of fact,\nit is a good thing they didn't show them to me before I made my\ndecision about not running.\n-17-\nQ\nGovernor, if that bill reached your desk would you veto it?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nThe bill moving the site downtown.\nA\nWell, I've always said that I would 't -- I wouldn't comment\non a veto, but let me just answer it this way, you know I don't want\nto break my rule about saying I will or I will not veto.\n2\nYou've done it before.\nA\nLet me just say I am unalterably opposed to this idea of\ndown here in the office complex establishing a residence that is\nactually part office building and part residence, because these\nhave been -- all the previous plans for a residence for the governor\nhave been like a white house where you live upstairs over the store.\nO\nGovernor, this is one supplemental question. What do you\nthink of the idea to construct a separate executive building for the\nexecutive and leave the legislature in this building, instead of build-\ning a new legislative building?\nA\nWell, I'm in favor of expanding the space that the legisla-\nbuilding\ntureneeds, either in this new wing or in/a building for staff and\nsome of their functions that will take care oftheir space needs, but\nmaintaining the old wing, the old Capitol, restoring it and maintain-\ning it as the Capitol Now, I don't know, I havefound it very\nconvenient many times to be in the same building with the legislators.\nThere come times when they are up and down stairs to you, constantly,\nwhen caucuses are held\n---\nwell come budget time I've been\nin that office until four o'clock in the morning, when the legislature\nwas discussing the budget before the deadline, when they stopped the\nclock. And there might be quite a contest of -- as to who had to\nget out in the rain and cross the street for meetings of that kind\nif the governor was across the street somewhere.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nQ\nDo I understand you to say that you think 1600 Pennsylvania\nAvenue is a lousy place to bring up children?\nA\nI told the Alfalfa Club that I thought a new residence\nshould be built, just west of the present location, about 3,000 miles\nwest, in California.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-18-\n2/\nLA\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD FEBRUARY 21, 1974\nReported by:\nBeverly D. Toms\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis for the members of the Capitol press corps for their convenience\nonly. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as\npossible, no corrections are made and there is no guaranty of\nabsolute accuracy.)\noOo\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I have an opening statement today.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 116)\nQ\nMr. Rank, how many jobs will you think you are finding\nusing these four techniquez?\nMR. RANK: There will be about --\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Better move over here, those fellows\nwill be unhappy.\nMR. RANK: There will be an additional 35 to 40\nthousand new jobs available through the Employment Development\nDepartment offices, through the three methods described there.\nThe fourth general area that of the retired executive's assistance\nto failing businesses, we have a potential of 20,000 people --\njobs saved for them.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Anything else on this subject?\nQ\nYes, Governor, who are you going to appoint as the\nDirectof of the Employment Development Department?\nVOICE: We will have something coming up.\nA\nWe will have an announcement on that and final decision\nmade.\nO\nToday?\nVOICE:\nYes.\nA\nWill it be today? Yeah. Anyone else with any questions\non it? well, all right. I thank you might be interested to know,\nthough, that California in this regard, jobs and what we have done,\nhas been -- this department has been very effective. Last year\nthey found jobs for approximately 275,000 people, and our community\nwork experiment that we have been conducting in those 35 counties,\nCalifornia last year put 57,000 people directly from Welfare into\nprivate employment. And so far in the first six months of this\nyear we have put 39,000 from that program alone -- I might say I'm\nwrong, the 275,000 is not a year, 275,000 was in the first six months\nof this year. That's right. Correction.\nQ\nGovernor, do you have any comment on the Michigan election?\nA\nWell, disappointed, of course. Nothing mar e than that.\nSorry it turned out that way. Sorry that morepeople didn't turn\nout to vote.\n0\nGovernor, in view of the continuing Watergate scenario and\nnew disclosures, indictments, trials, the Michigan election as\nDick mentioned, do you think it is expedient for Republicans to\ncampaign defending the record of Richard Nixon?\nA\nWell, I think that -- we certainly have a right to point\nout theaccomplishments of this administration, and the changes that\nhave taken place under this administration. It is my understanding\nthat the Republican candidate did not in any way refer to that\nrecord in his campaign.\nQ\nBut the Democratic candidate did.\nA\nWell, the Democratic candidate, I think, was rather\ndemagogic and ran on nothing except the basis that anyone who is\nrunning on the Republican side is somehow guilty of Watergate. And\nI think that is pure demagoguery and it is an awful lot of hypocrisy.\nO\nWould you say then of the Republicans, if they are not at\nleast defending the President's record that they -- in other words\nif they are not attacking the President's record that they should\ndisassocia themselves and run on their own?\nA\nWell, that's up to every candidate to make his decision on\nhow he thinks he ould run and what -- what he's going to do. I've\nnever found it necessary to run away from the fact that there is\na relaxing of tensions in the word; that there have been some of\nthe boldest and most imaginative and innovative steps taken in the\n(Nixon)\nfield of international affairs under this administration, that\nwe have known in the last four decades. I think the fact that\nthis country could bring ceasefire in the Middle East, and I think\nwe have to be given credit for that -- I think the fact that for\nthe first time that either side has ever retreated one inch from\nthe territory, that it has taken place under the -- under this --\nthe auspices of this -- of this country. We have secured that.\n-2-\nThe talks go forwa. now, leading hopefully to d permanent peace.\nAnd this is just one thing along. And I don't think that we should\nshut our eyes to these things. I think we have accomplished\na\ngreat deal.\n0\nGovernor, you were quoted earlier in the week as saying\nthat the outcome of the Michigan election was due more to voter\napathy than to anti Republican sentiment.\nA\nNo, I never used the word \"apathy\". It is far more -- I\nthink, dangerous than that. I criticize the fact that there was\nsuch a low turnout. And I said that if this is going to be the\neffect of Watergate, that many people instead of taking one side\nor the other simply are going to stand back and say, \"Ce won't\nparticipate at all,\" then we are going to be in a bad way. We are\ngoing to have government by a minority of the people, a small\nminority of the people, instead of government by the people.\nO\nGovernor, this --- is this officially rescinding your\nstatement that you weren't going to comment on out-of-state issues?\nA\nWhat's that?\nO\nFrom now on we can talk about international and national\nissues?\nYou had a statement a few months ago that you weren't\ngoing to talk about anything except state issues. Are you rescind-\ning that?\nA\nThis is because you fellows came in talking like Johnny\none-note, you wouldn't talk about anything about California.\nO\nYou wouldn't talk about anything but California?\nA\nThat's right.\nO\nNow you are wibling --\nA\nI answered these questions and I don't think this is\ngetting into the same tone of questioning that you fellows were\nusing back there for a while, back where you wanted me to set\nmyself up as an authority on the case.\n0\nGovernor, the Lieutenant Governor's current problems\nin the ITT case, do you see that in any way as a reflection back\non you because you appointed him?\nA\nNo, and I don't see it as a reflection on him. Here\nagain, it -- there seems to be a difference of opinion about when\nsome meetings took place, or when some phone calls were made. And\nI've seen no evidence of wrong-doing on his part. But, no, I\nappointed a man who has done a good job as Lieutenant Governor.\nBeen a fine Lieutenant Governor, a great many people have agreed\n2\nHas he talked with you specifically about the case and\nwhat's going on in Washington? Has he told you that he's\ninnocent of any wrongdoing personally?\nA\nWell, I have understood from the beginning the whole thing\nthat came out from his testimony in Washington, and came back here\nand checked his own schedule and records and found out that he\nhimself had made a mistake as to the trips when he was in Washington.\nAnd\n0\nHas he personally assured you of that?\nA\nYes. Yeah.\nQ\nGovernor, how do youjustify to the citizens of this\nstate your taking a week off every month or so to -- to go\nand campaign and make political speeches out of state when you are\non a full-time salary from the state?\nA\nWell, I don't take a week off to go and campaign and do\nfull-time campaigning chores when I'm out of the state. I haven't\nchanged anything, really, that -- than what I have ever done.\nAnd as I have often explained, it is true that you are the head of\nyour party and you are within the state as well holding this public\noffice, and it is recognized, the fact that other people from other\nstates come here and aid fn party chores for both parties, just as I\nin turn go there. But these have not been junkets of that kind,\nand it's been a slight distortion on the part of some of you to\npaint them as that. They have been tied every time to what I felt\nwas a legitimate errand.\nNow I had two legitimate reasons for\nbeing in Washington, a few days apart. In those few days, which\nwere not enough to permit coming back tothecoast, I did perform\nthose party chores in between, concluded the business in Washington\nand came home.\nThe last trip was with regard to an invitation\nto Dalas, Texas, and something that I think I made a contribution\nwas to their crime commission. It was with regard to our own\nfindings here and our crime report, and I took a couple of days\non the way back and did some party chores on the way back.\nA\nnumber of these trips you will find take place also involve week-\nends, which I think I am entitled to. The third trip which you\nare talking about is coming up, the bulk of that trip is in Washin-\nton, D. C. to a National Governor's Conference. Now, I would be\ngoing to that, and I would be going to that in connection with\nmy job as Governor. And I am going to do a fund raiser on the way\nin and I'm going to do as fund raiser on the way back.\n2\nDon't -- doing these fund raisers actually make it for\na longer trip, you would be back sooner if you didn't have to stop?\nA\nAndsometimes they all add week-endedays, also.\n0\nWhat -- just one other thing, do you expect this will\ncontinue for the rest of the year, with this rate? Would you\nexpect to do what you are doing now?\nA\nOh, no. No, no, because as we get into our -- our own\ncampaign, I'm going to be doing what I'll try to do to help the party\nin the state.\n0\nYou were critical of the use by Speaker Moretti of state\npaid employees for political purposes on Proposition 1 campaign.\nApparently there are some staff members in your office, security\nand other members who are doing advance work and accompanying you\non these political junkets, fund raising efforts for the Republican\nparty. How is that dffferent from Speaker Moretti's use of his\nemployees and secondly, how much has this amounted to?\nA\nWell, first of all, security is àn around-the-clock and\naround-the calendar. That's a part of the job. And I have no con-\ntrol of that and wherever I am and whether it is on vacation or on\na week-end or anything else, that goes on. And I think that is\ncustomary and anyone else in this position would have the same\nsituation. Now, as to taking aides along on these trips, again\nI can't -- I can't separate myself and say, \"I'm not Governor,\"\nand I take a minimum along and the only -- and they are there to\nhelp me keep liaison, such as while I'm at the Governor's Conference,\nwith the state, with the things that are going on here. And I\nthink that's in keeping with the job because I'm still Governor,\nno matter where I am.\n2\nYes, Governor, but some of these men, the security, why\nshouldn't their salaries be paid by the Republican party when\ntheir efforts are devoted to protecting you in a fund-raiser?\nA\nWill you explain the details on this?\nED MEESE: all the expenses related tothose trips are\npaid.\n2\nHow about the salaries?\nED MEESE: Salaries are not because they'd be working\nwherever they were.\n-5-\nO\nThey wouldn't be working on the same thing, would they?\nED MEESE: Yes, protecting the Governor.\nA\nOh, yes, same people would be assigned, no change in\nthat.\nThat's what I mean, around the clock, and around the calendar.\nThis particular position is -- has that kind of security.\nQ\nPaid by whom?\nED MEESE: The expenses are paid by whatever the event\nis that the Governor -- political event the Governor is involved\nin.\nA\nMay I just add one thing. And there is no comparison\nbetween the -- what we think was an evasion of the campaign account-\ning laws of Proposition 1, and the use of full-time staff while\nthey were here supposedly performing their legislative duties.\nThere is on comparison. And we have been scrupulously overzealous,\nif anything, in insuring that there is nothing that is dumped on\nthe taxpayers in this state.\nO\nGovernor, new subject. Governor, what importance do you\nattach to the outcome of the special election coming up in the\n13th State Senatorial District?\nA\nWell --\na\nExcuse me, Congressional District.\nA\nCongressional District. Well, the importance I attach\nto it is that we hope we can win it. We reoognize that it is\nlike every -- practically every other district in the state, it\nis -- we are outnumbered. We are the minority party and we hope\nthat we can retain that seat.\n0\nIf the party loses -- excuse me, Governor, if the party\nloses that seat, how would you interpret that?\nA\nWell, let's talk about that when we see what happens.\n0\nGovernor, the Attorney General's office issued an opinion\nyesterday say&ng that the campaign antribution laws of San Diego,\nchule\nSan Francisco, Tule Vista, and the County of San Diego, are all\nunenforcable because the State has preempted the field and that\ntherefore the cities cannot say that there is a maximum amount\nof money that you can contribute to a local campaign. Do you\nhave any reaction tothat in light of your frequent statement s that\nthere should be local control?\nA\nWell, you just -- this is thefirst time that I've heard\nabout it and I'm not going to comment on a legal opinion, not being\na lawyer myself until I find out what it is based on, what the law\nis. It is true there are many areas that the state has preempted\nfor local government. Some of those I may agree with and some I\nmay disagree with.\n0\nGovernor, would you comment on the latest event in the\nHearst kidnapping, this demand for $4 million dollars?\nA\nNo, this is -- this is a subject again where I repeat\nwhat I've said before, this is too sensitive to - for me to make\nany co mme nt on this. There is only one concern that I think all of\nus have, we want that young lady returned safety. There\nis\na\nyoung\nfellow way in the back row there.\nQ\nGovernor, you've been asked by the makers of a movie in\nthe\nOroville, called/Klansman, to appear in that movie. Do you have\nany comment and do you plan on appea ring in it?\nA\nFirst of all, I have read in the papers and heard on the\nair that I have been asked to appear in that movie. No one's asked\nme and I think that all of you have cooperated in giving a very\nbright young public relations man the attention that he wanted for\nthe picture. And, no, I haven't been asked and no, I 'm not going\n(motion\n)\nto play in that or any other picture.\no\nGovernor, you met with Assemblyman Charles Warren yesterday\non the energy crisis bill. What did you agree on?\nA\nWell, we are continuing to talk, we have been talking\nfor sometime. The only thing we are agreed on is we all want\nto -- a bill that we can all be happy with and that will do the\njob, and there are certain points of difference between us and the\nnegotiations are con -- the conferences are going to go forward\non trying to minimize those and arrive at something that I will\nsupport.\nO\nDo you take a personal part in the negotiation?\nA\nNo.\n0\nWhat are your main areas of disagreement right now?\nA\nI'd rather not talk while we are still in the discussion\non this,\nI don't want to do anything that will prejudice it or\nmake it difficult for those who are going to be trying to iron out the\ndifferences, but I don't think they aretoo tremendous.\n0\nOn a related subject, the gasoline situation, particularly\nin southern California, it is pretty grim, and you do have a con-\ntingency rationing plan before you. Do youhave any immediate\nplans to try to implement some sort of a system to relieve the\npressure of -- in southern California?\nA\nWell, W( lave that contingency plan as you know, and\nwe are monitoring daily as to whether it is going to be required\nor not. We know that the County Board of Supervisors in Los\nAngeles County has discussed doing something of their own on a\nlocal basis. And this might -- this might be called for more than\na statewide plan because a statewide plan affects the whole state and\nthere are many areas in the state where there's no problem. The\nthing again, and I -- I wish tyat you could all help in this.\nThis panic buying, there is absolutely no reason for it.\nAndit\nhas been caused and created by nothing but gossip and rumor and\nthe thought that maybe there is going to be some kind of nationing.\nNow, rationing has never been considered by us. Rationing is\nnot a part of the plan. The contingency plan even. But the\ntalk of that literally started the panic buying. The situation is,\nas I explained it the other day, Californians have 80 per cent for\ntheir use, for their personal use, of all the gas they ever had\nbefore there was an energy shortage. It just seems that with a\nlittle care, a little attention to thespeed limit and the elimination\nof some useless trips and doubling up here and there that it isn't\ntoo difficult to eliminate one out of the five miles of travel, and\nthat's all they have to do. And the -- this thing of lining up\nand waiting for hours to top off a gas tank with a gallon and a half\nof gasoline is just sheer panic and it is ridiculous.\nQ\nIt is a big area, and there are many drivers there,\nprobably more than the rest of the state. Why are you so hesitant\nto use that plan?\nA\nWell, as I say, we are -- we are monitoring this plan and\nwe will put it into effect if we believe that this plan can be of\nhelp, resolve the issue. There was a big panic over the long week-\nend. Now we are monitoring to seewhether this is -- being\nalleviated as people are finding out that they can get gas. And,\nas I say, if the people understand the facts, if they understand\nthat there is no threat to this andit is not going to be reduced,\nand it is there and it is 80 per cent, approximately, available,\nto them of everything they ever had, it is a little bit like the\nthermostats and turning down the lights. Just alittle effort\ncan\nactually reduce the amount of gas that people are using.\n0\nYou say there is no need for that plan now?\nA\nWell, as I say, we are monitoring to make sure and find\nout. After all, that plan has not been a raging success in a number\n0\nGovernor, the panic is brought on to d large extent by\nthe fact that there are not many service stations open. Over the\nweek-end a very small percentage. There may be 80 per cent gas\navailable, but maybe 85 per cent of the stations are shut down.\nA\nNo, but the panic buying is draining gas stations of their\nallocation and they rush in and finally the station has to close.\nWe think that -- if people -- they didn't have to have it last\nmonth, there was no panic buying and everyone seemed to be getting\nall the gas they needed, and occasionally stations closed, there\nwas no real hardship, and we had the same amount of gas we had then.\nBelieve me. when I tell you that this whole rush and panic buying\nstarted with the first newspaper releases that we were considering\nand would have available a contingency plan if it became necessary,\nand suddenly this was interpreted by the people as rationing and\nthat they weren't going to be able to get the gas. The same\nthing as the erroneous stories that the states that got extra\nallocation were going to take it away from the states that already\nhad it.\nA nd this is not true. This was not taken from any other\nstate.\n0\nGovernor, yesterday I understand you called Senator Jack\nSchrade into your office and told him you were goingto veto\nthe first bill that you ever vetoed of his during your administra-\ntion because of a fight between subcontractors and contractors,\nas I understand it. Can you tell -- can you relate that conversa -\ntion and why you are vetoing the Schrade bill? The press release\nis onits way.\nA\nThe veto message is on its way. The whole thing evolved\nnot around the bill itself, which was a very good bill and one\nwhich would -- could have been signed very easily, but about a\nlast-minute amendment that was put onto the bill without having\nany consideration by committees, and it just didn't belong in that\nbill.\nQ\nWhat was that amendment?\nA\nIt was an amendment --\nED MEESE: Related to subcontrators listing --\nA\n-- about listing the subcontractors on -- on public\ncontracts.\n0\nGovernor, to go back to the gas situation, just briefly, do\n-9-\nyou think gas stat on owners are justified in hreatening to\nclose down if they don't get increased costs for --\nA\nI think this is an offshoot of the same thing. If you\nare asking about the price situation, I made my position clear many\ntimes. I wish that they would leave this to the marketplace.\nI wish that we would end wage andprice controls. I think that there\nwould be an upsurge of prices on a number of things, very temporary,\nanothen I think the marketplace would take care ofthat.\nAnd it\nwould seek and find its own level on a lower level.\nQ\nDo you think it is proper for them to threaten to close down\nif they don't get their prices?\nA\nWell, I wish they wouldn't. I don't think we have\naccomplished anything with those kind of -- ofactions. I think this\nis a time for -- some patience and some common sense and for people\nto have a little good will and try and resolve their problems.\no\nGovernor, back to my question, a second. Are you taking\nsides here with the electrical subcontractors over the general\nentractors on the Schrade bill?\nA\nNo, I'm just doing what I think I have to do about an\namendment that shoul have gone through the committee process and\nbeen ddequately considered, and it was a last-minute thing that\nchanged the benure of a bill.\n0\nGovernor, what is the policy of your administration\nregarding proposals such as that made last week by Alan Post to\nmerge all the environment relates boards, air, water, solid waste,\ninto one super board? Do you go for something like that or do\nyou think they should be -- should stay as individual entities?\nA\nWell, I can't say that we have had any great study or\nresearch on that proposal as yet. It is something to be looked at\nand something to be studied.\nO\nJust parenthetically, it also moved to upgrade individuals\nof the Air Resources Board into a full-time, full-paid term appoint-\nment board. As the water board.\nA\nWell, I haven't -- I don't think we have had any discussion\non that as yet.\n0\nGovernor, we have what appears on first reports another\npolitical kidnapping in Atlanta. Are you concerned at all we\nmight be seeing a new type of technique that governments are going\nto have to deal with?\n-10-\nA\nWell, I think this is a concern you always have with any\ncrime that gets a great deal of attention. We have known that --\nthat it just seems to be the nature of crime that -- imitators\nspring up and that -- those crimes are imitated. Particularly\nwhen one receives the attention that this one is naturally receiving.\nBut this has been true as long as there has been crime. It gives\nsomebody else an idea; of course, it is a matter of concern.\nO\nBut this technique has been used quite extensively in other\ncountries, for political purposes.\nA\nYeah.\nO\nIs the state doing anything? Are you at all concerned\nthat this might become something that we will see much more of?\nA\nWell, all I can say is we are continuing to stay in touch\nwith our own problem here, in touch with the law enforcement offices\nwho have the jurisdiction over this. But --\nO\nHow close is the contact between your office and the FBI\non the Hearst case?\nA\nWell, we have a liaison with every level of law enforce-\nment.\nCan't go beyond that.\n&\nGovernor, have you talked with Mr. Hearts yourself just\nto offer him your assurances?\nA\nYes.\nO\nWhen was that?\nA\nThis was my goodness, it's probably been a week or so\nago.\nO\nYou talked to him just the one time?\nA\nYes.\n0\nWhat was discussed, Governor, can you relate that?\nA\nJust have him my -- told him my regrets and my sympathy\nand that -- a great many of us were praying that she would be safely\nreturned.\nO\nGovernor, I'm still trying to get a full answer to this --\nthis question. This last-minute amendment that you didh't like,\nwould you say that -- are you saying that Senator Schrade or the\ncontractors -- someone did something that was wrong or untoward and --\nA\nNo, I'm just saying that an amendment made thebill\nunacceptable and it was adopted without the legislative process,\nand --\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\n0\nYes.\nT\nk\non the Lieutenant Gover\nr.\nIf there is an\nindictment, do you think he should resign? Resulting from the ITT\naffair.\nA\nWell, again, those are things-I'm not going to comment on\nhypothetical things of that kind.\nΩ\nGovernor, there is a Revenue and Taxation Senate-passed\nbill extending the imposition of the one cent increase in the sales\ntax for another six months. Is there any chance there will be\nenough money in the budget, you know, you are going to look that over,\nwhether that could take place?\nA\nNo. It does make me realize that I advised and suggested\nto the legislature when they did this the first time, they should\nhave made it a half a cent for a year instead of a penny for six\nmonths and they absolutely would not listen to it. But I've seen\nno suggestion as to where the money is going to come from, another\n$320 million dollars.\nQ\nYou don't think -- they talked about an increase in\"the\noil revenues offsetting that. Do you see any hope there?\nA\nNo.\nO\nTidelands oil.\nA\nNo, all -- I think that -- I think the wieest thing for\nthe State to consider the oil revenues that the state gets, I think\nhas -- they have to accept those as capital. That those are not\nlike a tax that's an ongoing source of revenue, and that the state\nought to be very careful to see that those are spent not for ongoing\nprograms, but are spent for basically capital expenditures.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-12-"
}