Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564414
label
Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1967 [04/02/1967-06/19/1967]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564414
contentType
document
title
Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1967 [04/02/1967-06/19/1967]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Governor Ronald Reagan's Speeches
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564414
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
809ca107ed1cbc7c
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1967
[04/02/1967-06/19/1967]
Box: P17
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN...
RELEASE:
Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
445-4571
4.5.67
To the Senate and the Assembly of the Legislature of California:
AN ACTION PROGRAM FOR THE STATE PARK SYSTEM
To assure the people of California that a sound and planned
approach is utilized in meeting their park and recreation needs now
and in the future, the following steps will be instituted as soon as
possible.
(1) Reorganization - Legislation will be presented to the
Legislature which will provide for the amalgamation of the Park Com-
mission and the Recreation Commission into one nine-member commission
that can represent effectively the public's interest in parks and
recreation in California, developing policy and advising the director
of Parks and Recreation on the total recreational needs of the people
of California. A strong commission of dedicated laymen is the best
assurance that the public has of having its wishes translated into
action. Legislation will also be presented that will provide for the
reorganization of the Department of Parks and Recreation so that the
department may be streamlined into an organization which will be able
to provide fast, efficient service to the public.
(2) Planning - The director of the Department of Parks and
Recreation will be asked immediately to commence the development of a
State Park System Master Plan which will clearly define the state's
responsibility in the field of parks and recreation. Such a plan will
enable other agencies to relate and proceed with their planning efforts
so that the park and recreation needs of cities, counties, and regions
may be met and coordinated with the efforts of the state. The Master
Plan will be developed, not only to meet the physical and developmental
needs of the State Park System to the year 1990, but also to establish
guidelines and standards for a comprehensive, statewide recreation
policy. The plan will be kept up to date by an annual review and
up-dating of its goals and objectives. It will be the basis for all
program budgeting and land acquisition and for the development of the
State Park System and will be published regularly so that it represents
the current thinking of the Department of Parks and Recreation. This
will enable all interested groups, the legislators, and the general
public to know the acquisition and developmental plans of the
department.
-1-
Through this planning effort and by the collection, compilation
and dissemination of recreation-oriented data, the state will be ful-
filling its proper role in providing information, cooperation and
coordination to all governmental and private agencies that are trying
to meet the recreational demands resulting from increased leisure time.
In order to facilitate the above procedures, we will call together
planners and officials of all levels of government as soon as possible
to discuss and develop a fair division of responsibility among all
agencies concerned with supplying recreation and parks, protecting
scenery, history and open space. Such action will be aimed at providing
a sound basis for approaching the development of the State Park System
Master Plan.
(3) Remaining Bond Funds - To insure that the remaining bond
funds for state acquisition and development are spent wisely and in
the areas of greatest need, a thorough re-examination of all proposals
not at this time committed, will be made to assure that each project
meets the standards and criteria established for acquisition of units
to be added to the State Park System. During this study, bond fund
expenditures for the State Park System will be temporarily deferred
except for those acquisitions of critical land of unquestionable qual
Y.
Funds saved through this reappraisal, plus the remaining unspent
balance of the state park bond funds will be prudently spent as quickly
as possible to meet the most urgent and pressing recreational needs of
the state, creating whole projects that can be developed quickly without
further land acquisition or delay.
(4) Public Information - Every citizen of this state shares equally
in the ownership of California's State Park System. Every Californian
shares the right to be kept informed regarding that park system. I am,
therefore, asking the director to develop and implement, within the
existing departmental structure, an effective program of public informa-
tion to assure:
--That the citizens of California are advised where and how
their state park dollars are being invested; and,
--That the people of California are kept currently aware of the
opportunities available to them in their total State Park System.
(5) Increasing Appreciation and Understanding of History and
Natural Values of the State Park System - Seventy percent of the
people living in California today reside in our metropolitan centers.
-2-
In order that they can have a fuller appreciation and understanding
of the exciting history of this state, the department will be
encouraged to utilize its historical parks and monuments to interpret,
in an interesting way, the history of this state. Likewise, a more
aggressive interpretive program will be encouraged so that the park
system visitors will have a fuller understanding of each area and,
thereby, find greater pleasure and enjoyment, plus a better picture
of the conservation and resource problems of this state. Such a
program will add educational dimension to the State Park System's
basic patterns of overnight camping and day use.
(6) Development - Emphasis must be placed upon development of
existing units and creating a priority program of development that
will open to the public, as quickly as possible, units of the system
that will meet immediate needs.
(7) Private Assistance -- Many facilities in a state park can be
developed through long-term concession contracts which will finance
the work; thereby saving the taxpayer this cost. The department will
be asked to encourage this form of development, not only to save tax
money, but also to speed up development in the State Park System. The
director will also be asked to explore ways of encouraging broader
use of private lands for recreation purposes. Such a plan will
release some of the pressure being placed upon the State Park System
for more and more land acquisition and development.
(8) A Plan for Reduction in Cost of Development and Operation -
The director will be asked immediately to investigate ways to reduce
the high cost of facilities through the adjustment of standards to
meet the varying needs of people and the particular conditions of each
unit and by streamlining all procedures so that costly delays in opera-
tion and development are avoided.
(9) Redwoods - So that the major redwood communities, including
the superlative primeval redwoods in the unique redwood forests of
northern California will be preserved for posterity, a team of experts
are giving this problem accelerated study. A redwood master plan,
defining once and for all the redwood parks in this region, will be our
goal. This will permit government and private interests to go about
their respective jobs without further harassment. If we are to preserve
and enjoy the redwood forests, as well as obtain the greatest benefit
from this lumber resource, it is essential that government and the
private sector work in close cooperation so that the conservation,
recreation and economic needs of the state are Fully protected and
the redwood forests are wisely managed.
(10) Inventory - There is a need to review the inventory of the
park units in the State Park System to determine if there are units
within the system that do not meet the standards and criteria for state
parks, recreation areas or historical sites. If there are such units,
I will ask the director to determine if these units can be exchanged
for more suitable land or made available to local park and recreation
departments, thereby removing the operating cost of these units from
the State Parks and Recreation budget. The director will also be
asked to review all land in California which is under the control of
the Federal Bureau of Land Management to determine whether some of this
land might not be transferred to the State Park System to meet future
recreational needs, minimizing the amount of land that will hav
purchased and taken off the tax roles to satisfy future recreational
demands.
(11) Develop a More Realistic User Fee Schedule The director
will be asked to make an analysis of the entire revenue structure of
the State Park System in order to increase the percentage of operating
cost covered by revenue. Any new fee system should be related to the
services the system is required to provide. Standards must be develope
for determining to what extent use should be paid for by user fees
rather than from the General Fund. Special services for certain groups
and individuals which are not available to the general public should be
eliminated as quickly as possible.
(12) Reservations - The director will be asked to develop a fair
and equitable reservation system that makes it possible for people to
reserve camping areas.
(3) Dogs in Parks - Many campers visiting the State Park System
of California are turned away upset and disturbed, instead of exper-
iencing pleasant and enjoyable times, because they have a family pet
with them which prevents them from camping overnight under present
rules. Our national parks and other state parks provide campers with
pets special areas and I have asked the director of our State Park
System to review this subject to see if we cannot solve this vexing
problem.
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
# # #
LABOR UNION POLICIES
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN R
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
445-4571
4.6.67
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
To the Senate and the Assembly of the Legislature of California:
I am today asking for introduction of legislation that will grant
to union members the right of a secret ballot when voting on questions
of internal union policy.
This is the first time any state has attempted to secure for
union members the right to vote their consciences in those matters
which affect the daily operations of the union and, therefore, have a
vital effect on their personal lives.
For purposes of the legislation, these matters would be considered
internal policy:
Seniority rules; rules of internal union discipline; the creation,
administration or dissolution of union pension or welfare programs;
whether expenditures not in the ordinary course of union business are
proper; whether the union should engage in certain political activity;
whether the union should strike or engage in picketing; whether to
initiate collective bargaining negotiations; the terms desired to be
included in a collective bargaining agreement; generally, any matter
affecting the inner workings of a labor union and the welfare of its
members and not subject to the exclusive regulatory jurisdiction of
federal labor laws and federal agencies.
This legislation is designed to give union members greater con-
trol over the affairs of their unions and to end minority control of
some unions.
In addition, I am asking for further legislation aimed at elimin-
ating financial conflicts of interest of officers and agents of labor
organizations.
Under this legislation, union officers and agents would be pro-
hibited from acquiring financial interests which interfere with the
performance of their duties. The legislation also provides that
unions account fully to their members for all assets and financial
transactions.
(MORE)
-2-
Under the proposed legislation, both unions and employer organi-
zations will file annual reports with the Director of Industrial Rela-
tions, showing financial transactions and the financial condition of
the organization.
I am proposing that an advisory council of three members be
appointed by the Governor to inform the Governor and the Legislature
concerning the operation, administration and enforcement of the pro-
visions of the act. The board also will make recommendations for the
improvement or revision of the act.
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
********
Senator Fred Marler (R-Redding) will carry the bill pertaining
to the financial responsibility of unions and Assemblyman Charles
Conrad (R-Sherman Oaks) will carry the legislation on the secret
ballot for union members.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
445-4571
4.11.67
To the Senate and the Assembly of the Legislature of California:
TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM
I am today proposing a state traffic safety program involving new
legislation, executive action and voluntary citizen participation.
This broad, new program is aimed at cutting down drastically on the
growing numbers of traffic accidents and fatalities in California.
Paramount in this program are measures aimed at reducing the num-
bers of accidents involving drunk drivers. We are stydying plans now
for pilot programs in several counties which would identify, analyze
and recommend specific treatment methods for persons arrested for drunk
driving.
We will also seek stiffer controls on motorcycles and their drivers.
Legislation will be sought to: require applicants for motorcycle
drivers' licenses to first qualify for auto drivers' licenses; require
special driver tests for motorcycle drivers; require wearing of speci-
fied protective clothing by motorcyclists; require motorcycle and scooter
operators to turn on their lights whenever their vehicles are in motion.
In the field of driver training, we will seek to upgrade classroom
instruction, increase "behind the wheel" training to the point where it
is available to all high school students, and improve standards for
licensing and for course content in commercial driving schools.
To increase safety on our roads, we will encourage the construction
of freeways, expand the spot improvement program of the Division of
Highways in order to eliminate known problem areas where accidents are
likely to occur, intensify efforts to obtain California's share of
federal highway funds, continue and expand the program to eliminate
unprotected grade crossings and encourage safety engineering in the
design of roads.
In the area of vehicle inspection, I believe California should be
allowed to maintain its program of random mandatory roadside inspection
to
and not be forced by federal standards/inspect every motor vehicle.
Our program is also aimed at improving emergency medical services.
Legislation will be sought requiring every ambulance, by July 1, 1969,
to be staffed with two fully qualified persons, thus insuring that first
aid can continue while the ambulance is in transit.
-1-
Legislation will also be asked including requiring advanced first
aid training for police, sheriffs and firemen and requesting the High-
way Patrol to study and test the use of helicopters in providing
emergency medical services in rural areas.
The administration will also seek enabling legislation that will
allow the state to obtain benefits available to California under the
National Highway Safety Act of 1966.
It will also support long-range research efforts into the causes
of traffic injuries and the testing of safety devices, support orderly
expansion of the Highway Patrol, and establish a traffic court study
commission to review the system of justice in traffic law enforcement.
I will designate the Administrator of the Transportation Agency,
Mr. Gordon Luce, as the coordinator of California's traffic safety
program and ask him to prepare a comprehensive traffic safety pl
which will integrate the efforts of all agencies involved in traffic
safety into an effective system which relates action programs to system
objectives.
I will also call on all areas of the private sector to aid in
building a strong penetrating public education campaign in the field
of public safety and will instruct the Governor's Traffic Safety
Committee to work closely with the California Traffic Safety Foundation
and other groups to implement these efforts.
Enactment of these varied efforts and programs can do much to make
California streets and highways the safest in the nation.
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
# # #
-2-
STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN TO THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
(Delivered by Philip M. Battaglia, Executive Secretary to
Governor Reagan, on April 17, 1967.)
Chairman Jackson and members of the Committee:
I believe our country can and should have a Redwood
National Park in California. My Administration is very willing to
proceed with an orderly and equitable plan for such a park -under
certain conditions which I will go into later.
I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony before
this committee and would like to acknowledge that the creation of
a Redwood National Park ultimately rests with Congress. I am
grateful that the committee has permitted a three month delay in
the hearings to enable the new Administration in California time
to develop its ideas about a national park. And we are fortunate
to have a Californian as the ranking minority member of this
committee.
Members of this honorable Committee are already aware
that California has done much over the past 60 years to protect
the magnificent redwoods along our North Coast. We have created--
because of the foresightedness of conservationists and lumbermen--
a series of state redwood parks that are held in trust for the
citizens of California, and indeed, the nation.
We can be justly proud of our redwoods and the redwood
state parks that the people of California have formed--Jedediah
Smith, Del Norte and Prairie Creek Redwood State Parks. With the
creation of these parks, and with the assistance of the lumbering
industry, the great redwoods have been protected and conserved.
But there now is--as there has been for the past few
years--- concerted drive to establish a Redwood National Park
along California's North Coast. The plan has received extensive
study in recent years and has been the object of even more inves-
tigation during the three-and-a-half months of this Administration.
Our study of the various plans for a Redwood National Park has
convinced us that any legislation for the creation of a national
park most certainly will contain features which are not totally
acceptable to the many and varied interests involved. For this
reason, I am. convinced that if there is to be a park, all of the
interests must be ,lling to negotiate in god faith toward a
compromise solution.
I would like to cite one example: A common feature of
several park proposals has been the exchange of private timber-
lands for the so-called "Redwood North Purchase Unit," a redwood
forest owned by the Federal government and operated by the United
States Forest Service.
I have met with the owners of private timberlands
affected and they--moving from their previous position--have
assured me they are now willing to enter into exchange discussions
even though it may mean the temporary disruption of their lumber-
ing operations.
So also, representatives of my office met with appro-
priate federal officials in this city last week to discuss such
an exchange. And I must frankly tell the members O_ this Com-
mittee that I was disappointed to learn that the United States
Forest. Service appears to be adamant in refusing to relinquish
this property. Such an attitude is unfortunate. I repeat that
if there is to be a national park, and I truly hope there will
be, that all parties, including the various agencies of the federal
government, must be willing to modify their positions in a spirit
of good faith for the common good.
It should be noted that discussions with these same
federal agencies concerning the exchange of land between the State
of California and the federal government have been encouraging
and an awareness of the problems involved has been exhibited.
Because nearly 50 percent of the land in California presently is
owned by the federal government, it is my duty to the taxpayers
of California to protect further encroachment upon an already too-
small tax and economic base.
As you know, the California Constitution specifically
prohibits the divestiture of state-owned lands except under very
rigid and controlled conditions. Therefore, any Redwood National
Park which would encompass any, or all, of our state parks must be
approved by the California State Legislature. I am extremely
doubtful that the Legislature would agree to any plan that does
not protect the interests of all California citizens.
We in California recognize the desirability of including,
in addition to the Jedediah Smith and Del Norte Redwood State
Parks, privately held lands such as those in we Mill Creek area.
But we also recognize the absolute necessity of maintaining a
stable economy for the area affected. People, as well as trees,
must be considered. Emotionalism and an adamant attitude are not
the proper building blocks for a national park.
Therefore, it seems to me that the best way to assure
that a Redwood National Park is developed--one that is planned on
an orderly and equitable basis--is to immediately develop a joint
industry-state-federal approach. I might hasten to add that this
approach must have one primary interest: To achieve the best,
most usable park, consistent with the various principles which I
believe are basic and which I will now outline.
1--The park must not deprive the residents of the area
of their jobs.
2--The State of California must receive full, fair and
equal value from the federal government and its agencies for any
state land incorporated into the national park, thereby satisfying
California legal requirements. Full, fair and equal value does
not mean payment in cash. As has already been pointed out, the
federal government currently owns nearly 50 percent of the land
total in California and dollars cannot buy the priceless land we
have remaining. State land must be exchanged for equal Tederal
land.
3--Private interests which give up land and timber must
receive fair exchange in fee title to a like kind of property.
Negotiation, rather than condemnation, must be emphasized. Land
and timber obtained from private interests should wherever possible
be exchanged for suitable U.S. Forest Service lands. The payment
period for cash transactions involving private property taken must
be funded in the minimum number of years required for maximum tax
advantage to the private owners affected.
--Consideration should be given to the inclusion of
seashore areas. Trees are important for such a recreational area,
but so also, in California, are beaches. This Eact has been
recognized in at least one O. the proposals before you for consid-
eration--that of Representative Dor. Clausen.
5--In addition to land exchange with private timber
interests, there are other means available to maintain and encour-
age the economy of this area, particularly during the period of
park development. Several of these have been iscussed by my
representatives with officials of the Mederal agencies involved.
I trust that serious consideration will be given to accelerated
Forest Service activities in the area, expanded road and con--
struction contracts designed to permit local contractors to
participate, and development OF a localized transportation center
near Crescent City which would encourage visitors to take guided
tours rather than merely pass through the park in their automobiles.
6--Provisions must be made for full in lieu taxes on a
permanent basis so that local governmental units--already hampered
by a narrow tax base caused by federal land ownership--will not
experience further hardship. For example, 72 percent of Del Norte
County is already under federal ownership.
7--Harassment of the lumber industry must stop. The
legislation should contain requirements to this end.
8--The interests and goals of the various conservation
groups must be given consideration.
Should this committee desire, we will be most pleased to
submit specific and implementing details concerning many of the
basic considerations I have outlined.
I am confident the owners of private timberland in the
area will grant their assurances that they will continue their
moratorium on cutting virgin timber pending completion of dis-
cussions among the state, the federal government and the industry.
The State of California is prepared to immediately join
with representatives of the other interests involved in order to
bring about the detailed plans necessary for the creation of a
Redwood National Park.
Such discussions should resolve the many problems of the
land exchanges that are vital to the creation of any national park.
Thus, lands presently held by the United States government must be
exchanged in fee with the State of California for state park lands
to be included in the national park. Discussions must also concern
a determination of what is a fair and equitable exchange in fee
between private lumber interests and federally-owned lands such
as the area commonly referred to as the Redwood Northern Purchase
Unit. Consideration must be given not only to total acreage but
also to quality, species, volume of board feet, accessibility,
economics of logging operations, and so on.
As Governor of California, I feel it is my obligation
to the people of my state to propose these broad principles as
guidelines for action. I respectfully urge before this honorable
Committee that serious consideration be given to the principles
I have outlined in order that a truly national redwood park will
result for the benefit of all Americans.
Thank you for your courtesy.
########
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
Sacramento, California
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
445-4571
4.29.67
RELEASE: MONDAY PMS
Transcript of Speech by Governor Ronald Reagan before the
University of Southern California Law Day Luncheon
(Los Angeles.)
We are here today to celebrate Law Day.
It is fitting that we do this on May 1--the same day that law-
less communism celebrates the anniversary of the Red Revolution.
The contrast is even greater than it might seem at first glance.
Communism by definition is a government of men--not of laws.
It is the very antithesis of what our founding fathers had in
mind when they laboriously and carefully designed our Constitution.
They feared a strong, central government. Because a strong
central government is a threat to personal liberty.
But, even more, they feared a government of men. Because they
knew from first-hand experience that government by men is government
uncontrolled and that is tyranny.
They knew that no man was safe in his house, or in his property
or in his person if his rights, personal or property, depended upon
the whims of men or of a man.
They set out to prevent this from happening. And the job they
did through the document they wrote was the best in the history of
man.
But they were not infallible and the Constitution--great as it
is--is not a perfect document.
It can work only so long as a people truly desire to be free,
only SO long as men refuse to subject themselves to the rule of
other men.
The man who said "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
was not speaking lightly or tritely.
Eternal vigilance is indeed the price of liberty. And that price
is not too high to pay.
But liberty, without law, without legal safeguards is not and
cannot be liberty in the long run. It becomes, instead, license,
revolution and anarchy.
It leads, without qualification, to mob rule and from there to
the rule of the many by the few. And these in turn establish or
disestablish law as they see fit, or ignore the law and rule by fiat
or edict.
What free men m t achieve in order to remi free is a delicate
balance wherein some liberty is sacrificed in order that the remainder
can be preserved.
This cannot be successfully achieved or long maintained unless
those who make the laws are answerable to the people and unless the
people are willing and able to hold them answerable.
We have jealously guarded the concept that ours is a government
of laws, not of men.
But we must always remember that the laws are written by men,
interpreted by men and changed by men. And that men are judged
under the law by other men.
Because of this, Americans have an obligation to themselves and
to those who will come after them to see that those who write the
laws, those who interpret them and those who judge under them are
men of ability, men of honor and men who are fair-minded.
Now a governor can recommend laws and execute them, but he can-
not make them under our system. Nor can he elect or appoint those
who do.
And, with the exception of his clemency power, the governor can-
not judge under the law, but he can, in fact under our system, he
must, appoint those who do judge.
In many ways this is the most awesome power a governor has.
Because, while judges must in theory be approved by a vote of the
people, in actuality, a man appointed judge, with rare exceptions,
has a lifetime job. An inherent weakness in our system is that it is
nearly impossible for the average citizen to have all the factual
information necessary to make an intelligent decision in voting for
a judge, and therefore, he usually votes for the incumbent.
This, as I say, places an awesome responsibility and power in
the hands of the governor. He in effect, controls the administration
of justice, through the men he chooses. Justice can be good, bad
or indifferent depending on the judge and on the man who appoints the
judge.
Now there are many in California, including many in the legis-
lature, who prefer our present system. They recognize that a gover-
nor can and may make bad appointments to the bench. They recognize
that governors can, and many have, made appointments to the bench
as political payoffs.
But they feel--sincerely--that over a period of years, the
system balances out and that in the main the quality of the courts
Some of these me. frankly feel that the app Intment of judges
is better off in the hands of a governor than it is in the hands of
anyone else.
Their reasoning is clear. In California, a party seldom remains
in control of the governor's office more than one or terms at a
time. This means that each party, under a system that encourages
the political appointments of judges, will wind up with its share.
I suspect that this is true.
But I submit that this is not the way to improve the quality
of our appointees to the bench. Nor is a party balance necessary
to justice in our criminal courts.
I submit to you that justice should not be political.
The theme of Law Day this year is that 'no man is above the
law and no man is below it
"
I would add that all men are entitled
to equal justice under it.
I believe that using our courts as political plums in a spoils
system is no way to assure the first--or to achieve the second.
That is why I am disappointed that the Senate Judiciary Committee
last week killed for this session legislation introduced at my
request that would have taken the appointment of judges out of the
political area.
During the campaign I promised we would seek action in this
area. That promise was made in a hundred different speeches. The
reaction of one hundred different crowds made it obvious that the
people want assurance that California justice is not justice diluted
by partisan politics. The appointment of dozens of judges, many
of which must be regarded as political paycffs, by a lame duck gover-
nor last fall and winter, did nothing to build the confidence of
Californians in our political system or in our administration of
justice. My mail reflected this and reflected even more strongly
than during the campaign the people's wish for something better.
Because of my beliefs, because of the promises I made and because
it is obviously the people's desire, I sent to the Legislature the
bill that was killed last week. Actually, the bill would take a
constitutional amendment to become effective and therefore, after
legislative approval it would have to be submitted to a vote of the
people. I am sorry the Senate Judiciary Committee did not give the
people the right to make that decision.
That bill, known as the California Judicial Selection Act,
I believed, would once and for all take the appointment of judges out
of the political are
It was carried on the Senate side by Sen. Donald L. Grunsky
and 1 am grateful to him for his work and his efforts to report the
bill out of committee. And I am grateful to those others who also
voted to report it out.
Under the bill a judicial nominating commission would have been
created, consisting of the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court,
two attorneys appointed by the State Bar and three lay citizens
named by the governor. That commission would review the names of
those proposed by any person for appointment to the appellate courts.
After review, the commission would submit at least two names to the
Governor who would then make an appointment from that list.
At the trial court level the commission would be augmented by
three persons from the community where a vacancy existed. One would
be a member of the local bar designated by the local bar president,
one would be a judge and the third would be a lay person named by
the governor.
When a vacancy occurred the governor would be required to sub-
mit at least three names to the commission and the commission would
in turn recommend from this list at least two names back to the
governor. The governor would then appoint a judge from among those
names. If the commission were unable to recommend at least two per-
sons from the governor's list he would be required to furnist addi-
tional names. This would assure that the governor mus t submit the
names of qualified attorneys as possible bench appointees.
There is one other key provision to this bill. It would change
the election procedures to further take the naming of judges out of
politics. Instead of making the election of municipal and superior
court judges contested races, voters would be asked only to vote yes
or no as they now do on the appellate court level. If the vote were
no, the judge would not be re-elected and a new judge would be named
under the appointive system I mentioned a moment ago.
Let me say now that I think what I have proposed is what the
people want and what in the interests of justice, the people deserve.
I promise unequivocally that I will resubmit this legislation
next year and for as long as necessary to have it enacted into law.
Politics has no place in the administration of justice in
California, Even though we must wait for legislative action as the
first step in taking politics out of the appointment of judges on a
MORE
-5-
permanant basis, we are continuing to do our best to minimize its
effect on a voluntary basis.
As most of you know, we have formed committees in those districts
where judicial vacancies occur. These committees are composed of
members of the state bar, the local bar, a judge and a lay citizen.
They sift the names of candidates for judge and turn in their recom-
mendations to my office.
Without exception, we have appointed the candidate who the
committee rated highest.
We will continue to do this until the Legislature and the
people act.
But the selection of judges is only one facet of the program
we are working on in California to assure justice for all our people
and at the same time make it possible for the law abiding to live
under the law without fear of it or of those who refuse to abide by
it.
In the area of law enforcement legislation introduced as part
of this administration's program is moving along.
This package under the sponsorship of Sen. George Deukmajian
is an effort to strengthen "soft spots" in the state's laws and
crime prevention programs.
California is the leading state in terms of major crimes.
On a percentage basis, we have nearly twice our share--nine percent
of the population and about 17 percent of the crime.
I am convinced that enactment of this proposed legislation will
help deter crime, will slow the flood of pornographic material now
available on our news stands, will speed and strengthen the adminis-
tration of justice and will assure California citizens the best and
most efficient law enforcement agencies in the nation.
This legislation includes: crime package
First: An effective law to restore to the cities and counties
the ability to enact local laws designed to meet local problems.
This is commonly referred to as the "implied pre-emption issue."
Such a law will allow local law enforcement agencies to more
thoroughly police their jurisdictions, especially in the areas of
vice, sex offenses and offenses against public decency.
Second: Laws increasing penalties for those criminals who,
during the commission of a robbery, burglary or rape, inflict great
bodily harm upon their victims with dangerous weapons. I believe
-6-
society must be protected from those who would inflict personal
violence on its members. Three measures identical to those we have
introduced were passed by both houses of the Legislature in 1965
but were pocket-vetoed by the last governor.
Third: Comprehensive legislation dealing with pernography and
obscenity, with special emphasis on prohibiting dissemination to
minors of "harmful" material. A careful effort is being made to
avoid any suspicion of censorship.
Fourth: We recognize that from time to time persons are arrested
unjustly or as victims of circumstances. Yet, despite their inno-
cence, they must live the remainder of their lives with a public
police record. Our bill, by closing certain records, will provide
relief for such persons while, at the same time, preserving those
records for use by law enforcement agencies and other authorized
persons.
But we are convinced that even more effort on the part of all
of us is needed if we are to control crime in California.
Statistics show:
In 1965, the last year for which figures are available, Cali-
fornia was above the national average in five out of seven major
categories of crime.
During the same year California led the states of at least 5
million population in total crime.
That year California murders went up 14 percent, rapes increased
five percent, robberies nine percent, burglaries 11 percent and all
offenses increased an average of nine percent.
This was not an unusual year. It was the continuation of a
pattern; in 1964 all offenses went up 10 percent, in 1963 they went
up 7 percent, in 1962 they were up three percent.
There are many reasons and theories given for the increase in
the incidence of crime.
I do not hold with the theory that says society is to blame,
when a man commits a robbery or a murder and therefore we must be
understanding and as sympathetic for the criminal as we are for the
victim.
True, there has been a spirit of permissiveness abroad in the
land that has undoubtedly added to the juvenile delinquency problem.
This is a time of affluence, where young people have time on their
hands, and seek outlets once provided by jobs.
-7-
There is talk se days that punishment i ( lot a deterrent
and as punishment becomes more difficult to mete out, those who
would be deterred by the threat of punishment feel freer to commit
crimes and acts of violence.
There is a belief in some quarters that grievances, real or
fancied, can be remedied by marches or even by riots.
The courts at the appellate level have narrowed the difference
between liberty and license and in some areas have overbalanced
the scales of justice SO that the rights of society are outweighed
by decisions granting new rights to individuals accused of crimes.
For a variety of reasons, including those listed above, the
streets of many of our big cities have become unsafe at night and
in some neighborhoods, even in the daytime.
A major reason, I think, for the increase in crime is the very
progress we are making which benefits and enriches our civilization.
Scientific and technological advances are being utilized by
and adapted for use by the criminal element.
Modern methods of transportation and communications, and
modern tools and weapons are used daily by those who prey on society.
If we are to reverse this trend it is essential that society
also use to the fullest our scientific and technological advances
in the prevention, detection and control of crime. And in the
correction and rehabilitation of criminals.
In addition, there is need for basic research involving the
joint effort of various scientific and professional disciplines
into the nature of crime, and criminals and into methods of detection,
apprehension and treatment.
MORE
-8--
We are also proposing that a California Crime Foundation
be created as a public corporation. Such a Foundation would
be financed and served by both the private and public sectors.
Its purpose will be to develop a coordinated state, local
and private effort toward developing new scientific techniques to
combat crime, initiate research projects in the area of police
management, administration and basic research in the field of
crime, and encourage engineers and scientists to devote themselves
to careers in crime research.
We hope we can finance this foundation by channeling to it
funds appropriated for some existing state law enforcement efforts
and by winning the financial participation of private foundations
and the business community. This is certainly one of those areas
where the independent sector can be, and should want to be , of
help.
Of course, major efforts are constantly being made to stem
crime by law enforcement agencies, both state and local, by depart-
ments of state government, by educational institutions and by pri-
vate organizations.
Outstanding organizations such as the State Bar of California,
the California Peace Officers Association, the District Attorneys
Association, the California Council on Crime and Delinquency are all
concerned.
We are convinced, however, from talking with state leaders in
the fields of law enforcement and crime prevention that these efforts
must be coordinated, that new efforts must be stimulated if we are
to have an effective crime prevention program. Those engaged in
this broad field must be able to share the results of the research
and benefit from the progressive practices of others.
In order to achieve this, we are working with the Attorney
General and his staff -- crime prevention knows no party lines --
with the leaders of local law enforcement, with the judiciary, and
with the Legislature to develop a master plan for California
criminal justice.
Details of this plan are embodied in legislative measures
already before the Senate and Assembly.
We have four major objectives.
First, to provide for statewide planning and for orderly and
-9-
Second, we wish and expect to maintain the traditional partner-
ship and spirit of mutual cooperation between the agencies of state
and local government.
Third, we must provide coordination of the various agencies
and groups involved in criminal justice projects.
And fourth, we must provide a vehicle to handle federal-state
relations and to implement federal legislation dealing with
crime control.
These objectives will be met by a council on criminal justice
which will be established under the master plan.
This council, made up of representatives of all the agencies
and bodies involved in crime control, as well as representative
citizens, will function in much the same manner as the Coordinating
Council on Higher Education functions and we are convinced it will
provide the same sort of benefits.
The Council will be responsible for developing state-wide
plans for the prevention, detection and control of crime and for
the administration of criminal justice.
It will conduct studies, survey resources and identify the needs
for research and development. It will encourage coordination,
planning and research by the agencies of criminal justice through-
out the state and will serve as a clearing house for the study
and dissemination of information.
Such a council will give California the ability to attack
crime and the roots of crime from many vantage points.
Of course, no program in itself can work miracles and/or
eliminate crime. But this program will insure that we are utiliz-
ing to the fullest all the available resources and that we are
continually coming up with new resources.
The war on crime is a never-ending one. And it is necessary
that we pursue it constantly and with vigor if our citizens are to
be safe on our streets and in their homes, and if man is to be able
to live free from fear of his fellow man in an ever-contracting world
and an increasingly more complex society.
I do not claim that our proposals contain all the answers. But
I do say we have made a new beginning, a beginning that will increase
the confidence of the citizen in his government, engender respect
for the law and insure speedy and equal justice under it.
If it would seem that we are adding unduly to the responsibil-
ities of the private citizen, let us be aware that history records
when the freedom the Athenians wished for most was freedom from
responsibility, Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.
OFFICE OF THE GOV) NOR
MEMO TO THE RESS
Sacramento, Calif\ nia
Contact:
Lyn Nofziger
445-4571
5.1.67
C-O-R-R-E-C-T-I-O-N
Governor Reagan's Law Day Speech on Page 3,
8th paragraph, should have read:
"That is why I am disappointed that the
Senate Governmental Efficiency Committee etc."
# # #
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: MONDAY PM'S
Sacramento, Californi
Contact: Lyn Nofzige_
445-4571
5.1.67
(ADD: USC Law Speech)
The following is a wire from Federal Bureau of Investigation
Director J. Edgar Hoover to Governor Ronald Reagan containing informa-
tion for the Law Day Speech insert:
"On April 27, 1967, 29 police agencies in the State of California
were linked through the California Highway Patrol computer in
Sacramento, California, to the National Crime Information Center
computer here in FBI headquarters. These agencies were successfully
able to obtain instant information from data stored in the National
Crime Information Center computer. This is the first computer-to-
computer exchange in the history of law enforcement. In fact, it is
the first use of this technology to link local, state and federal
government. The rapid retrieval and exchange of information among
law enforcement agencies is vital if we are to successfully fulfill
our responsibilities. The California Highway Patrol, under
Commissioner H.C. Sullivan, should be commended for their effort in
this undertaking, especially Inspector David Luethje, and Lt. Ray
Mayhugh, Mr. Richard Thompson and Mr. Lloyd Smith."
-o-
Following is the insert to Governor Reagan's Law Day Speech
(insert after 5th paragraph, Page 8 ending
are all concerned):
"As a matter of fact, we have already taken, in conjunction with
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one major step to help combat
crime.
"California Highway Patrol Commissioner Harold Sullivan has
arranged with the FBI for a computer to computer link-up between his
headquarters and the National Crime Information Center at FBI head-
quarters in Washington,
"Thanks to Commissioner Sullivan, 29 police agencies in California
were linked on April 27 through the Highway Patrol computer to the FBI.
"We are told by J. Edgar Hoover that this is the first computer
to computer exchange in the history of law enforcement.
"In fact it is the first use of this technology to link local,
state and federal government.
"Both the FBI and our law enforcement officials feel this link-up
will be invaluable in our fight against crime by allowing the rapid
retrieval and exchange of information between California and the FBI.
"But this is just one step."
(Pick up "We are convinced"
and eliminate "however".
# # #
5/3
STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN ON
COLORADO RIVER LEGISLATION*
I welcome this opportunity to make known the official
views of California's new administration on the important water
legislation now before this Subcommittee. The necessity for
finding a legislative solution to the Colorado River water supply
problem has been one of the paramount concerns of my administra-
tion since it took office. We concluded early that California's
new administration would join with sister states and the Congress
in an all-out effort to obtain constructive legislation at the
earliest practicable date.
I see no reason to replow ground that has already been
thoroughly plowed. There is no need to recite in detail the
importance of water to California and the West, and there is
nothing I need add to reinforce the fact that the Colorado River
Basin and the Pacific Southwest face imminent and widespread water
deficiencies. The record compiled at previous hearings on the
Central Arizona Project and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
before this distinguished body, and on the Colorado River Basin
Project legislation before the counterpart of this body in the
House, established those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt.
California's administration, in concentrating on the
support of basic principles, is determined not to be detracted
by nonproductive argument over seemingly important, but often
* For presentation by William R. Gianelli, Director of the
Department of Water Resources, before the Senate Subcommittee
on Water and Power Resources in Washington, D. C., May 3, 1967
overemphasized, peripheral issues. All of the Colorado River
Basin States have made accommodations to each other, to interests
opposed to dams, and to the Northwest. California has partici-
pated, and will continue to do so, in negotiations which are
essential to enactment of the legislation needed in this area.
Our goals are clear and, we believe, are above argument.
The need for action is unmistakable. What the entire Pacific
Southwest needs now is legislation which satisfies the region's
immediate needs through added development of the limited resources
of the Colorado River, but recognizes also the area's longer-
range requirements and sets in motion a program to augment the
supplies of the Colorado. It is my objective today to bring to
your attention those elements that California believes essential
in this legislation.
We ask first that the legislation recognize the accepted
fact that the dependable natural supply of the Colorado River is
insufficient to meet all compact and decree apportionments to the
seven states of the Colorado River Basin; and the further fact
that the dependable supply available to the Lower Basin will be
unable to meet existing uses and the added burden of the Central
Arizona Project beyond perhaps 1990 or the turn of the century,
even with California's existing uses limited to 4.4 million acre-
feet per year. Thile it appears that the Lower Colorado supply
has the potential of satisfying existing uses and those of the
Central Arizona Project until then, this is the case only because
several of the other states are not at this time using all of
the water to which they are entitled and because California's
-2-
present uses will be cut back from 5.1 to 4.4 million ácre-feet
per year when the Central Arizona Project goes into operation.
The only certain way of assuring continued develop-
ment and prosperity in the Pacific Southwest and of bringing
peace to the Colorado River is to increase the natural supplies
of the region. The legislation, then, should contain a
reasonable promise that the additional burden of the Central
Arizona Project will be relieved within a quarter of a
century by augmentation of supply of the Colorado. In the
meantime, existing economies should be provided with reasonable
protection.
The merits of protecting existing water uses in the
Lower Colorado River Basin, with California's uses being pro-
tected to the extent of 4.4 million acre-feet per annum, are
based on a solid moral and economic foundation. The Colorado
River Basin States struggled with this problem for months
before resolving it early in 1965 in favor of protecting
existing economies. This solution was found acceptable last
year to the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
and to the National Administration. There is no cogent reason
to upset this accord.
Existing projects in the Lower Colorado River Basin
were built on what has turned out to be an overly optimistic
estimate of water supply. The economies that rely on these
projects, all vital to the states and the nation, now face
added hazard. The economy in California dependent upon the
Colorado must scale back from an existing use of 5.1 million
-3-
acre-feet per year to 4.4 as a result of the lesser supply
in the River and the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in
Arizona V California. The logical way to protect the
economy dependent upon the remaining supply of 4.4 million
acre-feet and the enormous investment in physical works con-
structed to service this economy during the time interval
preceding actual augmentation of the River is to provide
in the legislation that existing uses shall have a priority
over new uses until the augmentation is effected. With the
4.4 priority, the $0.5 billion Colorado River Aqueduct and
distribution system of The Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California will flow less than half full. Without
it, the Aqueduct will face imminent danger of being dried
up completely.
Hence, we urge that existing uses in the Lower Basin,
including 4.4 million acre-feet per year of use in California,
be afforded priority over the Central Arizona Project until
such time as the supply of the River is augmented. To do
otherwise is to create another burden on the River without
doing anything to relieve the basic problem of short supply.
Relief from shortage and continued development of the economies
of the Pacific Southwest can only come from a program that
includes early augmentation of the area's limited supplies.
A primary purpose of the legislation should be to
initiate studies leading to a well-founded decision on how
best to accomplish augmentation. The nation can ill afford
-4-
delays in getting those studies under way. We believe the
essential ingredients of an acceptable augmentation study
to be: (1) that it be conducted under the supervision of an
impartial body; (2) that it be completed on a timely basis;
(3) that all related factors be considered, including those
outside the purely engineering and economic fields; (4) that
the rights of the states and regions be fully respected;
(5) that the affected states be permitted to participate
effectively; and (6) that the expertise of existing state
and federal agencies be used to the maximum extent possible.
In recent weeks, several proposals have been advanced
that call for a feasibility-level study of the North Coastal
area of California as the Initial source of export water
supply for the Pacific Southwest. The State of California
does not now, nor has it ever, objected to inclusion of its
North Coast as one of the areas to be studied. We have asked
and still ask, however, that the selection of California's
North Coastal resources as a source of supply for the initial
stage of the regional program be based upon a demonstration,
using comparable levels of investigation, that it is, in fact,
the best source for the Pacific Southwest. The people of the
Southwest and of the nation at large have a right to expect
that the project eventually constructed to relieve the water
supply problems of the Pacific Southwest is the best of all
available alternatives. This is not only existing federal
and state policy, it's good economics.
-5-
California, like any other potential state of origin,
must insist on full legal and economic protection to assure
all users within its boundaries that water supplies will be
available for use therein adequate to satisfy their ultimate
requirements at prices to users not adversely affected by the
exportation of water. The protective provisions must also
give the users within the states of origin a priority of use,
so that those users have in effect a right of recall, or a
right to replacement with water of equal quality and no
greater cost. Such provisions are included in S. 861, S. 1242,
and S. 1409, but omitted from S. 1004 and S. 1013.
These provisions would apply to all interstate
supplies regardless of source. As the new economy developed
in the Pacific Southwest would not be allowed to perish, recall
would be unlikely, and the state of origin would probably have
to rely on replacement of its supplies. This would require
that large sums of money be available within the program at
that point in time to finance the replacement. Hence,
California strongly supports creation of the proposed develop-
ment fund, construction of projects that will make revenues
available to the development fund, and dedication of a portion
of the fund to protection of the states or origin.
Success of the regional program of development will
depend in large measure upon the financial strength of the
development fund. We must make it as strong as we can, and
can ill afford to forego construction of justified projects
that will return surplus revenues to the fund. Hence we support
-6-
construction of the optimum development at the Hualapai site
that can be justified considering all potential uses and
needs, giving full recognition to scenic and recreational needs,
as well as to hydroelectric peaking power needs and values.
I say this in full knowledge of the strong stand
conservationists have taken on the Hualapai Dam issue. The
important values associated with the preservation of open
spaces and wild areas must be given full consideration in
reaching decisions as to the future use of the Colorado River
and the natural areas associated therewith. However, reality
also requires that full recognition be given to the require-
ments of meeting the food, fiber, power, and recreation demands
of an expanding population.
Some of the bills before you contain, in addition to
the Central Arizona Project, authorizations for the con-
struction, operation, and maintenance of five new projects
in the Upper Basin. Since it is our understanding that these
features are favored by the state directly affected; are
economically justified on the basis of Bureau of Reclamation
studies; and, on the basis of both entitlement and physical
availability, can reasonably be expected to have an adequate
water supply, we support their authorization.
As previously stated, we believe that the studies of
alternative sources of supply to augment the Colorado should
be supervised by an impartial body, should include effective
state participation, should be free from duplication of work
force and work effort, and should make maximum use of expertise
-7-
already available. California supports the formation 'of the
National Water Commission to review national water policy.
We also support use of the National Water Commission as an
impartial supervisor of the studies of means of augmenting
the supplies of the Pacific Southwest. This support, however,
is conditioned on: (1) immediate implementation of the Pacific
Southwest regional study so that alternative solutions will be
available for comparison by the early 1970's, and (2) assurances
that the commission will not be used as a mechanism for
delaying those studies.
For the augmentation studies to be meaningful they
must also be timely. A high federal official recently stated
that he was confident that the Colorado River would be
augmented by 1990. We certainly hope that is the case. But
less than 23 years remain to accomplish this objective.
Augmentation could come from any, or a combination of several
alternatives, including sea water conversion and weather
modification. The critical time demands, however, relate
to the possibility that broad-scale interstate exchanges of
water represent the best solution. If so, many have pro-
claimed that 25 years' lead time will be required for such
a regional program. The lead time, however, will be at least
five, and perhaps as much as ten, years longer if the planning
studies are deferred until the National Water Commission
attempts to first solve the nation's water policy problems.
If that happens, the Southwest will face a major water crisis
before the turn of the century.
-8-
The Northeastern States have not been asked to defer
their regional water planning to await the findings of a
National Water Commission. The Northeast United States Water
Supply study is already under way.
California is concerned over the possibility of too
many national and federal water bodies and agencies becoming
involved in western states regional water planning. Certainly,
every effort is needed to avoid duplication of future planning
efforts, the redoing of that which has already been done, and
the bypassing of local authorities and expertise. Coordination
of existing agencies and commissions is already a most difficult
task. The Senate bill to create the National Water Commission,
S. 20, as passed by the Senate, obviously seeks to avoid
duplication, particularly as regards the Water Resources
Council. However, it is equally obvious that the measure
does not contemplate the Commission actually performing
western, northeastern, or any other specific regional planning
effort.
The provisions of the legislation authorizing studies
of means of augmenting the supplies of the Pacific Southwest
should recognize the planning expertise of the state organi-
zations and the ll-state Western States Water Council. For
example, the National Water Commission could be directed to
consult with the Western States Water Council in developing
policy involving western states water programs.
-9-
We regard the National Administration's position,
as announced by Secretary Udall on February 1, and as contained
in S. 1004 and S. 1013, as a long step backward from the
regional approach which he initiated in 1963 and which had
its first legislative hearing before this Subcommittee. The
piecemeal approach now proposed by the Secretary avoids the
fundamental water problem facing the entire West. The
Administrations' proposal would add materially to the burden
of demand on the River without attempting to solve the basic
problem of an insufficient supply in the Colorado. California
urges the Subcommittee to reject the Administration!s proposal
and to continue to seek a regional solution to what is truly
a regional problem.
-10-
h/s
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN
GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA
Before the
PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES*
May 4, 1967
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: Ordinarily
when the California witnesses appear before you on behalf of
appropriations for flood control and reclamation projects, we are
clearing up the debris from a severe winter flood, or are pre-
paring for an unusually dry summer. This year is different,
typical of California weather. We had one of the driest Februarys
on record and were beginning to worry about water supplies when
March storms brought the snowpack and streamflow up to about
normal. Someone, however, forgot to turn the faucet off and the
rain and extremely heavy mountain snowfall continued through March
and right up to the end of April. Reservoirs are almost full, and
we have almost a 200 percent of normal snowpack waiting for warm
weather and the snowmelt season. We just have no place to put
the water and we anticipate some real problems with agriculture
in the San Joaquin Valley. Crops which have been planted may be
flooded, and the expected flooding probably will mean costly delays
for plantings not yet made.
All of this is just another way of highlighting Cali-
fornia's need for continuing development of flood control and
water storage projects, and the manner in which the federal projects
fit in with scores of others being built by state and local agencies.
*
Presented by Edgar Gillenwaters,
Deputy Director of Finance
State of California
I fully endorse the program which will be presented
to you in some detail by the Director of Water Resources and
the Chairman of the California Water Commission, as well as by
many witnesses from local agencies. It is a sound program, a
necessary program, and one which is realistic. It has full
support of all parts of California.
-2-
5/6
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Saturday, May 6, 8 p.m.
Sacramento, California
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
5.5.67
ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN - UNITED REPUBLICANS
OF CALIFORNIA CONVENTION - Long Beach Arena - 7:30 p.m.
MAY 6, 1967
It is a pleasure to be here tonight, talking again to the members
of United Republicans of California.
I have that warm feeling a person gets when he knows he's among
friends--friends with the same philosophy, the same goals, the same
aspirations. Could be I'm especially conscious of this for the same
reason a man only realizes how thirsty he really is when he takes a
cooling drink. Besides that, the members of UROC have always supported
their beliefs with their money and their energies. And, believe me, that
makes you at least a little unique.
You have supported and worked actively and hard for those principles
in which we believe and the candidates who represent them. Republican
candidates and principles, of course.
It is the work and support given by you and the members of the other
Republican volunteer groups which, in large measure, were responsible
for the success of many of those candidates and principles last November.
I, for one, am grateful, and I know that that gratitude is shared
by those others winners and losers who had your help.
That election put California on the right road--in the interest of
harmony, let me hasten to say I use "right" in the sense of meaning
"correct" not the road back, but the road ahead to a better, more
responsible, more meaningful life for all our citizens, a life in which
they are allowed to develop and pursue their aims and ambitions to the
fullest, without the constant interference and domination of big spending,
big brother government.
But we have just started down that new read. There is much to be
done and there are many problems yet. to be solved and there are many
pitfalls that lie ahead.
We have just begun to do the job that must be done. And nearly
every move we make brings a fresh protest from those who think that your
money and mine is theirs to spend as they see fit and that government
is formed for the benefit of those who govern.
We intend to put an end to that kind of thinking an end to the
philosophy that government has a right to match taxes to whatever it
wants to spend instead of spending only what needs to be spent.
-1-
During the campaign it looked almost as if We could put our fiscal
house in order without resorting to new taxes. We did not know just
how bad the situation was then. Now we have had access to, and a chance
to read, the fine print.
As a result, we have, as you know, submitted a revenue bill of
nearly one billion dollars in increased taxes. Because of this there
has been some editorial jumping-up-and-down-with-glee, holding that this
makes a failure in our long-held belief in economy, let's set the record
straight here and now. And bear with me if you have heard this. Our
mail indicates that there is still confusion and misunderstanding.
Roughly half of that tax increase is necessary simply to pay off
this year's deficit and put us on a pay-as-you-go basis. Half of the
remainder is not a new tax so much as a broader based substitute tax
to give, for the first time, direct property tax relief. Next year,
with the deficit paid off, that relief can be more than doubled.
The remainder--about one-quarter of the total tax revenues--is for
the normal increase to keep pace with population growth and increased
prices and wages resulting from the federal government's policy of
planned inflation. The increase is about 7 percent, in contrast with
the 16 percent increase of the past year and the 12 percent average
increase over the last eight years.
We tried for some $250 million in economies in the budgets re-
quested by all the divisions of government. We ended up with more than
$127 million. I'm just stubborn enough to think we got the $127 million
because we tried for $250 million and we will continue to follow that
policy.
Incidentally, one of the most heartening signs we have had in this
brief administration is the recent poll which indicates most of our
citizens favor our revenue package and, of those who favor it, 70 per-
cent do so because they see the need to balance the budget. Now let me
suggest--if you are among those who favor our efforts, don't tell me--
write to your assemblyman and senator.
I want to assure you that we do not see this revenue bill as a
cure-all. Our aims go far beyond this. We do not intend to balance
future budgets by increasing taxes. Instead, we intend to balance them
by making government more economical, more frugal, more workable. Like
this year, next year--and the years following--will be years where we
do not intend to spend one dollar more of the people's money than is
necessary to conduct the people's business,
-2-
Let me digress for a moment. During the campaign, I became a kind
of Johnny-One-Note on the subject of government of, and by, the people--
of building what I called a Creative Society by turning to the great
power of the people instead of always creating additional bureaucracy.
There did not seem to be much of a quarrel with this idea. In fact,
once or twice I had to talk pretty loudly when it looked as if the
opposition had claimed squatters' rights on the idea and was making more
oise about it than I was. They even appointed a few citizens' com-
missions late in the campaign which, we hope, will surface one of these
days for refueling.
But some who listened and endorsed before November 8 were pretty
horrified to discover the campaign blossoms were bearing fruit. Some-
how they remind me of an incident which occurred early in World War II.
A shipload of canned fish was interned in an Italian port and,
when finally released for sale, the cargo brought $25,000. It was then
resold for $50,000, and, as the war years went on, that shipment of
canned fish kept changing hands until, finally, it brought $600,000.
The last purchaser opened a can and tried the fish. Enraged, he
got on the phone and demanded that something be done because the fish
was spoiled. And he was told by the man who sold it to him, "But that
fish isn't for eating; it's for selling!"
Well, our fish is for eating.
You would think that, when government can get things done without
adding to the burden of the taxpayers, everyone would be happy.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Some reactionaries still think
the only way to get things done is to soak the taxpayer--that, somehow,
it isn't legal unless it's compulsory.
In pointing up the potential of a Creative Society during the
campaign, attention was called to the cooperation between certain
government agencies and private industry which resulted in 17,800 jobs
for unemployed from the Watts curfew area in a 16-month period. These
jobs were in private industry and two-thirds of them are still filled.
Of the other one-third, half moved on to better jobs. The man who
spearheaded this is Mr. H.C. McClellan and he is at work now setting up
a similar program on a statewide basis at no expense to the taxpayers.
A Congressman from the area that benefitted most--motivated either by
partisanship or a philosophical refusal to approve of private industry
has attacked this program on the basis that only government jobs and
tax money should help the unemployed.
-3-
We have, as you know, a task force of 152 industrial and business
executives--the best and most successful in the state--who will be
working as full-time volunteers for the next several months. These
men are bringing their special knowledge, skill and experience to bear
on the structure of state government to tell us how we can bring modern
business practices to government agencies. This study, incidentally,
will cost the taxpayers only a few thousand dollars; the direct costs of
it are being underwritten by public-spirited members of business and
industry.
Strangely enough, some find something sinister in private citizens
wanting to help out. Some of those who talk about the civic duty of
citizens to contribute to Community Chest, an art museum or a music
center think, if those same citizens want to help the government under
which they live, they must have ulterior motives. Of course that is
right, if a desire for better government can be termed an ulterior
motive. Even some legislators are fearful that perhaps citizens
shouldn't be snooping around their own government.
The fish is for eating. We have called on our fellow citizens to
take time out from their own careers and business activities to man
the administrative posts of government. Nothing has ever made me so
proud as their response, No state government has ever recruited man-
power to match ours. We have found that in California we have many
men to match our mountains.
Other citizens will soon be embarked on a total study of our tax
structure. And one day, with their help, Californians may have a
logical, reasonable set of tax laws.
We have probably the most beautiful capitol of any of the states
and soon we will have a new residence for California' governors in
keeping with our California heritage. This, too, will be provided by
the people voluntarily. A bipartisan group has formed a non-profit
corporation to build, in the city of Sacramento, a dwelling to be
donated to the State of California for use as an official residence
for the governors. Gifts of not more than $500 and not less than $1
will be solicited on a broad statewide basis. Yet, even this has been
distorted to appear as if a small band of so-called "fat cats" are doing
something undercover and not quite nice.
Fortunately, the members of UROC, like most of our concerned
citizens, do not follow this line of thinking. We have been brought
together by a belief that one of our problems is too much government
and too much compulsion that we, as citizens, have a right to partici-
pate in our government in ways other than just paying taxes, running
office
secking
But suddenly some, who apparently shared this concept prior to
November 8, are opposed to the practice of that concept. Suddenly,
too, the concept of economy in government has also become wrong to
some, especially to some whose particular pet oxen have been gored by
some of the proposed economies.
Now our economies are not aimed at eliminating needed services or
programs. But they are aimed at trimming fat and waste, at cutting
out the frills, at keeping government at the size where it remains the
servant, and does not become the master, of the people.
And they are aimed at reducing the tax burden on the people. You
have read some of the things we are doing, and have heard the outcry
of the wounded. Five million dollars has been saved by cutting down
on out-of-state travel by public servants who like to roam
$20
million a year saved by cutting our unneeded workers in some of our
institutions where the number of patients has dwindled by 40 percent
but where, until now, there has been no reduction in the numbers of
employees. Only this week General Lolli, our new administrator of
General Services, sent me over a list of new savings totalling another
million dollars--mostly in little things, little things that really
add up.
Other millions are being saved because we have been able to persuade
our colleges and universities to face up to the fact that as public
institutions they have a public responsibility not to spend beyond
the public's means. And let me add here that I appreciate their
problems and the fact that they understand ours.
Now none of the things we have done should have surprised anyone,
for just as we promised to bring government back to the people, so did
we also promise to bring frugality and thrift back to government.
But we also promised to do this without hurting the truly needy
and the truly deserving. That is why extra funds for the crippled
children's program were approved
why money was left in the budget
for needed salary increases
why extra funds to help teachers who
retired on inadequate pensions and who have not had the raise needed
to combat inflation were provided why the state employment office
has been instructed to make special efforts to find jobs for those state
employees laid off through no fault of their own.
There were a few more promises, such as to take steps to cut
California's soaring crime rate. And I am pleased to note that part
of our anti-crime legislative package has already passed the Legislature.
These are bills increasing penalties for crimes of violence. I will
sign them next week.
-5-
Something was said also about eliminating government by hacks and
cronies and relatives--and, to date, my only brother hasn't even asked
for a job.
An issue discussed in the campaign was taking the appointment of
judges out of politics. Unfortunately, the Senate Governmental Effi-
ciency Committee has killed that bill for this session. But we will
resubmit it next year or in following years if necessary. In the
we have set up special screening committees composed of
meantime,/representatives of the bar associations, the presiding
judges of the various judicial districts and lay representatives to
insure that only qualified attorneys are picked as judges. To date,
we have slected only the number one recommendation for each judgeship.
There have been no exceptions.
In addition to proposed legislation that will take away the com-
pulsory aspects of the school district unification law and other laws
that have foisted costly programs on school districts without providing
the funds for their financing, we have made a start toward restoring
the 50-50 state and local financing of schools.
We are also moving forward on our agriculture program and on pro-
grams aimed at improving the business climate and at conserving our
land, air, water and oceanographic resources.
Do not be fooled by the special interest propagandists. We will
maintain our redwood forests, but we will not give them to the federal
government without getting something of equal value in return, and we
will not act in such a way as to endanger the economy of our north-
western California counties. And here we have the support of most of
our congressmen and legislators and have won concessions from those
federal agencies involved.
We will make provision for maintaining our wilderness areas, but
we will not blindly set aside huge tracts SO they cannot be used to
meet the recreational and industrial needs of our expanding population.
We will press ahead on our state water program, but we will also
cooperate in the fresh water program of the future--desalinization.
We will work to keep industry in California and to entice more
industry here, but we will also work to diversify industry and to
build new industries in new fields such as those offered by the ocean,
so that California will not continue to be so heavily dependent on de-
fense and other government contracts.
-6-
We will work to make and keep California number one not only
number one in terms of growth and economy, but also number one in
terms of the kind of government that best suits a free people--a
government oriented to their needs, but also a government oriented to
their rights and their responsibilities.
We will strive continually to make the state an effective bulwark
between the people and an ever-encroaching federal government. I still
believe that government is best which remains closest to the people,
but almost daily the Goliath that is the federal government moves to
gather more power unto itself and to minimize the functions of both
the Congress and the states. Those efforts will meet stern resistance
in California. This is one state that does not intend to become merely
an administrative adjunct of the federal government.
Recently, the President called the governors together to tell them
the federal government wished to work more closely with the states in
distributing federal monies and federal programs. This was followed
by a visit to California of a team of federal officials seeking closer
federal-state cooperation.
But, while federal officials were making promises to governors,
lower echelon officials were disclosing plans by the federal government
to bypass Sacramento in setting up new job programs and the Interior
Department was going ahead with its efforts to make Imperial Valley
farmers adhere to the outmoded 160-acre limitation.
It is not enough for our senators and our representatives to seek
to pass legislation involving the several states, they must also work
to insure that legislation does not infringe on the rights of the
individual states and they must be wary lest they trade those rights
for the federal dollar, which, after all, is merely what is left of
the citizen's dollar after it has been run through those puzzle palaces
on the Potomac.
I have met with our Congressman, on both sides of the aisle; I have
talked with both our Senators. I have assured all of them that the
administration in Sacramento will work with them and cooperate with
them wherever the interests of the state are involved.
I have urged them to guard carefully those interests against the
encroachments of the federal government. There is little use in saving
our freedom at the local and state levels if we lose it on the national
level. And it is people like you--dedicated, patriotic citizens, who
are needed to save freedom at all levels.
-7-
As
I
said
earlie-
tonight,
it
is
the
volunt
Republican
organi-
zations such as the UROC that have provided so many of the workers and
so much of the enthusiasm and support for our party in California.
All of us, including myself, have much to be grateful to you for.
We could not have won without you last November, nor will we know
victory in 1968 without your wholehearted and undivided support.
But do we want to be like the nostalgic old grad who lives in the
fading memory of one championship team, or do we look ahead and
anticipate successive new victories?
To any who would live in the past--just remember, that past in-
cludes bitter defeats between 1958 and 1964. We could not have won
in 1966 if we had stooped to the intraparty warfare that characterized
our years of defeat.
We have not won a war, or even complete victory in a battle. We
stopped our opponent's advance and halted our own retreat. But that
is all. Let me remind you: we did not win control of the Assembly;
we did not win control of the Senate; we did not win the office of
Attorney General even though we had good candidates and good
organization.
The 11th Commandment kept our party unified; but we were, and are
still, a minority party. There is still much to be done in party
building, in convincing independents and members of the opposing party
that the course we chart leads to fiscal sanity, strong local government
and individual rights and responsibilities,
Maybe there once was a time when our two-party system was less a
difference in philosophy than a contest between partisans loyal to the
old school tie, but that is not true today. Last November, millions of
people voted to change, or at least pause to review, the philosophy
of the party leadership then in power. They did not just decide to
change hats and join the other club for a while.
Fortunately, for those millions of concerned citizens, we too had
paused to take inventory. We discovered we could no longer afford the
luxury of internal fighting, backbiting and throatcutting. We dis-
covered our philosophical difference with those presently in power was
greater than any grudge or split within our own ranks. We were ready
and in position to offer an alternative for those concerned citizens
who wanted to join with others, not to win a contest, but to preserve
a way of life,
-8-
We must keep the door open--offering our party as the only prac-
tical answer for those who, overall, are individualists. And because
this is the great common denominator--this dedication to the belief
in man's aspirations as an individual--we cannot offer them a narrow
sectarian party in which all must swear allegiance to prescribed
commandments.
Such a party can be highly disciplined, but it does not win
elections. This kind of party soon disappears in a blaze of glorious
defeat, and it never puts into practice its basic tenets, no matter
how noble they may be.
The Republican Party, both in this state and nationally, is a
broad party. There is room in our tent for many views; indeed, the
divergence of views is one of our strengths. Let no one, however,
interpret this to mean compromise of basic philosophy or that we will
be all things to all people for political expediency.
In our tent will be found those who believe that government was
created by "We, the People"; that government exists for the people
and we can give to government no power we do not possess as individuals;
that the citizen does not earn to support government, but supports
government so that he may be free to earn; that, because there can be
no freedom without law and order, every act of government must be
approved if it makes freedom more secure and disapproved if it offers
security instead of freedom.
Within our tent, there will be many arguments and divisions over
approach and method and even over the men and women we choose to
implement our philosophy. Seldom, if ever, will we raise a cheer
signifying unanimous approval of the decisions reached. But if our
philosophy is to prevail, we must at least pledge unified support of
the ultimate decision. Unity does not require unanimity of thought.
And here is the challenge to you. It is the duty and responsibility
of the volunteer Republican organizations, not to further divide, but
to lead the way to unity. As duly chartered Republican organizations,
we all can advance our particular sectarianism or brand of candidates
for the party to pass on openly and freely in a primary election.
But, as volunteer organizations, we must always remain in a
position that will let us effectively support the candidates chosen
by the entire party in a primary. To do less is a disservice to the
party and, more importantly, to the cause in which we all believe.
Our 11th Commandment is perhaps more profound than we realize.
-9-
"Thou shall not speak ill of any Republican." To do so means we are
inhibited in the support we can give that Republican if he should
become the nominee of our party. Certainly our task is harder if we
must challenge and refute charges made by our opponents if those
charges were first uttered by us. I am proud that UROC and UROC's
president-- Joe Crosby--subscribe wholeheartedly to that commandment.
It is my belief that, as governor, I should neither endorse a pri-
mary candidate nor involve myself behind the scenes in primary
campaigning. To do so is a misuse of the office with which I have
been entrusted. When the primary is over, I believe I have a commit-
ment--a contract if you will--to wholeheartedly support every candidate
chosen by the party.
You, on the other hand, as individuals and as an organization,
should be SO involved. You, by your membership in a volunteer group,
have proven you are activists--leaders in furthering the philosophy
which brings us together. You must, therefore, be leaders in setting
campaign standards--ready to endorse the party choice--just as ready
to repudiate any candidate or campaign which refuses to abide by those
standards.
Fight as hard in next year's primaries as you can for your
candidates, but be against only those we must defeat in November of
1963. Let no opposition candidate quote your words in the general
election to advance statism or the philosophy of those who have lost
confidence in man's capacity for self-rule.
Just a year ago, we were a party almost totally without power.
The two-party system existed only in theory. Out of sheer necessity,
we achieved unity and victory. With that victory, we bought time--
time to rally our forces for what may be our last chance.
# # #
-10-
An ancient Irish king, Brian Boru, once ordered the tide
to halt, and when it would not, he had it beaten with chains
to no avail.
We cannot order the tide of statism to halt but by our
victories and by living up to our philosophy and our commitments
to the people, we can reverse it.
And we can bring in a new tide on which will ride our
concept of responsible, people-oriented government that works
as the founding fathers meant it to work.
But if we are to do so we cannot wait for the changes
in the moon or count on the opposition to destroy itself.
Instead we must continue to unite together and work to-
gether and then, God willing, together we can watch our tide
sweep across the land.
# # #
-11-
91/5
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: FLAT A.M.'S
Sacramento, California
WEDNESDAY, MAY 17
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
445-4571
5.16.67
ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN - MERCHANTS
AND MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL BANQUET,
BILTMORE BOWL - Los Angeles - May 16, 1966 1967
I don't care what the father of two eastern senators said
about
businessmen-
I like you and I'm pleased to be here.
S.O.B. does mean sons of business and without you and your
fathers and grandfathers, this great nation would still be an agrarian
nation, living mainly off the fruits of the land and largely by the
sweat of our brows and looking to others to provide us with the good
things of life.
Backward nations are backward and undeveloped nations
are undeveloped not because of their climate and not because of their
soil, but instead, for two other reasons:
--First, because of their political systems. Either they are
too unstable like many of today's so-called emerging nations or else
they are in the grip of modern day feudalism such as Russia's or China's.
--Second, because they lack both the knowhow and the political
system necessary to build business, industry and commerce.
In the United States we have been blessed, not alone by our
natural resources--other nations have great resources, too, but by our
people the world's most industrious, ingenious, enterprising and
inventive and by our political system-one of the few devised by man
that is both stable and free.
Stable enough to let a prosperous economy evolve and free
enough to allow initative and ingenuity to triumph over the dead hand
of bureaucracy and regulation.
Now, before someone reads narrow chauvinism into this, let me
assure you I'm well aware that the typical American is an immigrant or
descendant of immigrants from any and every country of the world. The
new dimension here that made his accomplishment possible was the subject
of study by Herbert Hoover who declared the answer lay in one thing
"freedom." Here we unleashed the genius of every man by giving him
freedom to an extent never known before by man anywhere.
Today, unfortunately, we see that freedom slowly vanishing on
many fronts all in the name of the common good---and stability sorely
threatened by a political and social climate that acknowledges the rights
of the individual, but not his responsibilities.
I know, those advocates of big government and more government
controls point with pride at the state of the economy today.
Well, I say that the economy is as good as it is today, not
because of government rules and regulations and nit-picking, but in
spite of it.
The best testimony as to the vitality of American business
and industry and the competence of the American businessman and
industrialist is that they have managed to survive the rules and
regulations with which they have been harassed for the last 35 years.
It makes you wonder just how good business would be, just how
much more industry and agriculture would be producing if they weren't
hindered and hampered at every turn.
If they weren't burdened by regressive taxes, swamped with
government-ordered paper work and threatened by thousands of rules and
regulations promulgated by hundreds of unrelated, uncoordinated agencies
at every level of government.
It makes you wonder how much better off we would be as
individuals if government weren't prying and poking into every nook
and corner of our daily lives. Actually, there are answers if we' 11
only pay them heed--that percentage of agriculture regimented for more
than 3 decades has declined steadily in the per-capita consumption of
its produce--the larger unregulated percentage has increased per capita
consumption of its produce 30 percent.
Take the war on poverty---a matchless boondoggle, full of
sound and fury, but still with no record of accomplishment to point to.
No one quarrels with the announced humanitarian goals, only with the
abandonment of tried and true principles and the seeming belief that
no answer is satisfactory unless it is a government answer.
The latest is a multi-million dollar scheme to set the Zuni
Indians up in a cooperative store to retail their handcraft jewelry.
If it works (and the government says it will), they'll gross $150,000
a year. Overlooked is the pertinent fact that the Zunis on their own
already are doing $2 million a year in the sale of their jewelry.
With some understandable satisfaction a month or two ago, we
vetoed a project in California to teach people how to picket and
demonstrate.
For two hundred years, American business and industry have
fought the greatest war on poverty the world has ever known.
At the height of the great depression it was employing ninety
percent of the nation's workers.
There were proposals then, you know, to help industry employ
the other 10 percent. But the political climate shifted and we went
instead to the handout, the dole and make-work projects, government-
sponsored and government-run.
And the only way we eliminated those, the only way we recovered
under that approach was to become involved in a war.
And the only way that approach still keeps the economy running
high is by way of war, known today as police actions.
It should be obvious by now, although it doesn't seem to be
in some quarters that there must be another and better way.
It should be obvious by now that a self-annointed group of
experts operating out of either Washington or Sacramento cannot have
all the answers to the problems that beset us.
And it should also be obvious that the sophisticated approach
of seeking complicated answers by government to complicated problems
isn't necessarily the best approach.
Those of us who do not see a panacea in the approach of big
brother and big government are often accused of over-simplifying, of
not being aware of the complexities of modern day life.
I reject that thesis.
But I do say there are simple answers to many of our problems--
simple but hard.
Answers that mean we, as a people, turn to government only to
help solve those problems we cannot solve ourselves. That we turn to
local government, then to state government and only as a last resort
do we turn to Washington.
These are answers that say the government handout and the
government regulation are not the answer. These are answers that say
the solutions to the people's problems lie with the people, that the
people have genius and courage to solve their own problems.
This is what I meant when I talked about the creative society
during the campaign last fall. This is what I mean today.
Government must help, surely, government often must show the
way and government may coordinate. But government must not supersede
the will of the people or the responsibilities of the people. The
function of government is not to confer happiness, but to give men the
opportunity to work out happiness for themselves.
The theory of Communism holds that government eventually will
wither away. The theory of Socialism says that government is the answer
to all the people's problems.
The theory of the creative society says that government is
best when kept closest to and most responsive to the people.
And that is the direction in which we are attempting to move
in Sacramento.
And that is why you have been hearing in recent months the
outraged and anguished screams of those who do not trust the people to
govern themselves.
Most of you know of our government efficiency task force that
is studying state government in order to make it more efficient, more
economical and better able to cope with the people's needs.
In fact, many of you and your firms have lent us some of the
nearly 200 top-flight executives we have working on the project.
You would think--as I have thought--I guess we're all pretty
naive sometimes--that the willingness of business, of industry, of
private citizens to volunteer their time and their money to help their
state would win unanimous approval.
This is not the case.
We have some of those disciples of "big government knows best"
on our backs.
They don't think private citizens should be messing around
with their government. They don't think you and I have any real right
to know what's going on there.
And they're suspicious of their fellow citizens who want to
save the taxpayers money instead of spend it. They cannot conceive of
how an efficient government could still be a government responsive to
the people's needs.
Well, we have heard the criticism. And I can assure you that
this non-partisan group--made up of both Republicans and Democrats--is
going to continue with its task.
Let me note here that it is making progress and that it is
receiving excellent cooperation from the various departments of
government.
I am grateful to Kenneth Pryor who is heading the task force
and to all those helping him.
-4-
I am proud of those loyal, dedicated civil servants who make
government function through thick and thin and who are cooperating to
the best of their ability with Mr. Pryor.
And I am proud, too, that our approach to government has set
a tone within the ranks of our civil servants that is different
healthily different from past years.
Do you know that during the first three months of this year
we paid out more than six times as much money as was paid last year as
rewards for labor-saving and cost-saving suggestions. And we've had
triple the number of suggestions we had last year under an administra-
tion with another approach to government.
But our task force is not alone in seeking to streamline
state government.
Our General Services Administration under General Andrew Lolli
is doing a tremendous job.
Almost every week the general sends in a list of savings
accomplished by increased efficiencies and better business practices.
Some are little, some are big.
For instance, on May 1st the General told us his department
has disposed of enough real property this year to net the state nearly
$664 thousand. In contrast, he saved another $2100 by consolidating
bids on 22 refrigerators and freezers.
He also adopted a device invented by an employee that will
save $81,600 this year in the production of textbooks.
These are only a sample of the savings he has accomplished.
Some more of a major nature are in the works. And the General
is not alone.
Just last week the Department of Public Works told us we will
save $14 million next year by not filling 1,224 budgeted positions.
In the last four months alone the hiring freeze in Public
Works has saved $900,000.
You remember that California road map with the picture of a
California governor on it? Well, there won't be a governor's picture
on those maps any more---in fact, there won't be any maps and that
will save us $192,000 a year.
With the help of the Telephone Company, we've also looked at
our telephone system. Some people had gotten pretty fancy lots of
extra phones, lots of fancy hookups. We're doing away with what we
don't need and the minimum saving will be half a million dollars a year.
When we set out to trim the fat from government spending,
we aimed for an average cutback of 10 percent per department, realizing,
of course, that each department would vary.
As a result of those early efforts, we got an eight-and-a-half
percent average reduction.
But then we discovered all the snipers in this country don't
carry rifles. Some of them give speeches or write editorials. And the
were quick to point the finger and the pen at that 8½¹₂ percent and to say
that we had found we couldn't do it. Well, you can let the seeds spoil
your enjoyment of watermelon, or you can just spit em out.
I can assure you tonight we will have that 10 percent and more.
The cuts I've told you about today are in addition to that 81/2 percent.
And there will be more.
Your state government can be run efficiently and we intend
that it will be.
But all our emphasis has not been on cuts and economies. This
is not a negative administration; this is an administration that is
working and will continue to work to meet the needs of the state and
help the people solve their problems.
Now I recognize that not a great deal of legislation imple-
menting our campaign promises has come down from the Legislature. And
perhaps we won't get all or even most this year of what we are seeking.
But let me tell you, we 11 keep trying until we do. We
think the people are behind what we are trying to do and perhaps they' 11
make some changes next year to help us get it.
Fortunately, much of what must be done can be done by execu-
tive action and this is how we're doing it.
I needn't burden you with the details of what Chad McClellan
did in Watts more than 17,000 persons placed in jobs in less than a
year or go into the details of his statewide operation.
But I would like to say that in the Bay Area alone he has
signed up 1,500 businesses and industries to participate in his progra
In addition, we are actively working on programs to provide
summer jobs both in and out of government for students.
Let me digress a moment. I've often thought that the federal
government in its desire to provide cradle-to-grave care for our citizens
is one of the big reasons for juvenile delinquency. If it is true that
idle hands do the devil's work, the opposite also is true a kid working
after school or during the summer doesn't have much time to get in
trouble or even much time to think about getting in trouble.
But a kid standing on the corner watching all the girls go
by may also decide to steal a car to take one of them out.
Once upon a time it was easy for a teenager to get a part-time
job because it was easy for a merchant, or a manufacturer to hire him.
But that's no longer true.
Rigid minimum wage laws, high union scales, and the mass of
paperwork involved in withholding taxes, social security, insurance
and the rest make it difficult to hire anyone on a part-time basis.
This is largely a federally-made problem and it's one we' 11
be lucky if we live long enough to see the federal government solve.
But if it were possible to hire a kid and pay him out of the
day's receipts without going through all the paperwork and regulations,
a lot more teenagers and students could get jobs.
They talk about complex problems. I say we have made many
simple problems complex and incapable of simple solution.
Well, let me get back to some of the things we are trying to
do for California, Californians and California's business and industry.
Without going into detail, we are working hard in several
critical areas.
We are working with the construction industry to see what can
be done to revitalize it. This is one of California's major industries
and it has been hurting. And when it hurts, all of California's economy
suffers. We think we see daylight ahead.
We are putting together a transportation committee that will
look at California's entire transportation picture and will make
specific recommendations not only to the states, but also to the
communities. Rapid transit, freeway construction, air travel, rail
travel, all will be studied. But mostly this committee will put together
and sift all the studies that have already been made.
In agriculture, Earl Coke already is at work with the entire
agri-business community to minimize the economic damage caused by crop
losses brought about by late rains and flooding conditions.
We have reactivated and will revitalize the governor's
Advisory Commission on Ocean Resources with the long-range aim of im-
proving our ocean-oriented industries and developing new ones.
These are some of the things we are doing that look to the
future.
-7-
But we are also working for the present.
Our Parks Department this year is opening many new park areas
and hundreds of new camping sites.
We are working with the federal government toward a Redwood
National Park, and we have made a major breakthrough in federal-state
relations in this area. Fortunately, we didn't know you couldn't get
the federal government to give up federally-owned land in exchange for
our state-owned land, so now the federal government will repay us in
kind for the land they take for parks and we have assurances that the
lumbering industry we dispossess will be given federal timber lands
nearby, thus saving the area's economy.
We have won federal agreement for a road to the new Mineral
King recreational development that will provide hundreds of new jobs.
The list is not endless, but we have made a start in many
areas. We have started to work to build our state's economy. We have
started to return state government to the people and to make it once
again the servant of the people.
And we have used the strength of the state to seek and get
better treatment and more recognition from the federal government.
And this is only the beginning.
We will push forward on all these fronts and elsewhere.
For if we succeed here, if we show we can build a creative
society at the state level, we can start a prairie fire that will sweep
this country clean of big brother government and again permit government
of and by the people to grow and flourish.
Our goal is as it has always been--freedom--and whatever the
price, it's less than the cost of doing without it.
Freedom rests, and it always has, on individual responsibility,
individual integrity, individual effort, individual courage and, yes,
individual religious faith.
Yes, we'll make mistakes, but I figure a mistake is evidence
that someone stopped talking and tried doing something.
# # #
-8-
06/9
Address by Governor Ronald Reagan
Chico State College
Installation of President Robert Hill
May 20, 1967
(transcript of a tape recording)
Chancellor Dumke, thank you. President Hill, my distin-
guished colleagues up here on the top shelf, I am glad that I
am backed here today by two of your very able representatives
in Sacramento, Senator Marler and Assemblyman Johnson. I feel
greatly honored to be present at the investiture of a new presi-
dent of Chico State College. I have been on a number of campuses
lately in effigy; it is nice to be here in the flesh. This is
not my first visit to Chico but it is to the State College campus.
As a matter of fact, I remember during the campaign I saw a
great deal of Chico--running around town trying to find where
they had taken my rented car that had been towed away.
I was amused also in some of the remarks made here to
discover how much we have in common. When the Chancellor spoke
of the peaks and the valleys I was wondering just how many of
the audience had me in the valley at the moment and whether
anyone had me at a peak. I also was interested to note that
the term "honeymoon" had been used, and I didn't realize that
the president and I had SO much in common. If his honeymoon has
been like mine, I am sure both of us have a suspicion that
romance is dead in California. It is interesting also to note
that the last swearing-in that I participated in took place at
,-2-
midnight, and now I have moved up to mid-day in the case of the
president of the college;
evidently outgoing presidents
don't appoint judges.
But I am sure that the president and I have more than this in
common. You know, I have learned that there is a little bit of
protocol in my office. I didn't know that this was true, but
it seems that everyone who enters my office must enter reciting
a certain phrase- "we have a problem." And I discover that the
"we" is all inclusive; I am in that "we," and involved in the
problem. One day when things looked pretty dark up there,
very dark as a matter of fact, some one of the staff said to me
"well cheer up, things could be worse" and so I cheered up and
sure enough they got worse.
But you know, I think we do have more in common than just
misery. Both of us have a responsibility for a great educational
system and the part it plays in our State of California. The
people of this state have made it abundantly clear that they
are aware of the importance of education. As a matter of fact,
in just these last few years from the beginning of this decade,
while our State budget for general fund spending has doubled,
the budget for our state college system has tripled.
The original purpose of public educational systems was to
provide an education for those who were unable to finance one
in the existing independent colleges and universities. California
has gone farther. We have a three-phase program-three sections
to our higher educational system.
'-3-
A junior college system carries out the original concept
of providing education for all. The University accepts the
responsibility for extended graduate training and research, and a
truly great college system, of which this beautiful campus is
a part, offers a premium type education to exceptionally qualified
undergraduates. Now, both the University and Colleges emphasize
individual scholactic ability rather than lack of ability to
pay. I doubt if anyone would suggest that we return, in all
three phases of this system, to that original concept of simply
basing qualifications for the University on inability to provide
an education for one's self. At the same time I doubt if anyone
should say that we would stand still and make no effort to chart
new paths.
Now, while it would be extravagant and foolish to let the
colleges and universities duplicate each other's functions (for
the colleges for example to usurp the functions of the university
system), I see no reason why, when a State College does become
in fact a university, that the State College should be denied
the right to take the title of university instead of college.
Reference was made to an area to which Glenn Dumke and
I are in great agreement. The colleges are bound down by a
budget system which will give the new president no flexibility
whatsoever in the use of funds provided for the running of his
school a line-item budget in which every dollar itemized must
be spent for that item with no opportunity to change course in
the middle of the year, or if an emergency arises, or to use
-4-
the dollars more advantageously if one can see a way to do that.
While it would require legislation, I, as the Governor, will
support every effort to provide the State Colleges with a pro-
gram-type budget so that this flexibility will be there, so that
those entrusted with administering the college are able to use
their judgment, within, of course, those reasonable limits imposed
by the Trustees. This is especially important when the funds
fall short and we are unable to do all that we would like to do,
which I think is all the time.
The problem of financing this educational program grows
greater, and it grows greater nationwide. A number of foundations
have announced studies into the future financing of higher edu-
cation; without exception those studies have indicated that our
traditional method of financing through general tax funds is
now, or soon will be, inadequate if the quality of education
is to be maintained. In California our situation is already
at the emergency red point. We have a fiscal crisis brought
on by years of faulty tailoring. Someone left a hole in the
pocket. Now our citizens are paying the highest tax rate of
any people anywhere in the United States, and they are going
to be forced to accept an even additional burden in the coming
year because of this faulty tailoring. The alternative of
reducing the quality of education is unthinkable. It leaves
us with no other choice but to sew up the hole in the pocket
and to explore every possibility for other sources of revenue.
-5-
It was in this frame of reference that a suggestion was
made to ask those receiving education to share at least in a
portion of its cost; and let me point out that any such move, I
have always insisted, must be accompanied by a plan that insures
that no qualified student should be denied an education because
of his inability to pay his share. I have asked the educational
community to join in exploring a variety of methods to implement
this, ranging from scholarships to "learn now--pay later" schemes
or a combination of both or whatever new we come up with; and
none of this was new with us. Indeed our own Coordinating Council
for Higher Education has studied this problem and my predecessor
made it known that he held the belief that the imposition of
such a sharing of the cost was inevitable. It just happened
to be my luck that "inevitable," like the present summer weather,
came a little early.
But aside from the fiscal need, I would like to touch on
this subject from the philosophical view point. Cries have
been raised that we always have had free education in California.
Well, I challenge this. Our students at present pay a portion
of their education through fees, student fees. What has been
suggested is not so much a drastic departure as an increase
in what has already been going on.
To those who base their argument on the 99-year tradition
of "free education," may I suggest that perhaps we have a
greater tradition, one of self-reliance, of personal strength
and integrity, and the tradition that those who can pay more,
-6-
do so, to make it possible for those less fortunate to share
in our bounty. And I think it is time to switch to that greater
tradition.
Today there is great concern among my generation
that an era of permissiveness has resulted in unrest among our
young people. But just to keep things in balance there is a
wide-spread feeling among our young people that no one over 30
understands them. I would like to point out that understanding
is a two-way street. I would think that for our young people
intellectual curiosity alone would prompt the students to do
a little research in that older generation. After all there is
one attractive thing we have to look at; we are the only ones
in this confrontation who have been both ages.
Now it might be reassuring to the young to know as they
start to catch up with us, that growing old isn't bad when you
consider the alternative. You know, I have no apology to make
for our generation. Mistakes we've made to be sure. We haven't
achieved all that we would like to have achieved. But still
we are a generation that has lived through three world wars and
a cataclysmic depression that shook the very foundation of our
nation. I believe basically our generation has remained
true to our belief in simple justice. We have remained com-
passionate to those less fortunate. We have stood firm in our
duties to those who would come after us. At the same time, let
me say, on behalf of you here in this yuunger generation, I
think all of us are frank to admit you have more knowledge
than we had at your age, are far better informed, and you are
-7-
far more aware of the winds that are swirling about and bringing
changes in this world of ours. So I think with good will on
both sides there are plenty of areas where we can get together.
There are those who employ academic freedom as justification
for a license to go their way without interference, and under
this high-sounding term the idea has been advanced that students
and faculty should determine all educational policy without
restraint. It is an interesting note that this is advanced as
something new, as progress toward the future. In truth it is a
return to something we knew in the medieval times. Back in the
11th century the University of Bologna had given so much authority
in this way to the students that they could punish professors for
being tardy, for not teaching as the students decreed they
should teach. The students had the right to mark off the pages
of the text books and to insist that the professors keep up and
teach day by day as they had marked off the book. They even
granted vacations, set pay scales, and hired and fired.
Now the teachers have understandably interpreted academic
freedom to be their right to teach without political interference.
In a sense of using education to promote
partisan political
viewpoints there can be no quarrel with this. Contrary to some
of the charges that have been leveled in a kind of emotional
atmosphere in the last few months I want to assure you that my
administration will resist any attempt to inject politics into
our higher educational system and indeed we will work to remove
any customs that have been inherited from the past which have
-8-
allowed a political foot in the door in this partisan sense in
higher education.
But I think there is a third element in academic freedom.
In addition to the rights of the students to learn, and the
teachers to teach, there is the right of society to insist the
educational system it supports will further the goals and the
aspirations and the moral principles and precepts of that society.
There is no question that the publicly-supported colleges and
universities contributed to the emerging greatness not only of
California but also of our nation, and that is good; but we
have a right to insure that they do not, in some far-out inter-
pretation of "freedom," weaken the social structure essential
to the nation's strength and to the perpetuation of these very
educational institutions.
In short, our great educational institutions exist, not for
the teacher or for the student alone, but for all of society.
We have in California a piece of legisation born of the
people's right to know, and I would like to quote to you the
preamble because it is so much more than just an introduction
to a piece of legislation. It says "The people of this state do
not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public
servant the right to decide what is good for the people to know
and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on
remaining informed SO they may retain control over the instruments
that they have created."
-9-
In contrast to the permissiveness I have mentioned and which
concerns SO many of us today, I would like to point out a state-
ment made by the late Winston Churchill. He said "When great
forces are on the move in the world we learn we are spirits, not
animals." There is something going on in time and space and beyond
time and space which, whether we like it or not, spells duty. It
is adherence to this sense of duty that has made us of another
generation provide these educational insitutions. And we have a
right to hope that the young people taking advantage of them will
pick up, when their time comes, that sense of duty and perpetuate
them, perpetuate them in a spirit of learning and research and not
in furthering propaganda or partisan viewpoints.
Reference was made earlier to the television broadcast I
participated in the other night. I don't know how many of you
saw it; it was shocking, at least to one of us on that program,
to hear these educated young people from universities all over
the world in their diatribes against this country and the great
outburst of anti-Americanism. My first reaction was they had
been brainwashed. Then my second reaction was we had failed
somehow to sell our image; but I think perhaps if part of either
of those views is true, there is another (that could be of
more concern to us) that perhaps we ourselves in recent years
have blurred our image.
We tried to buy love in the world when we should have
been earning respect. We have been SO obsessed with mass
movements, we have forgotten the sanctity of the individual,
and have forgotten that this country unlike almost every country
-10-
in the world was founded on the belief--not of the common man--
but founded on the belief that each one of us is an individual.
They talk of the common man. Yes, we are common men,
common in our determination to provide justice, a common view-
point with regard to compassion for our fellow men, our willing-
ness to lend a helping hand, and a common determination in
the preservation of our individual freedom, and that leads
us to the fact that actually we are uncommon people.
We, or those who came here in our families ahead of us,
had only in common a great desire for individual freedom and
the courage to go abraod in the world seeking it. When we are
sick we want an uncommon doctor, when we are at war we want
uncommon generals and admirals, when we pick a college presi-
dent we want an uncommon educator and administrator for that job.
I think what I would say, if I could to the young people
present, that all we ask of you is to weigh carefully all of the
ideas that are being advanced for your consideration and your well
being. Weigh them and if at any time they offer something that
seems to spell out some kind of freedom from some disaster,
some freedom or security, but in return you must give up some
of your right to choose as an individual then you make your mind
up that the price is too high. We are a compassionate people.
I believe we should keep forever our tradition of building a
floor beneath which no human being should live in degredation.
But I think that if you are true to the heritage we are trying
to pass on to you, you will insist at all times that you have
-11-
a sacred right to fly as high and as far as your own strength
and ability will take you, and that is the national purpose of
this country, and that national purpose should be upheld at all
times by the educational institutions of this country.
Again my congratulations to you and to your new president.
My thanks for being here.
###
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
445-4571
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
.6-1-67
SUPPLEMENTARY TAX MESSAGE TO THE LEGISLATURE
To the Senate and Assembly of the Legislature of California:
In conformity with established practice, the Department of
Finance in May updated its General Fund revenue estimates for the
current fiscal year and for the 1967-68 budget period in the light
of recent developments. Director of Finance Gordon P. Smith reports
that cash receipts in the present year will be $47.6 million below
the projections made last December, and that the budget year will
fall short of expectations by $41.5 million, despite a probable
improvement in business activity.
This adjustment in the estimate of current receipts also
necessitates a $10 million decrease in the estimate of revenue to
be received under the tax program which I recommended to you on
March 8, 1967. Therefore, total reduction in General Fund cash
income available to finance the 1967-68 budget is $99.1 million.
Details of the many revisions making up this total are shown in two
tables accompanying this message.
As a result of this change, we are confronted with two
alternative choices of action: a further reduction in the proposed
expenditure program or adjustments in the recommended tax program
for 1967-68.
I anticipate that further savings will result from the
intensive study being made of California's expenditure program by
our organized task forces of businessmen. But this will require
time, careful analysis and coordinated adjustments in many areas of
State activity. A further cost reduction of $100 million, however,
cannot be achieved immediately.
I wish to reemphasize the important need for property tax
relief as described in my Tax Message of March 8, and further urge
that the recommended program not be eliminated as a means of
adjustment for the revenue loss. California stands first among the
states in property tax collections per capita.
(M 0 R E)
We lead the major industrial states in the ratio of property
taxes to personal income. Rather than retreat from the goal of
tax relief, we must lay plans now to expand the program in 1968-69,
not only for the homeowner but also to seek methods which will make
this State more attractive to business and industry. Only in this
way can we expect to create the 250,000 new jobs required annually
to accommodate our continuing population growth.
We must, therefore, select the second of the choices available
to us: an expansion in our recommended tax program. To that end,
I propose adopting the following changes in the tax provisions of
Senate Bill 556 by Senator George Deukmejian:
Estimated Revenue
1967-68 in millions
Cash
Accrual
1.
Adopt the federal realty transfer
tax when that levy terminates
January 1, 1968
$ 5.0
$ 7.5
2.
Conform the present $4,000 annual
gift tax exclusion to the federal
allowances of $3,000
0.7
0.7
3.
Raise the insurance gross premiums
tax from 2.33% to 2.6%, the level
which prevailed from 1921 to 1943.
17.5
21.5
4.
Extend the sales and use tax to:
(a) Services involving repairs to
tangible personal property.
Such activities are now taxable
as to parts used in repairs and
alterations.
35.0
42.0
(b) Sales of gas and electricity
for other than residential
use.
45.0
60.0
TOTALS
$103.2
$131.7
It is estimated that these changes will produce approximately
$150 million in 1968-69. Consequently, it will both meet the $99.1
million gap between expenditure proposals and anticipated revenues,
and also will help place us on a pay-as-you-go basis for State
capital outlay expenditures in 1968-69. This has been an
expressed objective of the Legislature for several years.
Extension of the sales tax to repair services and to sales of
gas and electricity (non-residential uses) also will make possible
additional revenue for counties and cities under the Bradley-Burns
Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Act. The $25 million of potential
local government receipts from these sources will relieve to come
intense pressure of property tax levies and will
However, it will be necessary to enact enabling legislation
to allow amendments to county and city sales tax ordinances.
These ordinances should be amended immediately, and I ask that you
adopt the enabling legislation as an urgency matter.
We cannot delay action which will place this State on
a sound financial basis. The State's revenue problem has been
recognized for several years by responsible people in government
and in the private sector of our economy. With this objective in
mind, I urgently recommend your favorable action on the proposals
I have made.
Respectfully,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
# # #
-3-
TABLE 1
REVISED ESTIMATES OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE
1966-67 AND 1967-68
ACCRUAL BASIS
(In thousands)
Source
1966-67
1967-68
Tax or Other
Budget*
Revised
Change
Budget*
Revised
Change
Alcoholic beverages:
Amount
%
Amount %
Beer and wine
$14,700
$14,514
-$186
-1.3
$14,240
$14,100
-$140
-1.0
Distilled spirits
65,950
64,625
-1,325
-2.0
64,350
62,800
-1,550 -2.4
License fees
3,445
3,445
-
-
3,480
3,482
+2
I
Bank and corporation
476,500
462,000
-14,500
-3.0
454,000
430,000
-24,000 -5.3
Cigarette
78,200
78,300
100 0.1
77,050
76,500
-550 -0.7
Gift
10,200
8,800
-1,400-13.7
10,050
10,150
100
1.0
Horseracing
40,032
39,857
-175 -0.4
44,991
44,450
-541 -1.2
Inheritance
142,500
129,000
-13,500 -9.5
127,500
123,800
-3,700 -2.9
Insurance
136,900
141,700
4,800
3.5
117,300
122,250
4,950
4.2
Personal income
538,900**
523,900
-15,000
-2.8
554,100
546,900
-7,200
-1.3
Private car
2,481
2,477
-4 -0.1
2,700
2,750
50
1.9
Sales and use
1,234,700
1,217,200
-17,500
-1.4
1,138,600
1,127,400
-11,200
-1.0
Total taxes
$2,744,508
$2,685,818
-$58,690
-2.2
$2,608,361
$2,564,582
-$43,779 -1.7
Other revenue
135,991
143,582
7,591
5.6
117,527
123,168
5,641
4.8
Total revenue
$2,880,499
$2,829,400
-$51,099
-1.8
$2,725,889
$2,687,750
-$38,139 -1.4
Totals, Cash basis
$2,620,088
$2,572,500
-$47,588
-1.8
$2,710,359
$2,668,880
-$41,479 -1.5
*As shown in Schedule 2A of the 1967-68 Budget.
**As adjusted by provisions of Chapter 44, Statutes of 1967.
TABLE 2
REVISED ESTIMATES OF ADDITIONAL
GENERAL FUND REVENUE UNDER THE
GOVERNOR'S TAX RECOMMENDATIONS
(SENATE BILL 556)
(In Millions)
1967-68
1968-69
Tax
Cash
Accrual
Cash
Accrual
ales and use--1% increase
$321
$374
$400
$400
Distilled spirits--75$ per gal. increase
30
33
34
34
Tobacco:
Cigarettes - 3½¢ increase
72*
78*
79
79
Cigars and smoking tobacco - 25%
wholesale price
13+
13+
12+
12+
Bank and corporation
1% rate increase
87
87
70
70
Personal income--increase from adjusting
bracket structure, raising maximum rate
to 10%, and adopting credits in lieu of
exemptions
332
355
385
390
Totals
$855
$940
$980
$985
Change from original estimate
-10
-6
0
0
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
RELEASE: FLAT A.M. 'S
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7
445-4571
ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
MARINE TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY BANQUET
San Diego - June 6, 1967
I am not here tonight to speak as a would be expert in a highly
varied and highly technical field.
Neither am I here to look into what I am certain will be an
exciting future rivaling or exceeding anything dreamed Af by Jules
Verne or even seen on television.
But I do want to look for a few moments at the many areas that
encompass the bread field of Oceanography, to look at some of the
challenges that face us and to tell you how we in California hope
to face up to those challenges.
Oceanography has important long range implications to the
U.S. and to the world, and especially to those areas bordering An
the seas.
There is little argument that sea water, sea life, both plant
and animal, and sea bottoms contain the potential vastly to expand
our food production, our mineral production and in general the
world's wealth.
And, of course, advancing technology makes it increasingly
apparent that the oceans in the not tee distant future can supply
major amounts of potable water to our coastal areas.
Here in California where we have large water-short areas
we are vitally interested in desalinization concepts and processes.
We have watched with deep interest the progress made in recent
years in bringing down the price of desalinized water to the point
where today it is becoming feasible to use it in our city water
systems.
In fact if the off-shore plant which will function from a
man-made island off Huntington Beach operates as expected when
completed in 1972, we will finally have what is pretty close to a
major breakthrough in the production of fresh water -- 20 cents for
every thousand gallens, and 150 million gallons of water a day.
Since water is of such tremendous impartance to California
let me-digress just a moment to mention that sea water is only one
of several posnibilities for furnishing fresh water to our arowing
millions.
Ocean-oriented engineers have also talked of bringing water to
Southern California in huge pipes laid off our coast either from the
mouth of the Columbia River or perhaps from the mouth of the Feather.
Many experts believe this is possible but certainly much more
research and engineering study must be done before we can say it is
practical. And of course at this end it must meet one of the same
obstacles that desalinized water faces. It must be pumped from
sea-level to those areas needing it.
If such a project is otherwise practical this one obstacle is
not insurmountable. Our great California water project will pump
water over the Techapis and into our arid areas south of the
mountains. And, of course, water from the Colorado is pumped in also.
A third area is that of reclaimed water. A good share of our
water is used only once and then is carried off to sea. While the
subject of reclaiming water may not be a proper one for an oceano-
graphic meeting, certainly the development of ways and means to
reclaim waste water is vital to our future. There are indications
that this not only might be the cheapest solution to our long-range
water problems, but it is also evident that a successful solution
would minimize the need for further importation of water.
Sometimes I wonder where we might be today had we had the
vision to look at the sea and at water reclamation methods 30 or
40 years ago and had spent on these projects just a fraction of the
amount we have spent in bringing water in from the Colorado and
down from the north.
But the problem of fresh water is only one of the many
problems facing California, the pacific coast and much of the world
today that oceanographers can help solve.
The excitement and titillation of oceanography is the picture
of the futuristic submarine and the man in the diving suit, it is the
talk of distilling gold and other precious minerals from sea water,
it is the vision of supplying world food needs from the sea.
But much of this futuristic world is already here. In
fact, magnesium, bromine and potassium have been extracted commer-
cially from the waters off America and one of California's major salt
suppliers extracts its product solely from the sea.
-2-
New-type submarines and diving bells with arm-like mechanical
claws are already exploring the oceans at great depths.
And aquaculture is becoming increasingly important in Japan
including establishment of an cyster program in California which
now produces 7610 million pounds annually. Small scale projects
also are underway in the United States, but studies indicate there
is much to be done in this area before sea-farming as differentiated
from commercial fishing becomes an important source of the world's
food.
While exploring the possibilities the ocean offers in new or
exotic fields, we should not overlook these areas in which man has
used the ocean since time immemorial -- fishing and commerce.
Both of these fields are of vital importance to California,
to the West Coast and to the entire Pacific basin.
Some of you may not be aware of it but for years San Pedro
has been one of the world's major fishing ports and San Diego has
been not far behind.
But irresponsible commercial fishing, primarily by other
nations has cut into the world's supply of edible fish such as tuna.
Both a research program and international agreements are needed to
develop and control means of levelling out catches and insuring
sustained Yields of commercial fishes.
Already great strides have been made in converting some
species of fish, once thought of as non-edible, into fish flour,
but more can be done in this area. A 1964 study found that the
amount of animal protein needed for the entire world could be
obtained by a mere 30 percent increase in the world fish catch,
provided of course the means of distribution could be found.
But distribution of goods and things by sea is an area where
we in the U. S. are falling badly behind.
California harbors, for instance, cannot handle the superships
now being built. Japan, for instance, has one ship with a capacity
of 150,000 tons and a draft of 66 feet, seven inches. San Francisco's
main ship channel has a depth of just 45 feet.
It is obvious that either harbors must be improved or new and
economical methods of off-shore loading and unloading must be found.
-3-
Largely because of economic conditions the U. S. in general
has fallen farther and farther behind the rest of the world in
shipbuilding and in cargo hauling.
California shipyards now operate at less than half their
capacity. America's share of ocean-going cargo is constantly
decreasing.
Here are areas where American ingenuity, inventiveness and
initiative can change the picture, especially if government,
industry and labor are willing to cooperate with each other.
In California we hope and plan to have a major hand in
that change. Just as we also plan to take a major part in
studying the ocean itself, its effect on climate, and its resources.
We think California, with its 1200-mile coast line, with
its research and technology oriented industries and universities,
with its great numbers of qualified and brilliant engineers and
scientists, should lead the way.
California has much to gain from a determined effort to
orient itself toward the ocean.
Our rapidly growing population needs not only water; it
also needs jobs. Heretofore we have been a state oriented to
agriculture and defense industries. Agriculture must continue to
play a major role in the state's economy, and defense will also be
of vast importance in the foreseeable future.
But we should not depend on federal funds as the basis for
an industrial economy and advancing technologies will continue to
cut down the numbers employed in agri-business while at the same
time increasing production.
Therefore, California must turn in other directions to
prepare for the future. One direction is west and that way lies
the ocean.
California already has a solid oceanographic foundation.
In the area of research we have the Scripps Institution at La Jolla.
A group of our state colleges has banded together for further
research at Moss Landing on the Monterey Bay. Our department of
fish and game operates two research vessels but these are pretty
much limited in areas of commercial and sports fishing. They seek
to establish fish immigration habits and find other information of
importance in the two industries.
Industry has become more and more aware of the ocean potential.
Lockheed Board Chairman, Daniel L. Haughton, for instance, has
called for the aerospace and petroleum industries "to join forces
in exploration and development of the Continental Shelves."
Certainly, similar arrangements might mutually benefit many
of our industries.
This state administration feels it has an obligation to lead
the way. Not to tell business and industry and research what must
be done, not to dip deep into the taxpayers pocket to provide a kind
of subsidized approach, but instead to encourage, to work with and
to provide the kind of governmental climate in which the many facets
of oceanography can become meaningful, can spur the economy and
increase our progress.
We have already begun.
I have appointed an expert in the field, Col. T. R. Gillenwaters,
as a special advisor to lead this effort.
We have re-activated the Governor's Advisory Commission on
Ocean Resources. This is made up of top men in the oceanographic
field, many of whom are here tonight.
I would like at this moment to salute them and thank them
for their willingness to help in this effort.
This Commission, called GACOR, already has recommended
creation of an interagency council for ocean resources. If our
studies find this practical, such a council could well be the
forerunner to a state office of Marine Resources.
Such an office could correlate interstate activities as well
as coordinating federal-state activities and above all, offering
support and help to the independent sector which, after all, must
provide the main thrust if California is to develope as a major
sea state.
But we envision looking beyond the borders cf California, also,
A sea-oriented state must look to others with the same interests and
the same problems.
As soon as it can be conveniently done, I hope to meet with my
fellow Governors from Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and Alaska to
discuss the concept of a Pacific Basin Community.
-5-
Such a community eventually could look toward working with our
neighbors of both the north and south, Canada and Mexico, in solving
mutual problems, exchanging ideas and information.
A Pacific Basin Community of states could activate broad
programs involving cooperation among the states, the federal govern-
ment and the independent sector.
These programs could be as wide and varied as the field of
oceanography itself.
These would include research into utilization of ocean resources,
resolution of maritime legal questions; tax incentives; review and
analysis of all related federal and state legislation, ways of
improving maritime trade, fisheries research and development; ways
and means of expanding mineral and oil exploration along the Conti
ental Shelf, desalinization; pollution control in tidal and bay
improved weather and tide forecasting, and expanded recreational=
facilities.
In an era of spending billions for space exploration and many
billions more for defense and for social experiments, the oceans
have been largely overlooked except as how they affect the military.
The time has come to end the oversight, the time has come to
look to the seas as we build for the future.
In California, at least, we intend to do just that.
#
#
#
-6-
6/8
OFFICE OF THE GOVERM
Sacramento, California
RELEASE: FLAT A.M. 'S
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
THURSDAY, June 8
ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
PACIFIC COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
SAN FRANCISCO
June 8, 1967
I didn't come over here to talk about our problems in the
legislature. You don't want to hear my problems when you've got
problems of your own. I don't mean to imply that we're going to
solve either yours or mine at this meeting but at least we can talk
about them.
But first I do want to announce one bit of moral support we
have to offer. At the request of a lot of people from your industry
and from my administration I have proclaimed this as "California
Home Improvement Month".
Actually, as you know Nancy and I celebrated Home Improvement
Month a little early -- we moved. We had thought about making the
mansion a project in Home Improvement but we figured we'd have to
declare a Home Improvement Year, and invite the neighbors over to
help.
Seriously Home Improvement Month is a good idea. It points
up the fact that a family should have pride in its home -- and
incidently it also sells a few building materials, some paint and a
little hardware and gives some carpenters and contractors and plumbers
and painters and electricians something to do. This administration
doesn't think thats a bad idea.
As a matter of fact we think Home Improvement Month is such a
good idea we were going to declare it last month but the weather was
so bad we didn't think you'd get the full benefit from it. And
after some of the weather we've had this month we may call the whole
thing off, and call it Weather Improvement Month.
I do want to talk seriously a moment because I know your
industry has been in a slump and when a major industry runs into
problems the reprecussions are felt in almost every other civilian
oriented business and industry in the state.
You can't cut back on building without affecting the groceryman,
the furniture and appliance dealer, the auto dealer and your government.
- k -
In Sacramento our entire tax structure and Jur budget is
predicated on a booming economy. If that slumps then tax revenues
fall and we either cut back on programs or increase taxes, which
only adds to the problem.
One of the promises of our campaign and one of the aims of
this administration is to improve the business climate in any way
we can. Because the factors making up that climate are so interlocke
we have to pay special heed when any one area is particularly hard-
pressed and right now one of those areas is the home construction area.
But improving that climate will take more than just government.
It will also take the help and cooperation of industry and business
organizations and you as individuals.
At our end we are striving to improve our help and service to
business, but we are also asking for and getting the help of the
independent sector -- that fancy phrase for you people here -- you
who work for the government and pay for the privilege.
I am convinced that if we work together -- government departments
with each other and government with industry that we can end this
slump even quicker than it now appears to be ending.
Let me tell you some of the things we are doing. We have
established a task force on the building and construction industry
which already has held several meetings. This committee is looking at
a number of ways to improve the building climate. It is examining
the situation to see if any new legislation is needed:
It is seeing where and how we can cut government red tape that
might be a part of your problems.
It is examining the need for a possible supplemental money
market.
It is looking at areas where it can assist the labor and building
trades council
This task force is working closely with our Housing and
Community Development Department.
- 2 -
The department, under the direction of Chuck LeMenager,
is being re-oriented more in line with our thinking
and philosophy regarding the role of government in a free society.
A relatively new department, Housing and Community Development
once looked almost entirely at the state's role in federal public
housing projects.
But we don't believe those are the answers either to your
problems or to the problems of our low and middle income families.
First of all, less than 35,000 public housing units have been
built in California, less than one-20th of the low income family
need.
Second and even more important, public housing basically is
rental housing and often is subsidized housing.
Rental or subsidized housing does not build pride or breed a
feeling of responsibility.
It is no coincidence that in areas where we have large public
housing projects we also have major social problems.
Public housing too often becomes public slum housing. It is
not and cannot be the answer to either our housing or our social
problems.
We must look elsewhere for the largest part of our low-income
housing; we must find ways of making it possible for a man to own
a home as long as he is a working member of society.
This of course is no easy problem. On the average, a man
can afford a home valued at between two and two and a half times
his annual gross income. This means a man making a hundred dollars
a week must have a home somewhere in the $10,000 to $12,500 price
range. If he makes $8,000 a year his home by this standard should
cost between 16 and 20 thousand dollars, and therein lies a
challenge.
Recently a metropolitan paper ran a story about a new
development of 1,000 low-cost homes. But prices actually started
at $17,995. This is undoubtedly low cost to some but not to a
sizable group in the below median income range.
Is subsidy, either federal or state, the answer to this
problem? Or does the answer perhaps lie in finding better, cheaper
ways of home construction, in better land utilization, in providing
financial terms a low-income family can afford?
And doesn't it lie in convincing the low income wage earner
that a home is a precious possession, worth working for, worth
saving for, worth owning and worth keeping?
There are lessons to be learned in this area from the auto
industry, from the television and radio manufacturers, from all those
industries that have convinced everyman that he must have what the
manufacture and that he can afford it because they have built one in
his price range.
Sometimes I wonder at the logic or lack of it that tells a man
he has enough money to buy a 3,000 dollar car over a three year
period but that he cannot buy a $15,000 house over a 20 year
period.
I think the first thing an industry must have in order to push
into a new area are facts. I have asked Chuck LeMenager to gather
facts through his Department and make them available both to
industry and to government.
Incidentally, let me tell you about the kind of cooperation we
are beginning to get in this effort.
One of the first things being done is to find out how many
new, unsold housing units we have in the state. Now the Housing
and Community Development Department has no money for this kind of
survey so they have turned to business--in this case, the California
Real Estate Association. And the CREA has acted quickly to meet the
need. Through its members throughout the state, the CREA is taking
this census for us and will make the results available to us, and
therefore to you.
This is a survey that will prove of benefit not only to you,
and to the CREA, but also to those in the business of making home
loans.
I have also asked the Housing Department to take other steps to
gather and make available any other data that is meaningful to your
industry and the related business.
In other attempts to help the building industry, I am supporting
the concept of the National Home Ownership Act which is currently before
Congress. Hopefully, this act will cut federal red tape and give
private enterprise a free-er hand in the effort to provide more
low-cost housing.
I have also endorsed your efforts to get legiclation which will
provide the necessary funds through market
your industry--to do The vast research and
promote greater home building activity.
I was pleased to note that Ward Crump on Monday predicted an
upsurge in home building here in California.
But his other remarks indicated that the home builders still
have not found a way to tap the low-income market. He predicts that
financing will be more expensive and that a shortage of construction
workers will mean an increase in costs.
And therein also lies a challenge. A nation that can harness
the atom or develop a mechanical tomato picker can also find a way
to beat the high cost of building labor.
If you can meet that challenge, and if we can help you meet
the other problems you face, then we can have the best of both worlds--
a healthy building industry and homes at prices most of our families
can afford.
These are goals worth working for. This Administration will do
its best to carry its share of the load. And I have confidence that
if you can work with a government that helps and does not hinder,
that you will carry your share.
In a Creative Society, business and government working together
can solve all the problems that face it.
I believe that here in California we can build more than just
homes; I believe that we have the kind of genius and the kind of
initiative in both government and the independent sector to build
a Creative Society under which we can all prosper.
# # #
-5-
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
Sacramento, California
RELEASE: FLAT A.M. 's
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
THURSDAY, June 8
ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
PACIFIC COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
SAN FRANCISCO
June 8, 1967
I didn't come over here to talk about our problems in the
legislature. You don't want to hear my problems when you've got
problems of your own. I don't mean to imply that we're going to
solve either yours or mine at this meeting but at least we can talk
about them.
But first I do want to announce one bit of moral support we
have to offer. At the request of a lot of people from your industry
and from my administration I have proclaimed this as "California
Home Improvement Month".
Actually, as you know Nancy and I celebrated Home Improvement
Month a little early we moved. We had thought about making the
mansion a project in Home Improvement but we figured we'd have to
declare a Home Improvement Year, and invite the neighbors over to
help.
Seriously Home Improvement Month is a good idea. It points
up the fact that a family should have pride in its home -- and
incidently it also sells a few building materials, some paint and a
little hardware and gives some carpenters and contractors and plumbers
and painters and electricians something to do. This administration
doesn't think thats a bad idea.
As a matter of fact we think Home Improvement Month is such a
good idea we were going to declare it last month but the weather was
so bad we didn't think you'd get the full benefit from it. And
after some of the weather we've had this month we may call the whole
thing off, and call it Weather Improvement Month.
I do want to talk seriously a moment because I know your
industry has been in a slump and when a major industry runs into
problems the reprecussions are felt in almost every other civilian
oriented business and industry in the state.
You can't cut back on building without affecting the groceryman,
the furniture and appliance dealer, the auto dealer and your government.
- k -
In Sacramento our entire tax structure and Jur budget is
predicated on a booming economy. If that slumps then tax revenues
fall and we either cut back on programs or increase taxes, which
only adds to the problem.
One of the promises of our campaign and one of the aims of
this administration is to improve the business climate in any way
we can. Because the factors making up that climate are so interlocke
)
we have to pay special heed when any one area is particularly hard-
pressed and right now one of those areas is the home construction area.
But improving that climate will take more than just government.
It will also take the help and cooperation of industry and business
organizations and you as individuals.
At our end we are striving to improve our help and service to
business, but we are also asking for and getting the help of the
independent sector -- that fancy phrase for you people here -- you
who work for the government and pay for the privilege.
I am convinced that if we work together -- government departments
with each other and government with industry that we can end this
slump even quicker than it now appears to be ending.
Let me tell you some of the things we are doing. We have
established a task force on the building and construction industry
which already has held several meetings. This committee is looking at
a number of ways to improve the building climate. It is examining
the situation to see if any new legislation is needed:
It is seeing where and how we can cut government red tape that
might be a part of your problems.
It is examining the need for a possible supplemental money
market.
It is looking at areas where it can assist the labor and building
trades council
This task force is working closely with our Housing and
Community Development Department.
- 2 -
The department, under the direction of Chuck LeMenager,
is being re-oriented more in line with our thinking
and philosophy regarding the role of government in a free society.
A relatively new department, Housing and Community Development
once looked almost entirely at the state's role in federal public
housing projects.
But we don't believe those are the answers either to your
problems or to the problems of our low and middle income families.
First of all, less than 35,000 public housing units have been
built in California, less than one-20th of the low income family
need.
Second and even more important, public housing basically is
rental housing and often is subsidized housing.
Rental or subsidized housing does not build pride or breed a
feeling of responsibility.
It is no coincidence that in areas where we have large public
housing projects we also have major social problems.
Public housing too often becomes public slum housing. It is
not and cannot be the answer to either our housing or our social
problems.
We must look elsewhere for the largest part of our low-income
housing; we must find ways of making it possible for a man to own
a home as long as he is a working member of society.
This of course is no easy problem. On the average, a man
can afford a home valued at between two and two and a half times
his annual gross income. This means a man making a hundred dollars
a week must have a home somewhere in the $10,000 to $12,500 price
range. If he makes $8,000 a year his home by this standard should
cost between 16 and 20 thousand dollars, and therein lies a
challenge.
Recently a metropolitan paper ran a story about a new
development of 1,000 low-cost homes. But prices actually started
at $17,995. This is undoubtedly low cost to some but not to a
sizable group in the below median income range.
Is subsidy, either federal or state, the answer to this
problem? Or does the answer perhaps lie in finding better, cheaper
ways of home construction, in better land utilization, in providing
financial terms a low-income family can afford?
And doesn't it lie in convincing the low income wage earner
that a home is a precious possession, worth working for, worth
saving for, worth owning and worth keeping?
There are lessons to be learned in this area from the auto
industry, from the television and radio manufacturers, from all those
industries that have convinced everyman that he must have what the
manufacture and that he can afford it because they have built one in
his price range.
Sometimes I wonder at the logic or lack of it that tells a man
he has enough money to buy a 3,000 dollar car over a three year
period but that he cannot buy a $15,000 house over a 20 year
period.
I think the first thing an industry must have in order to push
into a new area are facts. I have asked Chuck LeMenager to gather
facts through his Department and make them available both to
industry and to government.
Incidentally, let me tell you about the kind of cooperation we
are beginning to get in this effort.
One of the first things being done is to find out how many
new, unsold housing units we have in the state. Now the Housing
and Community Development Department has no money for this kind of
survey so they have turned to business--in this case, the California
Real Estate Association. And the CREA has acted quickly to meet the
need. Through its members throughout the state, the CREA is taking
this census for us and will make the results available to us, and
therefore to you.
This is a survey that will prove of benefit not only to you,
and to the CREA, but also to those in the business of making home
loans.
I have also asked the Housing Department to take other steps to
gather and make available any other data that is meaningful to your
industry and the related business.
In other attempts to help the building industry, I am supporting \
the concept of the National Home Ownership Act which is currently before
Congress. Hopefully, this act will cut federal red tape and give
private enterprise a free-er hand in the effort to provide more
low-cost housing.
I have also endorsed your efforts to get legiclation which will
provide the nonossame funds through
your industry- to do he vast research and devel ment needed to
promote greater home building activity.
I was pleased to note that Ward Crump on Monday predicted an
upsurge in home building here in California.
But his other remarks indicated that the home builders still
have not found a way to tap the low-income market. He predicts that
financing will be more expensive and that a shortage of construction
workers will mean an increase in costs.
And therein also lies a challenge. A nation that can harness
the atom or develop a mechanical tomato picker can also find a way
to beat the high cost of building labor.
If you can meet that challenge, and if we can help you meet
the other problems you face, then we can have the best of both worlds--
a healthy building industry and homes at prices most of our families
can afford.
These are goals worth working for. This Administration will do
its best to carry its share of the load. And I have confidence that
if you can work with a government that helps and does not hinder,
that you will carry your share.
In a Creative Society, business and government working together
can solve all the problems that face it.
I believe that here in California we can build more than just
homes; I believe that we have the kind of genius and the kind of
initiative in both government and the independent sector to build
a Creative Society under which we can all prosper.
# # #
-5-
19
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
445-4571
REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN - ISRAEL RALLY
Hollywood Bowl - Los Angeles - June 11, 1967
It is fitting that we gather here for this humanitarian
purpose. While war is man's greatest folly and man's most cherished
dream is of a world at peace, we know war still has the capacity to
bring out the finest and most noble side of man.
This is an example. For always that nobler evidence of man's
link with the divine is his willingness to bind up the wounds, ease
the pain and bring aid to those who paid the full price of war.
May I express the hope that our efforts today may bring help
to the families of those Americans who died in that tragic moment
when friend failed to recognize friend.
But now let us pray for statemanship to bring the victor and the
vanquished to the conference table with no spirit of vengeance or
conquest. Let us have statesmanship to make a true peace, not an
uneasy truce, while the grudges and mistrust are perpetuated. Let
those who have lived in that land since man's beginning settle their
differences with justice and recognition of the rights of each
sovereign state and of individual men to choose their own destiny.
For one thing above all is important to remember; the men who
died on both sides were in truth all casualties of the cold war. The
real villain who stirred the witches brew until it boiled over into
war was not in the bottle. Having done his evil work, he stood aside
as he has in each of the world's trouble spots. He stands now revealed
at last as pursuing his goal of aggression with the Hitlerian tools of
prejudice and bigotry. Let the aggressor so glaringly absent in strife
be equally absent from the conference table. There must be no place
at the table for the Russian Bear.
What I say now may seem contradictory, but it is no more so than
our belief that some good is carried by every ill wind. In these last
few days, we have seen reaffirmed the words of Alexander Hamilton
almost two centuries ago. "A nation that prefers disgrace to danger
is prepared for a master and deserves one."
The message to Americans is crystal clear: "Freedom is precious,
defend it. It is not cheap, nor easy, nor neutral. It is dear and
hard and real. Take sides for freedom or you will lose it."
In this day when so many of us are confused about our own course,
we have learned once again there are causes worth dying for.
# # #
itd
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Contact: Lyn Nofziger - 445-4571
2.11.67
The following is a transcript of Governor Ronald Reagan's
remarks to marchers on the West Steps of the Capitol on Saturday,
February 11, 1967:
A funny thing happened to me on the way to Oregon.
changed,
I changed the schedule as much as was possible, knowing you were going
to be here. You will recall that the Press carried the information a
week or two ago that you were going to conduct that march and this appear-
ance as of then, and I arranged then to be here in the Capitol because
I don't think any group of citizens should ever come to this Capitol
with the express purpose of delivering any message to the Governor and
the Governor be absent.
Now my time I changed, as I say, as much as I could. I still
must leave but I would like you also to know that because I believe, and
I'm quite sure that there is nothing that I can say that would in any way
create an open mind in some of you, but perhaps there are some I mean
I mean an open mind on this particular subject. But because, because I
believe that a search for truth is the hallmark of scholarship that
I
believe.
I believe that there would have been some merit in someone
trying to find out the views of this particular side in this controversy.
Now Mr. Axelrod received a message from me as early as I knew this date
had been established stating that I had this previous engagement. Mr.
Axelrod has seen fit to make some charges and some statements with regard
to what my views are but Mr. Axelrod has never made one effort to contact
me and find out what my views are
Let me, I'm not going to keep you here in the cold much longer,
you're going to have a number of speakers you"re going to have a number
of speakers
Let me just say one thing with regard to so-called political
interference with the University. As Governor I tell you that never will
I permit a Regent of the University to actively participate in a political
campaign in my behalf.
With regard to political interference I would suggest to you
that there is a sort of grey area where certain lines must be defined. I
do not believe that in a State University or college system that the admin-
istration of the State or the Legislature has a right to ever do anything
that would seek in any partisan sense to involve the University in politics
Let me add one more thing. In this so-called grey area I do not
believe it constitutes political interference for the people of the
State
(inaudible)
And I also believe that the people, the people of California who
without question or protest have down through the years contributed willing
ly and happily to the great and phenomenal growth of the educational system
of this State, that those people do have some right to have a voice in the
principles and the basic philosophy that will go along with the education
they provide. And to this sense I will tell you now that, while I, as a
member of the Board of Regents, will never inject politics in that Board as
Governor as Governor I am going to represent the people of this State.
###
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Contact: Lyn Nofziger - 445-4571
2.11.67
The following is a transcript of Governor Ronald Reagan's
remarks to marchers on the West Steps of the Capitol on Saturday,
February 11, 1967:
A funny thing happened to me on the way to Oregon. T changed,
I changed the schedule as much as was possible, knowing you were going
to be here. You will recall that the Press carried the information a
week or two ago that you were going to conduct that march and this appear-
ance as of then, and I arranged then to be here in the Capitol because
I don't think any group of citizens should ever come to this Capitol
with the express purpose of delivering any message to the Governor and
the Governor be absent.
Now my time I changed, as I say, as much as I could. I still
must leave but I would like you also to know that because I believe, and
I'm quite sure that there is nothing that I can say that would in any way
create an open mind in some of you, but perhaps there are some I
mean
I mean an open mind on this particular subject. But because, because I
believe that a search for truth is the hallmark of scholarship that
I
believe.
I believe that there would have been some merit in someone
trying to find out the views of this particular side in this controversy.
Now Mr. Axelrod received a message from me as early as I knew this date
had been established stating that I had this previous engagement. Mr.
Axelrod has seen fit to make some charges and some statements with regard
to what my views are but Mr. Axelrod has never made one effort to contact
me and find out what my views are
Let me, I'm not going to keep you here in the cold much longer,
you're going to have a number of speakers you"re going to have a number
of speakers
Let me just say one thing with regard to so-called political
interference with the University. As Governor I tell you that never will
I permit a Regent of the University to actively participate in a political
campaign in my behalf.
With regard to political interference I would suggest to you
that there is a sort of grey area where certain lines must be defined. I
do not believe that in a State University or college system that the admin-
istration of the State or the Legislature has a right to ever do anything
that would seek in any partisan sense to involve the University in politics
Let me add one more thing. In this so-called grey area I do not
believe it constitutes political interference for the people of the
State (inaudible)
And I also believe that the people, the people of California who
without question or protest have down through the years contributed willing
ly and happily to the great and phenomenal growth of the educational system
of this State, that those people do have some right to have a voice in the
principles and the basic philosophy that will go along with the education
they provide. And to this sense I will tell you now that, while I, as a
member of the Board of Regents, will never inject politics in that Board as
Governor as Governor I am going to represent the people of this State.
###
6/12
2
9
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
Sacramento, California
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
445-4571
6/12/67
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN - NATIONAL INSTITUTE
ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY - Disneyland Hotel - Anaheim
June 12, 1967
I am pleased to notice how many of our Californians are partici-
pating in this meeting---Richard McGee, administrator of the Youth
and Adult Corrections Agency; Heman Stark, director of the Youth
Authority and George Saleebey, deputy director of the Youth Authority.
We here in California are particularly proud of Dick McGee, who
has given more than 23 years of service to California and is without
question the leading correctional administrator in the United States.
His help to my administration and to previous administrations has
been invaluable.
I noticed the theme for this year's meeting is "evolving problems
and programs in crime and delinquency."
I might make a suggestion that you change it to "increasing
problems." Because without question, the problem of crime and
delinquency has grown steadily since the end of World War II until
it is now perhaps the major domestic problem that faces our nation.
Let me cite a few statistics. I suspect most of you know them
by heart, but they do serve to put in perspective the magnitude of the
problem.
Since 1960, crime in the United States has increased by 35 per-
cent for every 100,000 population. These are the FBI's national
figures.
Most of this increase is accounted for among those who have been
born or reached maturity since World War II the 10 to 39 year old
age bracket. In California, 80 percent of all crimes are committed
by men and boys between 14 and 29.
The biggest increases in crime have been crimes against property
burglary, auto theft and the like.
At the same time that crime has been rising, police ability to
meet the challenge posed by the criminal has diminished. It has
diminished to the point where it is difficult to say any more that
crime does not pay.
Only about 25 percent of our reported crimes are solved. I will
leave it to you to decide whether some court decisions rendered in
recent years are at least partly to blame for this shocking fact.
-1-
Even with only a 25 percent clearance rate, however, our prisons
which hold 27,000 are full and 14,000 more are on parole. That means
better than 2 out of every 1,000 Californians is in prison or on parole.
Our Youth and Adult Corrections Agency budget costs California
taxpayers 83 million dollars a year. The annual correctional bill
nationally runs something over a billion dollars.
And, of course, this is only a small fraction of the total cost
of crime prevention and control. If you add in the cost of property
losses, personal injuries and deaths, the total reaches staggering
proportions.
Obviously, something must be done to halt this trend. The
alternatives eventually are anarchy or a police state. Neither is
particularly inviting.
In fact, the trend must be more than halted; it must be reversed.
It is obvious from recent studies that a large proportion of our citi-
zens fear for their own safety in their homes and on the streets.
Few women are brave enough or foolhardy enough to venture out
alone at night any more. Many neighborhoods are not even safe in the
daytime.
There has been a significant increase in the purchase and train
ing of watchdogs. More and more citizens are buying firearms not for
hunting or target practice, but for protection of themselves and their
families.
In many areas citizens have banded together, rightly or wrongly,
to patrol streets and in other ways attempt to protect the residents of
their neighborhoods and communities.
Women are urged to carry whistles as a means of calling for help.
Self-protection classes such as Judo and Karate flourish. Law-abiding
citizens are genuinely concerned. And so are those of us who are
ultimately charged with providing protection, maintaining law and order,
solving and preventing crime and finding causes of crime and juvenile
delinquency.
We are concerned not only because we face the problem, but also,
and more importantly, because so far, we have failed either to solve it
or to find the cause.
Not all our penologists, not all our social workers, not all our
new theories have managed even to slow the trend.
We are here, hopefully, to see if there are ways to look at new
ideas, to re-examine some time-tested methods that might have been more
Crime, its pret tion and control, and the orrection of the
offender are all highly complex problems. Crime and the criminal are
found in all walks of society, all economic strata, and in both city
and rural areas.
I certainly am not here to offer any cure-alls or panaceas.
However, I would like to take a few minutes to give you some of
my thoughts and tell you some of the things we in California are doing.
I do not hold with the theory that society is to blame when a
man commits a robbery or a murder and therefore we must be understanding
for
and as sympathetic for the criminal as we are/the victim.
Nor do I hold with the spirit of permissiveness abroad in the
land that has undoubtedly added to the juvenile delinquency problem.
This is an era, not only of permissiveness, but also of affluence.
As a result, many young people often have time on their hands. Many
who might otherwise find jobs have no need to work. May I point out
respectfully that we should question perhaps that part of the President's
crime report that lays such emphasis on curing crime by eliminating
poverty. This is a worthy goal in itself but it is interesting to note
that during the great depression, we had an all-time low in crime.
I cannot help but believe that goods and privileges carelessly
given or lightly earned are lightly regarded.
A boy who works for the money to buy a car and keep it in gasoline
is much more likely to appreciate it and care for it than the youth whose
car has been given to him and whose gas is purchased on his father's
credit card.
Likewise, the boy or girl who can go out at night only if he or
she behaves is more apt to behave than those who have not set rules to
follow, and no responsibilities to accept.
This brings me down to two points. First, are we doing enough
for our children by doing too much for them? Aren't they really better
off if they are taught to accept responsibility and to learn that in the
long run we all must earn what we get and that we usually get what we
iarn?
The second point is, haven't we made it almost impossible for
many of our young people to earn legitimately the things they need and
want.
In some cases we have taught them by example that they don't
have to learn, that instead they have a right to expect to be given. I
challenge that this is wrong. I challenge that nobody does any young
person any favor by this approach.
But also, haven't our laws, aimed with the best intentions at
preventing exploitation of children and providing old age security and
of insuring meaningful wages haven't these, by being too narrowly
drawn and too rigidly implemented, put many kids to loitering on the
street corners because they couldn't get jobs after school or during
the summer?
I suggest that if exceptions were made in some of our laws regard-
ing social security and minimum wages, and if some of our unions would
cooperate by recognizing that a boy seeking a part-time job should fall
in a little different category than the full-time skilled or semi-skilled
adult, that we would take a lot of our young people off the streets and
out of trouble.
You know, there are a lot of old maxims that are still true today
and it is not corny to note that it is idle hands that do the devil's
work and, as a result, there is often the devil to pay and it is you and
I who usually do the paying.
In urging that we allow our young people the right to work and
to earn and to gain the sense of pride that you only get through your
own accomplishments, I am not overlooking the value of recreation.
I think, without question, that we need better and more recrea-
tional facilities. We need to make it possible for a boy or girl to
play hard as well as to work hard, and to develop and take pride in his
athletic skills or hobbies,
I suggest to you that this is another area where government,
with its limited tax fund, can turn to business and industry to sponsor
teams, to make available recreational facilities and to work with youth
on an informal basis.
A slum boy living next door to a factory wouldn't be throwing
rocks through the factory windows if the factory owner and foreman were
friends who now and then extended a friendly hand.
Here is an area in the independent sector that offers tremendous
possibilities.
Now I do not mean by all this that there is no such thing as a
bad boy or that there is no place in our society for punishment. Far
from it.
I do believe in the carrot and the stick philosophy you know,
good
where you offer the carrot as a reward for being / and come up behind
with the stick for being bad.
-4-
There is talk t. ,se days that punishment is .iot a deterrent,
however, and I believe that that talk is partly responsible for our in-
crease in crime.
Certainly, as punishment becomes more difficult to mete out,
those who would be deterred by its threat feel freer to resort to crime
and acts of violence.
Some court decisions have narrowed the difference between liberty
and license and in some areas have overbalanced the scales of justice
SO that the rights of society are outweighed by decisions granting new
rights to individuals accused of crimes.
California, as I have said, is the leading state in terms of
major crimes. On a percentage basis, we have nearly twice our share
nine percent of the population and about 17 percent of the crime.
I am convinced that enactment of legislation we have introduced
will help deter crime, will slow the flood of pornographic material
now available on our newsstands, will speed and strengthen the adminis-
tration of justice and will assure California citizens the best, most
efficient law enforcement agencies in the nation.
This legislation includes:
--First: an effective law to restore to the cities and counties
the ability to enact local laws designed to meet local problems. This
is commonly referred to as the "implied pre-emption issue."
Such a law will allow local law enforcement agencies to more
thoroughly police their jurisdictions, especially in the areas of vice,
offenses and offenses against public decency.
--Second: laws increasing penalties for those criminals who,
during the commission of a robbery, burglary or rape, inflict great
bodily harm upon their victims with dangerous weapons. I believe society
must be protected from those who would inflict personal violence on its
members. These bills, by the way, have already been passed and signed
into law. We think they will be of major help in our war on crime.
--Third: comprehensive legislation dealing with pownography and
oscenity, with special emphasis on prohibiting dissemination to minors
of "harmful" material. A careful effort is being made to avoid any
cuspicion of censorship. Unfortunately, the legislation was recently
held in committee on a straight party line vote even though it had the
active support of our Democratic attorney general.
--Fourth: we recognize that from time to time persons are arrested
unjustly or as victims of circumstances. Yet, despite their innocence,
they must live the remainder of their lives with a public police record
Our bill, by closing
stain records, will provide relief for such
persons, while, at the same time, preservin those records for use by
law enforcement and authorized persons.
But we are convinced that even more effort on the part of all
of us is needed if we are to control crime in California.
A major reason, I think, for the increase in crime is the very
progress we are making which benefits and enriches our civilization.
Scientific and technological advances are being utilized by and
adapted for use by the criminal element.
Modern methods of transportation and communications, and modern
tools and weapons are used daily by those who prey on society.
If we are to reverse this trend, it is essential that society
also use to the fullest our scientific and technological advan
the prevention, detection and control of crime. And in the correction
and rehabilitation of criminals.
In addition, there is need for basic research involving the joint
effort of various scientific and professional disciplines into the
nature of crime, and crime apprehension and treatment.
We in this administration are also proposing that a California
Crime Foundation be created as a public corporation. Such a foundation
would be financed and served by both the private and public sectors.
Its purpose will be to develop a coordinated state, local and
private effort toward developing new scientific techniques to combat
crime, initiate research projects in the area of police management,
lministration and basic research in the field of crime, and encourage
agineers and scientists to devote themselves to careers in crime
research.
We hope we can finance this foundation by channeling to it funds
appropriated for some existing state law enforcement efforts and by
winning the financial participation of private foundations and the
rusiness community. This is certainly one of those areas where the
independent sector can be, and should want to be, of help.
Of course, major efforts are constantly being made to stem crime
by law enforcement agencies, both state and local, by departments of
state government, by educational institutions and by private
organizations.
Outstanding organizations such as yours, the State Bar of
California, the California Council on Crime and Delinquency, are all
concerned.
-6-
We are convinced, however, from talking with state leaders in
the fields of law enforcement and crime prevention that these efforts
must be coordinated, that new efforts must be stimulated if we are to
have an effective crime prevention program. Those engaged in this
broad field must be able to share results of the research and
benefit from the progressive practices of others.
In order to achieve this, we are working with our state attorney
general and his staff--crime prevention should know no party lines-with
the leaders of local law enforcement, with the judiciary, and with the
Legislature to develop a master plan for California criminal justice.
We have four major objectives.
First, to provide for statewide planning and for orderly and
effective development in the field of criminal justice.
Second, we wish and expect to maintain the traditional partner-
ship and spirit of mutual cooperation between the agencies and local
government.
Third, we must provide coordination of the various agencies and
groups involved in criminal justice projects.
And fourth, we must provide a vehicle to handle federal-state
relations and to implement federal legislation dealing with crime
control.
These objectives will be met by a Council on Criminal Justice
which will be established under the master plan.
This council to be made up of representatives of all the agencies
and bodies involved in crime control, as well as representative
citizens, will function in much the same manner as the Coordinating
Council on Higher Education functions and we are convinced it will
provide the same sort of benefits.
The council will be responsible for developing statewide plans
for the prevention, detection and control of crime and for the adminis-
tration of criminal justice.
It will conduct studies, survey resources and identify the needs
for research and development. It will encourage coordination, planning
and research by the agencies of criminal justice throughout the state
and will serve as a clearing house for the study and dissemination of
information.
Such a council will give California the ability to attack crime
and the roots of crime from many vantage points.
-7-
Of course, no program in itseif Call work miracles and/or elimin-
ate crime but this program will insure that we are utilizing to the
fullest all the available resources and that we are continually coming
up with new resources.
The war on crime is a never-ending one. And it is necessary
that we pursue it constantly and with vigor if our citizens are to.
be safe on our streets and in their homes, and if man is to be able to
live free from fear of his fellow man in an ever contracting world and
an increasingly more complex society.
I do not claim that our proposals contain all the answers. But
I do say we have made a new beginning, a beginning that will increase
the confidence of the citizen in his government, engender respect for
the law and insure speedy and equal justice under it.
it
If/would seem that we are adding unduly to the responsibilities
of the private citizen, let us be aware that history records when the
freedom the Athenians wished for most was freedom from responsibility,
Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.
# # #
-8-
6/15
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
6.15.67
Excerpts from speech by Governor Ronald Reagan, California
Broadcasters Association, Hilton Hotel, San Francisco
It is a pleasure to be here with you people from the fields
of radio and television.
As you may know, I started my career in radio (as a sports
announcer) and the last job I had before becoming Governor was in
television--driving a 20 mule team.
So we really have a lot in common, you and I.
Actually, of course, we have more in common than just our
backgrounds in this business.
You and I are free enterprisers who still recognize and put
up with the need for some regulation of business, industry and
broadcasting by government.
I suspect, too, however, that most of you believe like I do,
that that regulation should be minimal and should not go beyond the
amount necessary to insure that the rights of each of us, along
with public health and safety, are protected.
There is a difference between regulation and control.
Free men recognize the need for some regulation by government.
But sometimes, well-intentioned men in government -- even in
a nation such as ours -- in their efforts to insure equality and
protect the rights of the people -- cross over the borderline
that separates regulation from control.
This has happened in many areas, at many echelons of government.
The higher the echelon of government that regulates or controls,
the more of us those regulations or controls affect.
That, incidentally, is one reason I believe that government
is best when, as much as possible, it is kept at the echelon
closest to the people.
As long as there is freedom of movement in this country -- as
long as a man can vote with his feet -- he can walk away from
onerous or unjust local regulations and even state regulations.
It is more difficult if controls are imposed at the national
level.
All too often they have been.
- 1 -
We can all cite examples: the farmer who cannot grow what he
wants without being subject to fines; the members of the
religious sect fined and jailed without trial for failure' to pay
Social Security. In a nation where religion is recognized as
a cause for exempting a man from bearing arms, these people had
livestock and farm machinery seized for violation of a regulation.
Your own industry regulated of necessity because the airways
belong to the people has often been threatened with regulations
and commission decisions that go beyond regulation and fall into
the "government knows best" classification.
All of us recall Newton Minnow and his description of television
as a vast wasteland and the decision by certain FCC members to
upgrade the quality of television.
Many of you have run into problems as to what constitutes
public service and what constitutes equal time.
Just recently, we had the FCC proposal that free time must be
offered the opponents of cigarette smoking to compensate for
the time tobacco companies buy.
Now, not to smoke is a laudable thing to do, (I don't smoke),
but the sale of tobacco and the smoking of tobacco are not illegal.
It makes one wonder whether the FCC is going to demand free
time for the opponents of beer and ale, or the opponents of sports,
or the opponents of religions.
Does Father indeed know best in these areas?
I understand the FCC would also have broadcasting companies
divest themselves of sports enterprises and limit the number of
commercials that can be shown during an event.
Where indeed does regulation end and control begin?
Now don't misunderstand me. I do believe there are some
areas in which the FCC must rule, and I certainly have no
objection to the equal time rule when it comes to politics.
In fact, I kind of like that idea.
Incidentally, I am not one of those who worries that television
has upset our conduct of politics.
Those who scare us with stories that skilled performers can
use the camera's magic to the end that all public offices will be
filled with actors aren't really talking sense. In the first place,
show business pays better. But in the second place, they reveal
an ignorance of what the camera can actually do.
Television, even more than radio, is actually a return to our
old-time tradition of taking to the stump. When our nation was
sparsely settled it was possible for a candidate making the circuit
to be seen by almost all the voters. As we grew in size and numbers,
only a few actually saw the candidate. They made their decision
on what they had heard or read about him.
But now, via the medium of television, they all can see him
and hear him. And let me reveal something known to actors -- you
can't lie to the camera. When it rolls in for that bigger-than-
life closeup, you'd better mean what you say, for insincerity
will show up like a putty nose.
I think that television has made it possible for more people
than ever before to judge a man on his merits. With whatever
faults can be assessed against television, in this instance it is
the hero. It has brought us back to the political stump meeting
where the. voters can look and listen and decide.
There is an area of political coverage, however, that has
many people disturbed for which, I am almost sure, there will
never be an entirely satisfactory answer.
That is the area of elections coverage, especially involving
the use of computers and the quick forecasts of victory or defeat.
Nobody can be certain what the effect really is in California
from national predictions in New York which is three hours ahead
of us.
In 1964, it was obvious that Lyndon Johnson had won long
before California polls were closed. But it is not obvious
what the net effect was in California.
Did Republicans quit going to the polls because the Presidency
was lost and therefore hurt the chances of their state-wide candidates?
Or did Democrats, victory already in hand, not bother to vote
and thus hurt their local candidates? Or did both?
We don't really know, but we are concerned that, even if
Democrats and Republicans don't vote in equal numbers, advance
victory disclosures breed voter apathy.
I do not know what the answer is, but I am inclined to go
along with those who, in national elections would have polls
opening and closing at the same time -- not the same hour but the
same time -- throughout the nation.
- 3 -
Maybe some will think this is not practical and maybe there
is a better answer. Regardless, this I believe is a problem
that needs solving.
But generally speaking political reporting on both radio and
television is good and improving.
And I think that as these media, like newspapers continue
to develop specialists in the area of political reporting, it
will improve even more.
Up to now I have pretty much been discussing commercial
radio and television, but as you know there is another facet
of American television - educational television or public television.
And this is a little different matter from commercial television.
Certainly the broad concept is laudable. Non-profit television,
supported by public subscriptions, foundations or philanthropies
or by those for whom it provides services, such as school districts,
can and does provide a useful function.
Educational or public television can be educational in the
very broad sense, presenting programs of importance and significance
that have an intensive, if not extensive, viewership.
But I do not believe in federal subsidies for television,
any more than I believe in them for any other form of communications--
newspapers, magazines, radio.
And I believe even less in government-owned or operated
public communications media, including television.
Yet there are hints of government-operated public television
on the horizon. By public, I mean, as opposed to closed-circuit
television - I mean television that any owner of a VHG or UHF
television set can pick up.
Now I know there is government-operated television in many
nations including Britain -- where it got so bad they had to
let private enterprise come in and open a competing network.
And even in Britain, once the people were given a choice,
it became clear that they preferred to choose their own programs
instead of having their government choose them for them.
But pressure groups in this country and in California
continue to press for government sponsored public television.
- 4 -
TV Guide of June 10 notes that a committee of prominent
people has been formed, sponsored by six foundations, "to drum
up grass-roots excitement for non-commercial video's potentials. "
The magazine adds: "while lobbying for pending congressional
legislation creating a federally-supported TV service is ruled
out as one motive, it is hard to see how this could not be uppermost
in the minds of committee leaders. "
Looking around in our own state we recently discovered
that the television advisory committee set up under the last
administration has some pretty grandiose plans also.
Looking into them we found that the state has bought engineering
surveys charting a state-wide television network -- in fact
two networks -- with the announced goal of bringing "educational
television to every community in California having a population of
1,000 or more. "
In order to accomplish this goal, the advisory committee
proposes an elaborate state-owned and operated interconnecting
network, including microwave links, translators, community
antenna television and even existing phone company facilities.
Under the plan the state could own and operate up to 12
new television stations; it would operate a video tape and film
library, and a distribution system for delivery of tape and film
to stations.
The state even would petition the FCC to reserve "the top
30 UHF channels for state-wide instruction service. "
While this proposed state-wide system would be used for
instructional purposes during the day, it would be used to
broadcast to the general public in the evenings.
You people would be taxed in order to provide you with some
more competition.
The committee estimates all this would cost 18 million
dollars in the initial phase. This does not include operating
costs.
In addition, you remember that wild plan for California to
launch its own orbiting communications satelite for 25 million
dollars.
Lastfall we thought it was just a campaign gimmick, but now
we find they were serious. Contracts were actually let out for
research into the proposed project.
I 1 5
Now, what does all this mean to us?
It means, for one thing, the state goes into direct competition
with private tolevision.
Even more important, it has the dangerous potential of
putting the state into the propaganda business.
The power to subsidize is the power to control and complete
ownership gives complete control.
I am totally opposed to putting the state into the control,
and dissemination directly to the public, of information.
No matter how well-intentioned an administration might be,
I am convinced given that kind of power, no government could
long deal honestly with the people concerning its activities.
Congress wisely recognized this when it refused to let
the Voice of America prepare programs for domestic use or
consumption.
Now this does not mean that government should not use
television. Closed circuit television is a tremendous educational
tool for our schools and could be more widely used. Through it,
every child could have the benefit of our best teachers.
Classes and courses clearly marked as sponsored by a unit
of government and shown on non-government TV are of great value.
But government should not control the means of dissemination.
This administration opposes it and will continue to oppose it
as long as I am in office.
#
#
#
PLEASE NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may
be changes in, and/or additions to the above text. However, he
will stand by the above quotes.
# # #
6 -
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE:
mediate
Sacramento, California
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
445-4571
6.19.67
SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN - NATIONAL SHERIFFS'
ASSOCIATION - Riviera Hotel - Las Vegas, Nevada -
Monday, June 19, 1967
It's a pleasure to be here today--where the heat only comes from
the sun.
Las Vegas is really a wonderful place. Where else outside of
government do people throw money away. The big difference, of course,
is that here you can do it yourself; in government, we do it for you.
But it's nice to see all you sheriffs out there. I've been a
sheriff myself---you can't make a living in Hollywood for more than
25 years, without being a sheriff and if the picture makes money,
polish the star, you'll wear it often.
First time I ever played a sheriff, the director told me all I had
to have was a hard head and a white hat. I think your job takes a
little more than that. But I'm sure most of you agree that what is
needed more than anything in our country today is people with a hard-
headed approach to our problems and a vital interest in seeing them
solved.
This is especially true in the field of law enforcement where the
problems increase daily and where there are no easy solutions. I once
played a sheriff who thought he could do the job without a gun. I was
dead in 27 minutes of a 30-minute show. You may still have your guns,
but there are those who've done everything but tie your hands and take
your guns. It is time for society to give to those on the firing line
the weapons needed in the fight against crime.
Traditionally in our country, the sheriff is the symbol of law
enforcement. And in many places today he is assuming increased
importance as new situations arise affecting the public safety that
extend beyond the scope of individual police departments or that require
the coordination of law enforcement services within the country.
The magnitude of the problems facing sheriffs and all law enforce-
ment agencies is illustrated by statistics showing that crime is increas-
ing rapidly throughout the nation.
Just last week the F.B.I. reported the largest increase in serious
crime in the last nine years took place in the first three months of
1967. Crimes of violence, murder, rape, robbery, assaults, were up
20 percent.
-1-
Since 1960 crime has increased by 35 percent, even when you allow
for the increasing population. In fact, crime is increasing four times
as fast as our population.
In fact, it has reached epidemic proportions. Imagine newspaper
headlines announcing the threat of a nationwide epidemic that would
take nearly 10,000 lives, hospitalize another 200,000 and cause finan-
cial losses of more than a billion dollars.
The outcry would be tremendous.
Yet, that is a description of our annual crime losses and the
outcry has hardly risen above a whisper except in isolated instances.
We know that our biggest source of crime is our young male
population those between 14 and 29. In California, this group commits
80 percent of all crimes.
And during the next 20 years this age group will increase tw
fast as the rest of our population. Needless to say, the effects could
be devastating.
Already in our country few women are brave enough or foolhardy
enough to venture out alone at night. Many neighborhoods are not even
safe in the daytime.
There has been a significant increase in the purchase and training
of watchdogs. More and more citizens are buying firearms, not for
hunting or target practice, but for protection of themselves and their
families.
In many areas, citizens have banded together, rightly or wrongly,
to patrol streets and in other ways attempt to protect the residents of
their neighborhoods and communities.
Women are urged to carry whistles as a means of calling for help.
Self-protection classes such as judo and karate flourish. Law-abiding
citizens are genuinely concerned. And so are those of us who are
ultimately charged with providing protection, maintaining law and order,
solving and preventing crime and finding causes of crime, and juvenile
delinquency.
The threat to society by crime places a number of responsibilities
on all of us at the state and local level who have a responsibility for
the public safety.
First, we must focus public attention on this problem and enlist
widespread public support in coping with it.
Second, we have a responsibility to make sure that the public re-
ceives the facts about the problem and about feasible solutions to it.
Third, we must ma sure that we are making the best use of all
available resources for preventing and controlling crimes.
Fourth, we must work to bring the best and the most modern scien-
tific resources to bear on the crime problem.
Let me elaborate: effective law enforcement is primarily a local
responsibility. Other levels of government, both state and federal,
can supply assistance, but we must never forget that the basic tasks of
crime prevention and control belong at the local level. This places a
great responsibility on cities and counties to provide adequate support
for their law enforcement officers, and to provide the necessary facil-
ities and equipment for keeping the peace.
This is an area for partnership between state and local government,
with you having the primary role and the state providing those services
which must be statewide to be effective.
It is important to recognize that unless both local and state law
enforcement agencies meet their responsibilities, we may find them
usurped by the federal government or ceded to it by default.
When this happens we will have, in effect, a national police force.
And we will have taken steps to abolish crime only at the risk of our
freedom.
The answer to growing demands placed on law enforcement is not
federal or state domination, or the imposition of some regional super
government. We can strengthen local governments so that they can cope
with crime.
This involves effective utilization of existing resources, includ-
ing cooperation and coordination between local governments.
In many areas, the sheriffs as the chief county law enforcement
officers must provide imaginative leadership. In California, many
programs have already been developed along this line. Many city police
departments have joined with the sheriffs' departments in the joint use
of central services, such as identification, records, communications,
laboratory, and jail facilities. In some counties, smaller cities have
contracted with the sheriff's office for the provision of police services
Another step in the war against crime must be the mobilization of
public support. One of our aims has been to involve the citizen and the
independent sector in government. There are many things government can-
not do alone, and there are many things the independent sector can do
better than government. You know, they may not believe it in Washington,
but when given a chance, the average American wants to contribute to
solving the problems which face us---including the crime problem.
-3-
In our state, we see citizens involved in crusades to "stamp out
crime." We find businessmen forming parole advisory committees to aid
our correctional program. We find industries interested in contributing
funds and manpower to crime prevention programs.
And this does make sense. When citizens and government work
together to fight crime, it is the citizen who gains in terms of in-
creased public protection.
There are not enough sheriffs and police to reverse the crime trend
without the continuing support of our communities. Public information
and community relation programs are no longer luxuries for law enforce-
ment agencies. They must become essential parts of day-to-day
operations.
A surprising fact is that part of the increase in crime stems from
the very progress we are making which benefits and enriches our
civilization. The same scientific and technological advances that
benefit all our citizens are being utilized and adapted for use by the
criminal element.
Modern methods of transportation and communications, and modern
tools and weapons are used daily by those who prey on society.
It is essential that society also use to the fullest our scientifi
and technological advances in the prevention, detection and control of
crime. And in the correction and rehabilitation of criminals.
In addition, there is need for basic research involving the joint
effort of various scientific and professional disciplines into the
nature of crime, and criminals and into methods of detection, apprehen-
sion and treatment.
One of the imaginative developments in progressive law enforcement
techniques has been the experimental helicopter patrol of the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department. This morning I am happy to participate
with Sheriff Pitchess in launching a similar 3-day experimental aerial
patient for Clark County and the City of Las Vegas. I am sure you will
be hearing much more about this from experts in the field.
The original helicopter patrol project was a cooperative venture
of the federal government, a private aircraft firm and local law
enforcement. This type of project can be a model for the future wherein
different levels of government and the private sector cooperate for
progress.
-4-
Another scientifi development shows that a operative partnership
can exist between different levels of government. A; many of you know,
our Highway Patrol has arranged a computer to computer link-up between
our State Capitol and the National Crime Information Center' at F.B.I.
headquarters in Washington. Twenty-nine police agencies in California
were linked on April 27, through the California Highway Patrol computer,
to the F.B.I. information system. We are told by J. Edgar Hoover that
this is the first computer to computer exchange in the history of law
enforcement. In fact, it is the first use of this technological advance
to link local, state and federal governments.
We feel it will be invaluable in our fight against crime by allow-
ing the rapid retrieval and exchange of information between California
and the F.B.I. and in this kind of legitimate cooperation, there is
no danger of local authority being usurped.
But this is just one step. We are convinced that efforts now being
made throughout our state and nation must be better coordinated, and
that new efforts must be made if we are to be truly effective in pre-
venting and controlling crime. Those engaged in this broad field must
be able to share the resources and the research, and benefit from the
progressive practices of others.
In order to achieve this, we are working with the state attorney
general, leaders of local law enforcement, the judiciary, and the
Legislature to develop a master plan for California criminal justice.
We have four major objectives:
First, to provide for statewide planning and for orderly and
effective development in the field of criminal justice.
Second, we wish and expect to maintain the traditional partnership
and cooperation between the agencies of state and local government.
Third, we must provide coordination of those agencies and groups
involved in criminal justice projects.
Fourth, we must provide a vehicle to handle federal-state relations,
and to implement federal legislation dealing with crime control.
Under this plan, we hope to bring together all the agencies and
bodies involved in crime control, as well as representative citizens,
to develop statewide plans for the prevention, detection and control
of crime and for the improved administration of criminal justice. Such
a plan will give California the ability to attack crime, and the roots
of crime from many vantage points.
-5-
-6-
Of course, no
ogram in itself can work Lacles or eliminate
crime, but we feel this program will insure that we are utilizing
to the fullest all the available resources, and that we continually
are searching for new resources in the never-ending war on crime.
We have also proposed legislation for the creation of a crime
research foundation to be financed and served by both the private
and public sectors.
Its purpose will be to develop a coordinated state, local and
private effort toward developing new scientific techniques to combat
crime, initiate research projects in the area of police management,
administration and basic research in the field of crime, and encourage
engineers and scientists to devote themselves to careers in crime
research.
We hope we can finance this foundation by channeling to it
funds appropriated for some existing state law enforcement efforts
and by winning the financial participation of private foundations
and the business community. This is certainly one of those areas
where the independent sector can be, and should want to be, of help.
Now these steps we are taking are not meant as cure-alls or
panaceas. But they are moves in what we hope is the right direction.
But I think that just as important as the mechanical steps we
are taking is a need to redirect the thinking of some of those engaged
inthe war on crime.
I do not hold with the theory that says society is to blame
when a man commits a robbery or a murder and therefore we must be
understanding and as sympathetic for the criminal as we are for the
victim.
Nor do I hold with the spirit of permissiveness abroad in the
land that has undoubtedly added to the juvenile delinquency problem.
This is an era, not only of permissiveness, but also of afflu-
ence. As a result many young people often have time on their hands.
Many who might otherwise find jobs have no need to work. May I
point out respectfully that we should question perhaps that part
of the President's crime report that lays such emphasis on curing
crime by eliminating poverty. This is a worthy goal in itself
but it is interesti..g to note that during the great depression we
had an all-time low in crime. Poverty is one contributing factor,
but we should not delude ourselves that simply by improving social
conditions we can automatically eliminate crime.
I cannot help but believe that goods and privileges carelessly
given or lightly earned are lightly regarded.
A boy who works for the money to buy a car and keep it in
gasoline is much more likely to appreciate it and care for it than
the youth whose car has been given to him and whose gas is purchased
on his father's credit card.
Likewise the boy or girl who can go out at night only if he
or she behaves is more apt to behave than those who have no set
rules to follow, and no responsibilities to accept.
This brings me down to two points. First, are we doing enough
for our children by doing too much for them? Aren't they really bet-
ter off if they are taught to accept responsibiliy and to learn that
in the long run we all must earn what we get and that we usually
get what we earn?
The second point is, haven't we made it almost impossible for
many of our young people to earn legitimately the things they need
and want.
In some cases we have taught them by example that they don't
have to earn, that instead they have a right to expect to be given.
I challenge that this is wrong. I challenge that nobody does any
young person any favor by this approach.
But also, haven't our laws, aimed with the best intentions at
preventing exploitation of children and providing old age security
and of insuring meaningful wages- haven't these, by being too
narrowly drawn and too rigidly implemented, put many kids to loiter-
ing on the street corners because they couldn't get jobs after school
or during the summer.
I suggest that if exceptions were made in some of our laws re-
garding social security and minimum wages, and if some of our unions
would cooperate by recognizing that a boy seeking a part-time job
should fall in a little different category than the full-time skilled
-8-
or semi-skilled aduit, that we would take a lot of our young people
off the streets and out of trouble.
You know, there are a lot of old maxims that are still true
today and it is not corny to note that it is idle hands that do
the devil's work and, as a result there is often the devil to pay
and it is you and I who usually do the paying.
In urging that we allow our young people the right to work
and to earn and to gain the sense of pride that you only get through
your own accomplishments, I am not overlooking the value of recreation.
I think, without questions, that we need better and more recrea-
tional facilities. We need to make it possible for a boy or a girl
to play hard as well as to work hard, and to develop and take pride
in his athletic skills or hobbies.
I suggest to you that this is another area where government,
with its limited tax funds, can turn to business and industry to
sponsor teams, to make available recreational facilities and to work
with youth on an informal basis.
A slum boy living next door to a factory wouldn't be throwing
rocks through the factory windows if the factory owner and foreman
were friends who now and then extended a friendly hand.
Here is an area in the independent sector that offers tremendous
possibilities.
Now I do not mean by all this that there is no such thing as a
bad boy or that there is no place in our society for punishment. Fae
from it.
I believe in the carrot and the stick philosophy--with the car-
rot dangled in front as an inducement for being good at the same time
you are ready to come up from behind with the stick for being bad.
There is talk these days that punishment is not a deterrent, and
I believe that talk is partly responsible for our increase in crime.
As punishment becomes more difficult to mete out those who would
be deterred by its threat feel free-er to resort to crime and acts
of violence.
Some court decisions have narrowed the difference between liberty
and license and in some areas have overbalanced the scales of justice
so that the rights f society are outweighed 1 decisions
new rights to individuals accused of crimes.
There was the case of the young boy who come home from school
and found a man--a boarder in the washing blood from his
hands in the kitchen sink. He told the boy he had cut himself.
The boy went into the bedroom where he found his 10-year-old
sister's body hidden under clothing and papers.
He ran screaming from the house.
The little girl had been stabbed 60 times and had been mutilated
in a savage and depraved manner. Cigarets had been ground out in
some of her wounds.
The murderer was convicted and sentenced to death. But the Cali-
fornia Supreme Court in a 1-3 decision reversed the conviction and
death penalty not because there was any question of his guilt but
because of technical reasons and because "there was insufficient
evidence that the defendent intended to commit mayhem or to torture."
Obviously, I'm not telling you this with the idea of shocking
you with a story of a crime of violence. Every one of you has plenty
you cantell from your own experience. I am telling it only to point
up the need for common sense and realism in the war on crime. Let
us have an end to the idea that society is responsible for each and
every wrong doer. We must return to a belief in every individual
being responsible for his conduct and his misdeeds with punishment
immediate and certain.
With all our science and sophistication, our culture and our
pride in intellectual accomplishment, the jungle still is waiting
to take over. The man with the badge holds it back.
As we look at the many problems facing law enforcement, we cannot
afford to overlook the fact that mass criminal violations and mob
violence are increasingly endangering our communities. Some euphemis-
tically call this "civil disobedience." It is nothing more or less
than deliberate and premeditated violations of the law by groups
of people. Protest that takes the form of criminal violations, leads
to violence, mob rule, and ultimately to anarchy, where no man has
either freedom or rights.
-10-
Those who go about the country forecasting "a long, hot summer"
and predicting where the next riots will take place contribute to dis-
turbances and disorders because some of the more irresponsible ele-
ments seem to feel an obligation to justify these predictions.
I am also a little tired of those who proclaim that we must
pour so much money into a community program, or enact this or that
social legislation, or else we face a wave or riots and unrest.
Government must be responsive to the needs of its citizens; it must
provide equal opportunities in education and employment; and it must
work to alleviate adverse social conditions. But it must not bow
to threats of violence which amount to political extortion.
Let me close by saying that we are aware that your tasks become
more difficult every day, and that we recognize the tremendous
gains you have made in coping with them.
The war on crime is a never-ending one. It is necessary that
we--all of us--pursue it constantly and with vigor. Certainly this
must be SO if our citizens are to be safe on our streets, and in
their homes, and if man is to be able to live free from fear of his
fellow man, in an ever-contracting world, and an increasingly more
complex society.
# # #