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
118564134
label
Transcripts - 05/15/1973, 06/27/1973, 06/28/1973, 06/29/1973, 08/02/1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564134
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 05/15/1973, 06/27/1973, 06/28/1973, 06/29/1973, 08/02/1973
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Conference Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564134
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
d4867f9436452092
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -
05/15/1973, 06/27/1973, 06/28/1973, 06/29/1973,
08/02/1973
Box: P04
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
5/15
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD MAY 15, 1973
Reported by: Governor's Press Office (FEB)
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is furnished
to the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their convenience only.
Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as possible
after the conference, no corrections are made and there is no guarantee
of absolute accuracy).
-0-
(Whereupon the Governor read Press Release #262)
Governor:
Now on this matter, Win Adams and representatives of EPA
are here and will be able to answer any questions you may have on this
matter after the press conference. I am sure they can give you better
information than I can give you.
Question:
Governor, in general terms can you tell us what it means
to you that the state will, in fact, enforce the same law that federal
authorities otherwise would?
Governor:
Win. Win, I am going to start right in with you. I think
I know the answer but I'll let Win do it.
Question:
What is the major difference in that the state will
enforce the law. I mean, in effect, it's the same law that you will
enforce.
Win Adams:
Yes, we have had a state law. Last year there was a new
federal law just for water quality and in that there were provisions to
delegate that authority to the state to operate the program. Otherwise
we would have had a dual program.
Question:
Then it's the same thing you have been doing?
Win Adams:
Yes.
Question:
It is the same thing now that you were doing before, right ?
Win Adams:
Yes, this makes it official.
Governor:
Without this authority, however, there would have been a
dual system, with the federal government and state government enforcing,
virtually, the same kind of regulation.
Question:
Are the requirements the same as federal or are the local?
Win Adams
We have amended our law to comply in all essential respects
to the federal law.
Question:
I realise they comply but in some respects aren't they
tougher?
Win Adams:
Yes, they can be more stringent than federal law.
State laws will supersede the federal. They will be administered as
one program.
- 1 -
Question:
inaudible
Governor:
Which is somewhat normal situation in a lot of areas.
Question:
How is the signature campaign going on for your
(fax)
initiative?
Governor:
I hope to have a report later on there. I don't know what
the count is on that. I know that we have a great many in the field.
We know we have asked for a very tough job to do this, but we will know
later on just about where we stand at this point in the drive.
Question:
Are you confident you will get enough signatures?
Governor:
Well, you know me, I always run scared and I think in any
kind of election or a matter of this kind you run scared. So I run
scared. As I said we have asked for a very difficult thing in asking for
a volunteer movement in the limited period of time to get these. We knew
we were really handing them a tough assignment but let me just say that
I am hopeful.
Question:
There have been complaints that state employees have been
pressured to circulate petitions and so forth.
Governor:
If there is any such example we haven't heard any complaint
directly. Contrary to that we have been impressed by the enthusiastic
volunteering of civil service employees who want to participate in this
and who have in great numbers expressed themselves by saying it is high
time that something of this kind was done. If anyone has been persuaded
in any way that they believe it was pressured then it is in total violation
of any instruction that we have given.
Question:
You said last month you were going to keep things completely
separate from your office and the conduct of this private campaign.
Governor:
This is for on their own time. It is for anyone who wants
to participate such as last week on the Saturday blitz a number of our own
people did this. As I say there is great enthusiasm in the departments
and individuals are volunteering in great numbers and it is completely
contmary to anything we have heard about somebody complaining
Question:
Are suggestions being made that they volunteer during
meetings being held during daylight hours?
Governor:
Not that I know of. I don't know how the department heads
have informed them of this.
Question:
You are suggesting that they volunteer on their own time.
Isn't that sort of a pressure? I mean if somebody's boss comes along and
suggests that he do something on his own time that's putting pressure on.
- 2 -
Governor: No. And I again we only suggest a thing of this kind. I
will stand on our six-year record. In all the elctions and all the
programs that have come up that call for participation by people I'll
stand on our record against any record of any administration in the past
of California because no letters have gone out from us reminding people
of what their salary is and what they are expected to contribute. No one
has been pressured in any way and if anyone is pressured I want to know
about it, because action will be taken. By the same token these people
are citizens and when these people employed by government want to use
(tax)
their weekends and their free time to circulate petitions and they
volunteer and they tell us they believe that this is a worthwhile thing
that should have been done a long time ago I don't think they should be
denied that practice of citizenship.
Question:
Governor, if this is really a grass roots movement for
reducing taxes why is it necessary to call on state employees to volunteer
their services?
Governor:
State employees are a very large segment of the active
people here in Sacramento. We're the biggest industry of Sacramento.
There are a lot of these people and they have the same interests that
other citizens have, the same desire to see their taxes lowered, they are
taxpayers too.
Question:
The organization has various committees formed in various
counties. Weren't they successful in getting volunteers just on a
grass roots level?
Governor:
Our volunteers cover the entire spectrum. We have probably
had the biggest answer in response to our mailings that any mailing has
ever received and the contributions that average around $12 a piece
indicates the broad grass roots level of support for this. So are you
suggesting that these people be denied some participation in community
affairs because they are employed by government?
Question:
I am just wondering whay it is necessary to conduct a
blitz using state employees if there is a great
Governor:
The blitz was not just for state employees. We had a blitz
of people who would walk precincts, people who would go out to shopping
centers and so forth and we had it as a device in this getting of
signatures. I had it last Saturday. Many of these people have
participated in that but no one is being suggested that they do this on
government time or in any way because of their government employment.
- 3 -
Question:
There has been some speculation that the initiative drive
is not going as well at this pointas you had anticipated is that correct?
Governor:
I don't really know. I do know this that when I say it
was difficult we do know that it was a difficult task in the limited time.
/on a volunteer basis
I don't know if anyone has even gotten petitions signed in the numbers
we need in this limited period of time. It is also true that without a
general election going on, without precinct organizations active and at
work where they simply take this on as another assignment as they did in
the last election with the many ballot issues, there is a tendency for
the volunteers even though they are enthused to take their petitions and
instead of actually going out and spending hours doing it there are a lot
of people who think well, if I drop in on someone or someone comes to
visit me I"11 get their signatures on the petition and we are concerned
about the time element.
Question:
I haven't heard of any Republican legislators getting
deeply involved in this drive; is that in any way contradictory to your
statement that there is a broad grass roots movement?
Governor:
Not at all. As a matter of fact, many of them have made
their offices available in their districts, and many of their own
assembly district chairmen are heading up the drives in those districts.
Question:
Can you name any?
Governor:
I don't know, I've
No I wouldn't want to pick them out
because I don't know who all have and who all haven't. In the meetings
with the assembly leadership and members of the assembly and the senate
there have been evidences of this and they have asked about it, and a
number of them volunteer.
Question:
On your fact sheet here you say subject 4 that Californians
are paying 44 percent of their income in taxes. Do you pay 44 percent of
your income in taxes?
Governor:
I have a hunch that back over the years I have paid more.
than that.
Question:
How much more do you think?
Governor:
Well, I don't know but when I was in television and in
movies I don't know of anyone in that business who had attained stardom
who got to keep two thirds or almost 60 percent of their salary. You
worked for far less than half. I was in the 70 percent bracket and before
that before they reduced it I was in a 90 percent bracket.
Question:
Are you getting back how through tax loopholes by not
paying as much or are you paying 44 percent
Governor:
No.
d I don't know what those tax loopholes would be.
Question:
Are you paying 44 percent?
Governor:
Yes, I would have to say probably more. 44 percent is an
a verage and the governor's salary happens to be above average. So
obviously there are some people below the median line who are probably
paying a little less than that and some above who are paying more.
Question:
This question of whether. the government is taking 44 or
32 percent is controversial and argumentative. Would you be willing to
submit that question to someone neutral, like the Brookings Institute
since this figure has been used in advertisements?
Governor:
I'll take exception to one thing that you said there.
I do not consider the Brookings Institute neutral. The Brookings
Institute is one who has loved to make the figures come out based as
taxpayer against gross national product. As I said yesterday speaking
to the AFL-CIO meeting to use gross national product which is a favorite
trick of some politicians is to ignore the fact that you are double
counting, that the government can increase the gross national product
by building a battleship but it doesn't make people any richer. The
only way you can actually figure out what does government cost is to take
the total cost of all the governmental institutions in the United States
and take the total revenues of all of the people in the United States and
find out what percentage of those revenues it requires to meet this cost
of government over here. That comes out at 44 percent. Now the nitpicking
that has gone on upstairs of trying to make this a confused issue, where
the one figure or the other is the right way to figure, to compute this,
would like to suggest that because we take the total cost of government,
all of the things that contribute to running the departments and in some
instances those are toll bridges and the revenues that the postal
department gets but it is all paid for by these people over here.. The
funny thing is when you take and reduce this to pure taxes and then reduce
the people's income to pure cash income the figure still comes out almost
43
percent.
Now
the
I
would suggest that 44 percent, 43 percent or
the other figure that has been used by some on a different basis of
37 percent, or even down to the 32.6 percent which is totally falacious
because it is related to gross national product, that any of those
indicate that the overall issue must not be lost sight of and that is
taxes are too high. They are the biggest single expense that any family
has. This is what must be reduced and I think if you took a public
opinion poll, as a matter of fact we had a survey at the Governor's
Conference in New York the other day, that revealed that the overall
issue in the people's minds is the pocket book issue of the cost of
government==of taxes.
Ed Gray:
I would like to point out that in the material that
has been provid ed to you there is a copy of the letter from the tax
foundation itself, the same organization that Alan Post used in making
his report and that letter confirms the fact that it is about 44 percent,
in terms of revenue.
Question:
Governor, on these things you gave us at the start of the
conference, why are you changing your policy after six years of not
commenting on subjects not related to California about which you have no
personal knowledge. You have been doing this for six years why change
now?
Governor:
Well, I don't know. I have said "I don't know"in here
a lot of times, when you have asked questions about something outside.
Question:
There has been no flat rule, no prohibition.
Governor:
No, I made it for a very obvious reason.
Question:
Does this just hold for Watergate or?
Governor:
No I made it all inclusive here so that we could talk
about state issues for a while, because for quite some time now I have
been a little frustrated in that a lot of things are going on the state
of California and we have been spending time talking about things that are
none of our business. It's none of my business in here anyway.
Question:
Are you going to discuss Watergate outside of this news
conference every week?
Governor:
No.
Question:
Not at all? Inside California or outside California?
Governor:
No. You'll have to put up with it.
Question:
Governor, whether you are actively promoting it or not
you are being mentioned for a position of national leadership. Doesn't
that mean that your views on national subjects are of interest to a lot
of people?
Governor:
Well, they will do that after we solve the problems of
California.
Question:
To what extent do you feel betrayed by what you see going
on in Washington?
Laughter
Governor:
May I refer you to my statement.
- 6 -
Question:
Governor, Moretti funds to fund a project for a steam car
I was wondering what you think of the use of that kind of money like
going around the corner,?
Governor:
Well, the legislature has the authority to use their
contingency fund for things of this kind. Certainly there is no question
about the interest of California in non-pulluting sources of power but
that something I suggest you take up with the legislature to see how,
whether they are all in agreement that that is a proper use of the money.
Question:
Speaker Morretti has also said that the chances of the
death penalty bill passing the lehislature appear to be very slim this
session. If that seems to be true would you support an initiative to put
that question on the ballot?
Governor:
Yes I would and I think here is an example of Assemblyman
Moretti, Speaker Moretti, commenting on this and saying that the chances
are very slim, here is someone who must be accepted as an authorityfor
that statement because I would say that the fate of the death penalty
legislation is entirely in his hands in the assembly and his alone.
Question:
Do you think there should be an amendment to that bill
that would put hard drug pushers;, that would allow judges to give them
the death penalty? Connecticut has done something of that sort.
Governor:
I haven't given that any consideration. I would like to
talk to our people on this whether there should be any additions to the
death penalty legislation. Right now I have been concerned about what
has been proposed in getting it on there. I know it is awfully easy to
fell vengeful about the drug pusher, the hardcore pusher. How you
separate them from the addict who does this to supply his own demand I
don't know. But as I say I don't know of any crime that is more heinous
than the pusher who is out soliciting that kind of trade. But I would
want to sit down with our own people in the field of law enforcement and
particularly in our own drug council to see whether that would be
beneficial or not.
Question:
On this Watergate statement, there is increasing talk of
people saying that impeachment proceedingsought to be launched. If that
increases don't you feel you ought to be responsible as a leader of your
Party to defend the President if you feel personally that he should be
defended? Might you break the rulein that case?
Governor:
Let me say I will be willing as time goes on to review
my position at frequent intervals to see whether I still stay with it
or not.
- 7 -
Question: A Reappo lonment bill 20-20 in the nate anda gain of
/open
Republican seats in the Assembly, would you likely have anmind to sign it:
Governor:
You are on a subject now
I have been gone for a week
and I know there have been negotiations going on in the assembly and the
senate on these measures and I have only had a brief word with some of
the legislative leadership about the progress they think they are making
in that regard. I intend to keep abreast of it and intend to find out
what's doing but I don't have enough informationto comment now on whether
they have made gains or not.
Question:
On the death penalty, what if the legislature just sends
you a bill to say to have the death penalty for life convicts who kill a
/provision
prison guard or something, you know a very narrow death penalty, would you
be inclined to sign that or wait for something more broad?
Governor:
Well, you know I always hesitate to comment on what I will
or will not sign. I couldn't see any reason for rejecting if ******* I
thought it was a proper crime that should have the death penalty. But not
signing that is a gain in trying to get the other crimes covered if I felt
it was in some way designed to head off any further action in this effort,
then I would have to take that into consideration.
Question:
Would you consider a home in San Clemente a California
question?
Laughter.
Governor:
Yes, I would consider the purchase of a home in California,
yes a California question, but I would also say that I have no knowledge
whatsoever of any details of any individuals who have made such purchases.
Laughter
Question:
Are you taking any active steps in finding office space
for constitutional officers in the old wing of the Capitol? Are you
letting them make their own decisions, or what is happening in that?
Governor:
I don't know just what the process has been on this as we
have gone forward with the plans. We are working on it.
Question:
Have you talked to Senator Collier about the new legislative
building?
Governor:
No. You mean have I had any contact with him since then?
No.
Question:
Your position is still that you favor retention of the old
Capitol.
Governor:
For Capitol purposes Yes, This does not rule our the
possibility since there are a number of, or there is a great deal of
rental space being occupied by former Capitol residents. I haven't made
any final decision and I told Senator Collier I wouldn't as to whether
there might be a need for an additional structure but I still cling to
the idea that for a general Capitol purposes this building should be
strengthened and used not just kept as a museum.
Question:
You would support a new office building as long as they
met in the existing legislative chambers?
Governor:
I would want to know what the space requirements were and
what the purpose was in having it but there must be some space require-
ments because we do know that there are people in offices outside this
present building.
Question:
In view of all the attention that the legislature is
giving SB 90 cleanup bills can you be so certain that your initiative is
without flaw, so without flaw that none of the SB 90 problems will appear
when your initiative becomes law, if it does?
Governor:
Well, other than it was engraved in two stones
laughter
No, we have provided that there will have to be legislation to implement
the facets of this program. May I say that as an answer to those who
charge us with bypassing the legislative process, I don't think it's as
complicated as the SB 90 program which had to actually fit itself to more
than 5,000 taxing agencies within the state of California. This was what
happened to us there in finding the special districts because of the rules
were based on a base-year of taxation we found there were special district
/if
that don't tax every year and we caught them and that was an inbetween
year for them we literally had closed some special districts out of ever
being able to have a tax again. I think that was a far more complicated
thing than this. I believe we have anticipated and thought of just about
everything that would be necessary to give flexibility and yet still,
remember, make plain that the legislature still continues with full
authority over what taxes, whether taxes will be increased or lowered,
we are simply applying that ceiling and the legislature will make the
decision about the tax structure as they always have.
Question:
What's your position on the Wakefield initiative, the
terms of judges six years instead of twelve in the higher courts?
Governor:
Well, I have had my own theorie about judges and the
idea of appointing system similar to the Missouri plan of selecting
judges. I have to say I do not believe that would improve the judiciary
in California.
Question:
Governor.
inaudible
the state may have to allow the
resumption of oil drilling7
Governor:
That the state ought to allow?
- 9 -
Question:
May h. e to because of the energy crisis.
Governor:
Based on the presentation that has been made to us that
was not only made to the Governors' Conference but that we had here
that Congressman Chet Hollifield came out from his committee with experts
employed by their staff on the energey shortage. I have to say that I
think we are going to have to explore and find and utilize every energy
source that is available in the world and I still believe that this can
be done without suddenly throwing all environmental and esthetic
considerations out the window. I think modern technology makes it
possible to do all these things now with very little disturbance of the
terrain or the ecology and this is even true, and we are beginning to
601)
develop I understand the ability to do underwater, drilling with no surface
structure whatever and underwater pumping.
Question:
Are you concerned about the safety of the press if we
remain in the old Capitol building?
Laughter.
Governor:
I told Ed Gray that at the first tremblor I want him to
rush right into your offices and say "Everybody down to the Governor's
Office. We're in the safe wing. If it is true, as pointed out by
experts, that this building I do know I better knock on wood
there has been a long history of no servere earthquakes in this area but
if there is a risk, a human risk, then everybody in that wing should be
provided for. I love you all, I wouldn't want to see anything like that
happen to you.
Question:
Just one final clarification if you will on the Watergate
statement. The prepared release said that this press conference should be
to discuss California state issues. You seem to have amended that now.
You are including all press conferences anywhere. Did you really mean
to do that? When you are wearing another hat, for example, as a
Republican Party spokesman, are you going to refuse to comment on
Watergate?
Governor:
I said I will give this statement constant review as to
whether it needs to be updated or not. But, as for the moment, I stand
by the written statement.
Question:
Governor, as you know, two weeks ago 18 munitions cars
blew up in Roseville, As a result of that there seems to be growing
concern by local officials along majorraillines that it could happen again.
Do you think that concern is justified and do you think we ought to take
a closer look at the movement of munitions cars in the state?
- 10 -
Governor:
I've always assumed. I hope I'm right. I have always
assumed that trains with dangerous material did have some considerations
with regard to where they were parked on sidings and so forth with
relation to heavily populated areas. We know that these materials have
to move. We know that every safety precaution and rule that can be
applied is applied to them. The accidents are not just confined to
munitions. We know that now and then we get cars of industrial chemicals,
trains of industrial chemicals that have this kind of accident. I would
/if
think, and I haven't gone into this as yet, I think that there are further
safety precautions with regard to where they would be involved on sidings
and so forth this should be looked at. It is an infrequent thing. I
guess there is no way to be accident-proof when you are dealing with
dangerous materials of any kind. I know that the normal shipping of bombs.
for example, and shells of that kind, they have such a safety factor that
you can just litterally pile them in a truck and go down the highway with
them. As a matter of fact that is what happened with those that had been
scattered and there was no risk to it but I am not an authority on whether
we need additional safety rules. I have been under the impression that,
for quite some time, in all kinds of transportation, including human
transportation, the United States is probably the safest place in the
world that we have the most stringent requirements for safety of any
country in the world and this goes for air travel, for shipping for water,
for shipping by land, but if there's still something more that can bedone
then it should be done.
Squire:
Thank you, Governor.
######
- 11 -
6/27
TRANSCRIPT F GOVERNOR REAGAN'S PRESS
ONFERENCE
ON REAPPORTIONMENT.
June 27, 1973
Question:
What is different about this from prior redistricting
plans, from the Senate plan? Justice White seemed to think that
it really wasn't horrendous to him.
Governor:
I don't know what Justice White had to say. All I am
saying is that the fact that we have had a history of gerrymandering
which has militated against fair reapportionment or fair districting for
the people does not mean that we should settle for it forever more because
it has been a custom of the past. I grant you both parties throughout
the country have been guilty of this when each party was in power but it
has just grown worse and worse and now it has come down to the position
that I just don't think the people should have to put up with it.
All I can tell you is that in every word I have heard from the citizenry
no citizen has asked me to sign this. Everyone who has contacted me has
asked me to veto it.
Question:
Governor, a few minutes ago the Speaker said you were
really not concerned with reserving the integrity of communities of
interest. He said the reason you are really opposing the Assembly bill
you want the Assembly to get back the Republican majority they lost
at the ballot box.
Governor:
Well, I tell you, I'd make a deal with the Speaker.
Right now I would make a deal in which they sit down and reapportion
the State of California without taking into consideration party
registration.
Question: Have you found any similar examples of gerrymandering in the
Senate reapportionment bill?
Governor:
As I have said here, it isn't perfect. But I must say
the Senate did make an effort and had considerable success in meeting
the points that I had listed as my reasons for my veto of their
previous effort. I don't think you can ever get a perfect one. They've
got some areas and they did make an effort to go a lot farther in
correcting it and I think with a clear conscience in recognizing that
it is the function of the legislature. They have been entrusted withthis
by law and I could sign that.
/one of the Senate districts
Question:
Why didn't you bring in to show us how much better you
think it is?
- 1 -
Governor: I brought these in because this was the reason for the veto.
Since I have vetoed and since I have told you that the other one was
acceptable, I thought this was the thing that needed establishing
and documenting.
Question:
Are there no Senate districts you would consider
gerrymandering?
Governor:
I think the element of encumbency, as I mentioned again
in my statement, here, is taken into consideration. There is no way
around that and I don't challenge that the Senate was able to be
successful in a more effective compromise of their differences because
their present 20-20 ratio added to their objectivity.
Question:
You said that you recognized the legislature's
responsibility in this. Do you think they should continue to have that
responsibility?
Governor:
Well, I wonder if it was ever envisioned when they were
given it, as I have said many times in the past, it does constitute an
almost automatic conflict of interest. It is pretty difficult to ask
someone to legislate himself out, vote himself out of a district when he
has won election in that district. But what I have often thought is
that perhaps the legislature could still do this but I don't believe that
in reapportionment it was ever in the beginning envisioned that it would
be based on party registration.
Question:
Governor, the Supreme Court's masters resume their hearings
tomorrow, do you plan to testify before them?
Governor:
Not personally, but we have reserved time to explain, I
suppose, our position and veto on this.
Question:
You don't think it is important enough for you personally
to explain why you vetoed this?
Governor:
Well, there are times when you think maybe your lawyers
ought to represent you.
/fixture,
Question:
Governor, this district looks like a plumbing do you
think that's the worst of all?
Governor:
I think this has to be recognized as the worst of all.
It was also, we were informed, the only non-negotiable one, that there
could be no compromise that involved this district, in its present state.
Question:
In your lawyers' testimony tomorrow will you support the
Senate reapportionment plan?
- 2 -
Governor:
I think we will reiterate what I stated in my veto
message. I stated in the veto message that had these come down in
separate bills I could have signed the Senate bill and would have.
Question:
How about the Congressional plan?
Governor:
The Congressional Plan I hadn't paid too much attention
to because there was this one. There wasn't a need to go into it.
I have to say this about the Congressional plan---it is better than this.
They did not make as much of an effort to meet the objections in the
previous veto as did the Senate. There are some definite shortcomings
in that one too. I couldn't tell you honestly that we have studied that
well enough to know whether faced with that one alone whether it would
have been vetoed or not.
Question:
Governor, could we go back to the San Diego one?
Question:
What is the problem of La Mesa having five votes instead
of one?
Governor:
I think that the people have reason to believe that when
you look at the tiny number there that would be in each district that
their particular problem and needs would not have very much influence
on any one of the legislators. They are not important votewise.
Question:
Does the city have problems? Isn't five votes better
than one?
Governor:
As I say this is one way to look at it, the other is
the fact that are the people so divided that there isn't any one
legislator that would feel that he should stick his neck out on any
particular issue for the community.
Question:
Governor, your representatives have been working the floor
upstairs, I am sure, as of this moment what is the vote count? as you
see it.
Governor:
I wish I knew.
Question:
Do you expect your veto to be sustained?
Governor:
I hope so. But I have to say that this was an element
that we realized the possibility, the potential that there was an
override but you can't let that scare you into not doing what you feel
has to be done. in behalf of the people. I bet the people would sustain
my veto.
Question: A former chief consultant to the Senate Reapportionment
Committee testified before the Supreme Court hearing in San Diego last
week that the Senate plan was written for the benefit of the incumbents
and not the people and this was testimony before the court and she told
- 3 -
of how in Northern California two districts were shaped as to prevent
two incumbents from running against each other and described the ripple
effect that occurred all the way down the state and somebody said that
down in San Diego---and this has subsequently been changed one district
was shaped so that a fellow who was running for Congress Claire
Burgener that should he lose would not be forced to be in Senator
Schrade's district. So there seems to be the same kind of gerrymandering
in the Senate as in the Assembly.
Governor:
As I said, of course the element of incumbency is always
going to be a consideration, the element when it is done by the
legislature is going to involve party registration. And I also said
to you that I think just the coincidence of the Senate coming out with
a 20-20 tie did add to their objectivity and therefore in compromising
these views they came out with a far better situation than we had here
in the Assembly. The districts I have shown you, I think is a difference
of degree. The Assembly didn't feel the necessity to work as hard as
the Senate did to reconcile some of the differences and to eliminate
some of the points that had caused the original veto. Again, I hold my
line. I said that isn't perfect but it sure came a lot closer and I
think is less of a gerrymander and shows less of that kind of influence
than the other plans.
Question:
The same Assembly plan resulted in a 40-40 tie despite
the odd shapes of the districts.
Governor:
No, I don't think partisanship had to do with this and I
think if you will look at the feeling on the Assembly floor I cannot
charge that this is a partisan effort.
Squire: Any other questions? Thank you Governor.
- 4 -
87/9
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD JUNE 28, 1973
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
quickly as possible after the x conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
o00
GOVER REAGAN: Well, you are all waiting. I'm sorry
that I'm late and kept you waiting. About seven minutes, according
to mine. It's been a bad day. Somebody who was supposed to
knock on the door this morning had a wrong schedule. So I was
sleeping in. I appreciated theextra time, but it has set us back
a little bit.
Q
Were you watching television hearings regarding a certain
apartment complex on the Potomac River ?
A
No, I was sound asleep. As a matter of fact, I was having
a wonderful dream when they knocked on the door.
Q
Would you like to tell us about the dream
Q
About 1976?
A
No, I'm not going to tell you about thedream because I think
it m8ght be amended.
Q
Governor, in your six and a half years in office have you
elected or kept a list of political enemies that you might have
in California?
A
No, I just figure meeting with you people on a regular
basis here takes care of any problem of thatkind. No, I'm kidding.
It is a bad joke. No, I've no such list.
Q
Governor, it seems to be a dispute as to how much this special
(tax)
election will cost. Do you have any figures at all to dispute that --
those of the Secretary of State?
A
The figures that we had, that we have given out, as to the
actual cost of a special election has to do with -- well, we did this
by checking with a great many counties, large and small, to get a
cross-figure what the costs were. I think what has happened, the
confusion now is that the Secretary of State is interpreting the
-1-
special election to mean that - that being ewide itwould auto-
matically become a holiday for state employees. And he is adding
the cost of such a holiday into the cost of the special election.
We haven't checked that out. We are going to get a legal opinion as
to whether this - a special election --- it certainly doesn't --
it isn't statewide on our special legislative elections, it doesn't
necessitate a holiday. We are going to get a legal opinion on that.
But I think on the other hand you -- you might figure that with
government taking a day off the people might be the net winners.
Q
Governor --
Q
Governor, in the past you've said repeatedly that the old
capitol building aught to remain as the working seat of government.
Your administration now has agreed to the inclusion in the conference
report on the budget, $82 million, half of which is earmarked for a
new capitol building on the other end of the park. How do you
account for your change of view?
A
It isn't a change of view. There has always been the reali-
zation that if you were going to restore this old wing, there is --
is a need, a present need, before restoration, for additional space.
There is a great deal of leased space right now, both the legislature
and the executive branch. And out of this, as to the need for
additional building -- if this --- and if this capitol should be
restored there is, of course, as you know, the view on the part of
some upstairs that there should be a legislative building. Now,
from this came the consideration as to whether this capitol building
could be a just partially -- a part of the expense, could be shored up
and continued here as a landmark or a museum or whatever else. We
don't have that alternative any more. To the surprise of all of us,
we were given a legal opinion from the Attorney General's office that
for governme nt to go forward on a rebuilding program for a building
that would not be up to the ultimate and the best in safety standards
would vastly skyrocket our liability. That to do that, and then
to open this for people to use or to go into and have to be in the
position of saying we O. K'd the rebuil ding of a building to less
than maximum safety standards --- makes this a liability that the
state couldn't afford. be we are down to an alternative of totally
restoring of this building and/or whatever additional space is needed
and how that would be brought about.
Now, it had been proposed by some of the legislators that
the money go into the budget for both.
For
a
new
building,
whatever
-2-
that dimension would be, and for the restoration of the old capitol.
And in such a way that this would then be an accomplished fact that
we would have decided on a building and decided on the refurbishing
of the old capitol. My own view was that this was bypassing the
legislative process. And part of the process of allowing for public
hearings and for the input from the people of California, and it was nor
more than just building a building. We are talking about what
could conceivably become a new capitol. So my own proposal was
that we take the total amount of money and simply set it aside in
the budget for this purpose of capitol construction and then follow
up with legislation as to how we are going to meet the problem of
space as well as the safety of this building. And thus let public'
hearings and all the legislative view, all the committee hearings take
place so that we find out not only the alternatives presently suggested
byt are there other alternatives. And I think there probably will
come a number of other alternatives, but at least when we then go
forward, not only will the money have been held aside, whatever the
need might be --- it doesn't mean that you have to appropriate all
of that, if it doesn't require all of it - but everyone will be
assured that they have had full public hearings and that all the input
necessary to find the answer to the problem. For example, an
alternative that has already been talked around about the capital
that I'm sure you have heard, is -- would be that in restoring the old
west wing, this does not mean that it has to be built back in
exactly its present capacity, which is rather limited as to office
space in addition to the two legislative chambers. But take the
locale of that west wing and the possibility of building a wing that
does have the capacity we need, butwithin the same architectural
spirit of the present structure, and maintaining the dome and the
historic rotunda out here. That this could be an alternative. But
I think all of those things will -- will be the ideas that will come
before -- out of the legislative process.
Q
Governor, are you saying that in view of the Attorney
General's report on the liability involved that you can no longer
in good conscience hold onto your view that the present capitol
ought to remain as the seat of governme nt because there is just no
way to restore it, adequately?
A
No, no, no. I --- and I've never expressed anything but
my personal opinion and feeling which I think is echoed by a great
many people about this historic buildigg and the affection that
people have for it. What I think is that one alternative has been
eliminated, that if there is a need -- reservation or restoration of
this building it must be all the way to full earthquake safety
standards. We no longer have the alternative of simply shoring
it up, strengthening it somewhat, yet not bringing it back to --
to full use standards because there still would be some use and you
would have created something -- recreated it, which would be less
than the safety standards that --
Q
Governor, as far as your personal choice is concerned,
do you still prefer keeping the old section as to working capitol?
A
When you say the old section, I almost hestiate to give any
personal opinion here because personal opinion so far -- is what
led to the acceptance that I'm an advocate of some kind for this.
I'm interested in the other alternative that has been suggested,
that if you could retain the general appearance, the architectural
style of this building, the dome, this beautiful rotunda, in there with
all the history associated with it, and at the same time provide the
needed space in a wing that would meet those criteria and give us the
building in the present location, I think that's an alternative
that ought to be seriously considered.
0
Governor, what is the --- aside from full restoration of the
old wing, what - what alternatives are there, simply to raze the
old wing or -
A
Well, that's -- you see, that's what came out of the
elimination of the -- of the alternative. Then of course you have
to say if you were simply going to restore then yougot to look at cost
effectiveness. You have got to look at the price in relationship to
the -- to the use -- the amount of usable space other than the chambers,
Now one of the alternatives that is -- that's been proposed by some
legislators has been a building that will provide chambers and thus
you would have two sets of legislative chambers. There is no
question about the need for additional space for staff and legislative
counsel, add the legislative analysts' office, and all of these. And
that's why I think that - that this probably belonged as legislation
where there be an opportunity for all these things to be considered,
not just okaying it in the budget.
Q
Governor, where do you think the capitol ought to be, here
or in another building? Where should the legislature meet, hold its
-4-
headquarters?
A
Well, I've expressed my personal view. I believe we
should thinkslong and hard before we ever abandon this as the
capitol. I think this is the capitol and most people feel that
way.
Q
Governor, if you Build another building up there, though,
aren't you providing the office space that would make a rebuilding
of this place economically worthwhile? That is, I mean are you
going to revamp this place and put in new offices, what would be the
need for them if you have already - if you have built a brand new
building up at the other end?
A
Well, this, I say, is what's going to come out. All the
alternatives in a legislative hearing -- in the hearings before commit-
tees on the legislation. I'm quite sure the legislation will come
in for a building down there, as well as for the rebuilding of
this capitol. But then in that process other alternatives will
be provided. For example, if we need additional office space,
not for legislators, but for staff and so forth, there is a great
difference in the kind of regular office building that we emect,
And it its cost, than there would be for duplicating a capitol
building. There is a difference in the construction, the floating
walls that you put in the normal offices that we have here would
reduce the cost a great deal.
Q
Which one are you going to call Collier Towers?
A
I'll leave that for the public hearings also.
0
Governor, was this a result of any deal on -- concerning
the federal --
A
No.
Q
- - surplus?
A
No, no. When I was told that they wanted to put the
money in for both projects, the two buildings, I expressed my view
that ---- that, as I have said before, this -- this should not become
a budget matter in which the decision as to what is going to be built
is made on the budget with no opportunity for publid hearings, or
committee hearings to take place. That I would -- I would Q. K. the
idea of sequestèring the money, holding the money aside and then
follow it up with legislation to make a determination as to what we
will do.
Q
Governor, the budget is coming out of the conference
-5-
committee and specifies that money for the framework on the west
wing cannot be expended until money is appropriate for construction
of new legislative offices. Doesn't that preclude your options?
A
No, because I think once legislation has tobe introduced
there isn't any piece of legislation that cannot be altered and
amended as it goes through and that itself would be subject to
amendment. The language doesn't disburb me at all as long as
we know that they are going to have to go through the legislative
process, and get a bill passed.
Q
Governor, was there any horse trading on your part with the
legislature or with the conference committee insofar as you would
go along for setting aside this money, requiring legislation in
return for thekind of treatment you wanted on the federal revenue
sharing funds?
A
No, no. The s nator came to me simply with the proposal
about the money for the ideas they had to solve the problem and
I gave my opinion that it should not be decided in the budget. That
I would agree to setting the money aside.
o
What -
A
No, no, as a matter of fact, on that matter, the federal
revenue sharing funds, I have held the position, and this first came
up some months ago, and I was suprised and I spoke to the Speaker of
the Assembly and to Wilson Riles, and all three of us were in
agreement that we believe that Senate Bill 90 had been based on the
pledge of using the federal revenue sharing funds for the school
support. And therefore I would have thought -- I said my view
would be that any retreat from that was going back on what had been
agreed to by the legislature and myself as to Senate Bill 90.
O
Governor, aside from deals, didn't you wonder that if
you had not agreed to go along with the $82 million appropriation,
didn't you have any doubts that maybe Senator Collier would not go along
with $215 million? Maybe you didn't even have to talk to each other
about that.
A
No, he never brought that up and I didn't bring it up with
him. As I say, several -- well, it's -- I keep wanting to say
several weeks, I think it is actually months ago, that when this
first came - there was legislative talk about the federal revenue
sharing funds, I checked with Wilson Riles and said, "Isn't my
-6-
memory correct," and Wilson Riles said it must be, "I've been making
speeches all over the country on the basis that California had done
this with its refenue sharing funds." And I said, "Well, so have
I," and I called Bob, and the Speaker came down and he said,' "Certainly,
that's my agreement or my understanding." He said, "All of us
were agreed that that would be part of the funding for the school
aid in the -- in Senate Bill 90.
Q
Governor Reagan, Senator Stierns has said the reason he
won't sign the conference report, that was yesterday, is because he
was concerned you'd use that money and give it back to the people
and not put it into education. If this was very clear to him, why
wouldn't he sign the report?
A
Well, since they were so secretive about the conference
report, I don't know what went on in there. But I - evidently
if this is his statement, then he has a lack of understanding, about
what was agreed to. We proposed at the time of Senate Bill 90,
we -- and it was about that time that revenue sharing came into
being -- we proposed at that time, we will pledge our revenue sharing
to educational support fully.
Q
And this will not go into the funds to be returned to the
people, if you can -
A
Well, there's the one check that is in that. See, we
received one -- when revenue sharing came in there was one chtroactive
check we have received already. Senate Bill 90 had not even gone
into effect yet, so that was just simply added to all the money
that we already had on hand to surplus.
or
How much money are you talking about going into education, is
it $200 milbion?
--
It is more than $200 million. I think it comes out to around
$215 million and it varies as the years ago on, the next four years.
230, 240 million, something of that kind.
0
Governor, how mugh was that initial check?
A
The initial check, I think it was 230, I think.
Q
That' going to the tax rebate, right?
A
Ken says that's right.
Q
Does that go into the tax rebate?
A
That we just added $230 million to the surplus.
2
That's current fiscal year? 24 more hours or whatever?
I mean that money is in this current $800 or $750 million?
-7-
A
Yes, yeal
Q
Governor, on another subject. Do you still stand by your
prior statement on those involved in the Watergate case, that they
are not criminals at heart?
A
I made you a statement a few weeks ago, gentlemen, about
that and nothing has happened to change that. I think this press
conference should -- since you were unable to meet with me for the
last several weeks, E think we whould limit ourselves to the very
many state issues before us.
Q
Governor, what about the delay of six months in the sales
tax?
That seems to be hung up.
A
There is a bill upstairs that - theDills bill and my
position is that the original legislation actually was a package and
it was our intention, part and parcel of our whole proposal on tax -
on this tax programwas involved after six months delay in the
imposition of the sales tax increase. The legislation gave the
legislature an opportunity to do both -- or do that to make some
of the surplus funds available for the Bagley fund for conservation
and to make -- and to do the income tax rebate. Well, now the
Bagley fund money, it is my understanding, has been put in the budget.
That's accomplished. We have qualified for the ballot our proposal
of the 20 per cent income tax rebate. The only thing left undone,
except for thevote of the people on that is the -- is the sales
tax delay. And I'll sign it the instant it gets to my desk. And
I have so informed the legislature, that -- all they have to do is
send that down. And I know that the Dills bill, as I say, is up
there. It calls for just that, a six months del ay in the imposition
of the sales tax. That would amount to around $300 million that we
would be using of the surplus to subsidize the homeowner's tax relief
and the renter's relief instead of that addition of the sales tax.
0
Governor, how about if it is amended to a year delay?
A
No, I can't do that now. Because to amend it to a year's
delay would take the money that is now awaiting a decision of the
people on the -- on the special election.
&
Governoe, if you dn't get the federal revenue sharing
money, if per chance Senator Stierns' position should be upheld in
the legislature, would you cut enough out of the budget to make --
to provide enough of a surplus to provide the 20 per cent cut?
A
I have to tell you, I can't answer that question. The
-8-
manner in wnich this has been done, and the -- the lack of
information that we have, and the same as we were last year, the lack
of any information as to the some 200 amendment S that have bren
made and the proposals that now therumors are raising the budget
way above our submitted budget - I don't know what our problems
are going to be. I really don't.
Q
Governor, you mentioned a secretive nature of the
conference committee deliberations on the budget. Do you think
those hearings should be open?
A
I have - would have no quarrel with that. I don't know
of anything that we do up here that's more important to the people
than how we spend 9.3 billion dollars of their money. And I don't
see any reason why the conference committee should not -- not be
open and public information about it.
2
Is there any reason why your cabinet meeting shoul dn't be
open?
A
Oh, I think that there would be quite a scramble if you had
cabinet meetings that were open because a great -- a great deal of
the cabinet meeting deals with -- with personnel matters. It
deals with all sorts of matters with regard to land acquisitions and
purchases and so forth. Any number of things that are presently
exempt from open meetings, because advantage could be taken of
that information.
Q
Those things don't apply to the budget conference commit-
tee?
A
Well, no, I don't really believe so.
Q
What about other committees, Governor? Would you be in
favor of having all committees open to the press all the time?
A
Oh, well, I think there are some that are going to have
to invoke the provisions of the Brown Act about - that might be
discussing personnel or might be concerned with land acquisition or
things in which suddenly opportunists could go rushing out and line
up along the highway with their purchases.
O
Governor, in the several weeks since we met under circum-
(gubornatorial)
stances like we are today, there has been a lot of speculation, some
of it from Washington, some of it from here -- that pressure is
being applied to you and that you are considering changing your
position on seeking a third term. What is your position and do
you foresee any cireumstances that would cause you to change your
mind?
A
My osit. 1 is unchanged. I've rea all of this, I
haven't felt any of the pressure that everyone is speculating about.
There are people that - yes, have expressed a wish that I would, but
no, no, nothing has happened to change my mind. I think I made
the right decision.
or
Governor, is that a Sherman-like statement? There is no
way that you would - that you absolutely will not run?
about
A
If
it is not as Sherman as I can make it now; I couldn't fore-
see anything that would change my mind.
Q
If It appeared that none of the Republican presently+
:
potential Republican Governor candidates could win as Senator Biddle
has suggested. Would that be a circumstance that would make you
change your mind rather than turn your administration over to a
Democrat?
A
I think they can win and - to speculate about that now --
you know, if we'd gone by that then I'd never have run the first
time because I certainly was pretty far down the line in people's -
O
Governor, --
Q
Now, wait a minute.
Q
Did you have any discussions --
SQUIRE: Wait a minute, finish up this Governor's thing.
Q
What's your view now of Liettenant Governor Reinecke as a
possible candidate in view of his latest statement on the ITT and
San Diago convention matter? Changing his story again.
A
I don't see anythingthat's happened to change any
assessment of that. I think he's been very frank about all that
he has done. He never was asked before whether he'd made any phone
calls or not.
Q
I was going to ask, you say because he wasn't asked he
shouldn't have volunteered that information on the phone call?
A
I don't know whether he ever even thought about it, and I
think that you wouldn't -- you'd understand yourselves. You could
ask me questions in here and I would have to go back and check
myself, my record of all of the phone calls and appointments and
so forth that I have. If you asked me did I talk to the Mayer of
Los Angeles or something, I'd have to go back many times and check.
I don't think he's attempted to evade anything.
0
Do you feel just --
0
Do you think he didn't remember? He just said that
nobody ever asked him.
-10-
A
Well, then take that up with him.
Q
Do you feel just as enthusiastic about the Lieutenant
Governor as you always have? Has there been any change in your
view of him?
A
No, no. N9.
Q
Governor, you were quoted in à wire service interview in
flight that one of the Lieutenant Governor's problems was that he
really hasn't started to campaign.
A
Well, I didn't say this is a problem.
Q
Do you think he should be campaigning? He's been Lieutenant
Governor now for I don't know how many years. Shouldn't he have
this thing wrapped up by now?
A
I don't think SO. And I didn't suggest thiswas a problem.
or I was asking -- asked a question with regard to - did he have
a campaign that was "faltering? And I just said that my own
understanding of it was that his own timetable hadn't called for him
to launch a campaign to get under way and until he starts you can't
say he's faltering.
O
Governor, would the possibility of a divisive primary
affect your decision on whether or not to run again?
A
No. Obviously we are concerned about that with the long
history that we have had in California of - in a party strife.
My own believe is that we go forward with several candidates and
we have an open primary. And I'm going to use every bit of -
orwhatever influence I have in the party to see that we will do what
we have done in the last several years, and that is that everyone
agrees that when the primary is over we will abide by the party
choice and that we will go forward united in support of whoever is
the -- is the nominee.
0
But you are still opposed to the king-maker approach
before the primary?
A
I'm opposed and we haven't had any.
Q
Governor, do you have any favorites now?
A
I can't answer that one. I told you, I'm neutral.
0
Rockefeller seems to feel the longer he serves the better
the state is served.
A
What is that?
Q
Governor Roekefeller seems to feelthe longer he serves
the better the state is served. Don't youagree with him on that?
Why shouldn't you --
A
Well, we ad a difference of opinior
He and I
evidently, about this idea of terms. I felt so strongly about
mine that in '66 I campaigned on the promise that I was going to
try to get California to limit governors to two terms. I failed
in that. I couldn't persuade thelegislatuve that was a good idea.
But I still feel as strongly as I did before. Now he's certainly
entitled to his feeling about that. And he's been a good governor
of the State of New York.
Q
Have you considered an initiative to do that?
A
It is there for the people if they want to do it.
Q
Governor, Mayor Allioto was saying the other day, if
he gets the Democratic nomination the man he most likely would like
to face would be you. Does that hold any term for you?
A
Well, I tell you - you tell me that the wild tiger
that was out in the hall here has disappeared now, I'd feel free to
stand inside the door and say, "I'm going out there."
Q
Governor, what's your objection to more than two terms for
a governor? What's the problem with more than two terms for a
governor? Why are you so opposed to that? Why should a governor
only serve two terms?
A
Why should a Preisdent only serve two terms? Why did --
we had a tradition that was followed and that the people apparently
approved of for many years. Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke that
tradition in a time of extreme emergency in this country and when the
war was over the people having experienced that as well as the
hundred years of - of tradition, decided that they would now
implement the tradition and see that in the future, emergency or
I
no emergency, we'd limit presidents to two years, and/figure that
California is big enough to act like the country.
Q
Governor, on a subject of elections, do you think the
constitution should be amended so that if a ==-df it can be proven
that the elected official is elected by fraud that the election
should be held again?
A
Well, isn't that - I just assumed that that was the law.
In other words, if you would demand a -- well, youcan demand a
recount of course, that would change the outcome of the election.
I suppose that would be the first decision if any kind of fraud
could be established, that the other candidate really won --- then
that doesn't require a new election. I don't know if there -
it is a new thought. If there could be some kind of fraud in which
-12-
it was gmdefinite and you could not decide which man won --
Q
No, the kind of fraud used toget other people out of the
campaign, to discredit them with lies or whatever they are.
Do you think -- that is not in the United States Constitution.
Do you think perhaps we need this kind of law?
A
Well, I don't know, but in the only two campaigns that
I've been in, I figured that there was a lot of -- attempt to
persuade the electorate by lies. In fact, I used to get a little
angry about some of them.
Q
We are talking about malicious lies and information
printed on you under someone else's name. Things that are really
fraud. We are not talking about the usual political rhetoric.
Should there be a way b6 have another election?
A
Well, not if, in spite of the lies, you win.
(Laughter)
Q
No, not facetiously, Governor Reagan, seriously, should
there be another way to have another election if a man is elected by
fraud.
A
Well, as I said, this is a whole new thought. I had always
just taken for granted that we had that protection by way of the
recount, by way of the charge, that then would reveal that the other
man was the winner. It is hard for me to see that if you could
actually establish such fraud and then establish that the vote
count would have belonged theother way -- or that you would establish
that fraud -- tnat there would be WO way then to determine what the
outcome might have been, how would youprotect against just the
automatic charge by any loser that he had beenvictimized and he
wanted another crack at it.
Q
On evidence.
A
Huh?
Q
On evidence.
A
Well, it is something to think about, but I must say I
haven't thought about it before.
0
Governor, now that your tax plan is qualified and you set
the date for election, do you think you might be inclined to re-
consider Speaker Moretti's challenge to debate or series of debates?
A
Well, as I said before, at this point I don't think it
would serve any useful purpose.
0
Well, you said before that you did not think it would
serve any useful purpose because the only issue at that time was
-13-
whether or not it snould be approved for the ballot. It's been
approved for the ballot. Don't youthink that the merits of the plan
itself warrant some kind of exchange between you?
A
Well, if at any time I deci de that it can better inform
than
the people /theydre being informed then I might change my mind.
But I don't see that at the moment. I see a great effort at the
moment on the part of some opponents to obfiscate things and to cloud
the issue and hope to confuse the people, but right at the moment it
seems to me that to have such a debate I might have to give equal
time to a half a dozen of those other candidates up there.
Q
You said you couldn't tell us today, anyway, who your -
even ifyou have a favorte in the Republican primary, to say nothing
of who it is. Is that going to be your position right through the
primary?
A
Well, I said earlier, let me just repeat, I think that --
I've made that statement clear in the previous press conferences,
I said I believe that the best way that I can serve the party and
our cause is through the neutrality that I've practiced in all
the other elections that have taken place. I did, however, say
that if anything changed my mind and I believed I could better serve
by not doing that, I would. But I don't see anything at the
moment.
O
Governor, would that be a form of king-making, if you
decided to endorse a candidate in the primary?
A
Why, I'd be -- no, that's - king-making in my mind is
the smoke-filled room in which by whatever pressure you can
exert you persuade someone not to run and you hand-pick a candidate
and he's going to be the one. I think any individual has a right
to make an endorsement if h e wants to. I have chosen to be
neutral because I found myself ina position where I was better able
to serve by helping préserve the - the party unanimity that we had not
had prior tol966.
Q
Well, are you pledging to remain neutral through the filing
period?
A
That's a decision for me tomake.
0
Are you peedging to remain neutral through the filing
period?
A
I don't see anything that would change my mind on that.
As I said before, -- but nothing has changed in the position that I
gave you earlier.
-14-
Q
Are there any of those prospective candidates, at least
those who have surfaced to date in the Republican party, for your job
that youwould feel uneasy about endorsing in a general election
campaign?
A
No, they are all fine public officials, and all have been
elected by the people of California to their present offices.
Q
Governor, I think you've been among those who said that the
vote of the people on Proposition 17 last year shoud be considered
a mandate on the legislature to enact some kind of death penalty
bill this year. Why then don't you think the vote on Proposition
18 last year and the Clean amendment in 1966 should be a mandate
on the legislature to quit mokkeying around with the things people
read and the movies they see, etcetera?
A
Well, the court has -- you've never seen me -- I disagreed
in that - in that particular vote on obscenity. I think it is
out of hand in our state, but you've never seen me suggest that
we should throw this out, but the courts made a decision, and the court
made a decision that puts this back in the communities having a
right to set their own standards, community standards, and it is
my understanding to more or less set this at a state level as a
community. So we have been handed through a court decision a
problem.
Q
Governor, Senator Moscone says in the press release that
sh he's confident that you will sign his conflict of interest bill
which recently got out of the first senate committee requiring
appointed elected and public officials to make an annual disclosure
not only of those interests which might have an effect on the area
of their public decisions, but other - other areas. It is pretty
extensive, Can you give us your view on that type of legislation?
A
Well, you've asked me another one here and which I don't
know the details of that, and it's never been brought to my
attention before, and I'll -- so I can't --
Q
Do you have any general thought on that type of legislation?
A
I think anything that is required to reveal a conflict of
interest, if it needs strengthening, it shoud be strengthened. I
think the people should have that right to that knowledge.
I
think there are limits of personal privacy beyond which you don't
have to go. All that is needed is the establishment of is there
or is there not a conflict of interest.
Q
A guy in the back row wants to end it.
Q
On that milar subject, Governor, a buple of bills have
been put in which would outlaw political contributions by lobbyists.
What do you think of the general principle?
A
Well, I don't know whether outlawing of contributions is
the answer or whether public knowledge is the answer. It would
seem to me that anything that is out in the open and the people
know about can then be evaluated by the people in their judgment.
I don't know that any place along the line we have a right to deny
individuals participation in the political process.
I don't think
it is needed. I think that gets very drastic.
Q
Governor, how many signatures on your initiative were
collected professionally and what did it cost?
A
I'm not sure if - Rudy or if anyone does know, it was
my understanding that only about 180 or 80 thousand of thepetitions
were taken by -- by paid -- paid workers. And we contracted for
those in some areas where we didn't have much volunteer activity.
And we contacted at a point when we had been advised that maybe this
was a good insurance for the cushoin that you need and the bulk of
them, however, as you can see fromthat number, were turned in by
volunteers. And according to the Registrars of Voters, the
volunteers did a better job, got a higher percent age of valid
signatures.
Q
Would they be - would the initiative have qualified
wihhout the professional signatures?
A
I haven't seen the final figures. I don't know. P know
we did have a comfortable cushion.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
OOO
-16-
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
June 29, 1973
SUBJECT: Sales Tax Increase Deferral
Q
Governor, are you referring the plan--the Stiern bill--that the
Assembly has just passed?
A
I'm referring to all of them up there
O
The Stiern bill is not acceptable to you?
A
I say that this doesn't have to be resolved now. The urgency is,
what can be harmed if everyone up there wants a delay in the implemen-
tation of the sales tax increase, and the only difference is that no
one wants less than six months and some people want more than six
months---what harm can come in assuring now before day after tomorrow
that we at least get that period of time in the deferral, and all of
the rest of this can then be debated and should have been discussed
and debated over the last six months.
Q
What items are you talking about, Governor? What's being attached
that you don't
A
They're now attaching wanting to attach other proposals for the
rebate of the rest of the surplus. And of course the other deal is
there is a measure upstairs also calling for a total year's delay in
the implementation of the sales tax which would, of course, eliminate
the possibility for any other method of returning the rebate.
O
Do you specifically object to that proposal of theirs?
A
Well, it is contrary to my views, yes, in a number of ways. But
I'm certainly willing to sit down with them and discuss and negotiate
this.
Q
Governor, given that bill on your desk, and only that particular
bill with the gimmicking that's been done to it, would you then allow
the sales tax to go up on Sunday?
A
Tom, you're now asking me to do something that you know I never
do with regarding to pending legislation and what happens when it comes
down. I have legislators waiting in there now to see me on this.
What I am saying is, that it is so obvious of the cheap politics of
sitting there with this matter with all these months, with no intention
of resolving this issue, until now they're faced, panicky with the
imposition of the sales tax increase they know has been coming. They
waited until the last minute on the one-month deferral, when it was
slated to go into effect last June 1st, and then in a twelfth-hour
just
effort, they suddenly delayed it one month. Now, here we are with/a
-1-
matter of hours to 5 again, and they want an stant decision on their
idea of a compromise with little or no time for us. And unless we can
sit down and talk and discuss this and get it settled almost instantly,
the sales tax will be increased. I say that the increase of the sales
tax is on their heads, not mine, because I made the offer several
months ago, and the proposal, that we delay the increase of the sales
tax for seven months. They've given us one month so far. And now
they've waited throughout this month. Having delayed it for one month,
they didn't come around the next day and say now let's sit down and
discuss this. They waited until the end of the one month and now,
they're doing it again.
Q
(inaudible)
A
No, no, I don't think it is. I think the total responsibility
for us having reached this point is the legislative leadership of the
majority party.
O
Did you make any effort to move the issue along, Governor?
A
Well, we have been, yes, throughout the entire year. And it was
made very clear what was on their mind that from the very first they
refused to consider anything that involved the income tax as a means
of rebate.
O
You want a six-months' delay in the sales tax?
A
An additional six months on top of the one that we've had.
O
And that's the only thing that's acceptable to you?
A
Well, again, you've had me answering it another way, like Tom's
question here. As I say, there are legislators in here. But what I
am suggesting to them is that to come down here now, on the basis of
their timing, at the last minute, with them holding--and I put it as
a price, you could call it blackmail--holding the deferral of the sales
tax which all of us were agreedwe wanted, holding that as a price unless
I accept their idea for the rest of the rebate, when the rest of the
rebate wouldn't actually have to be implemented until next April 15th.
I think there is a matter that's going to have to be discussed where
do I stand honorably now in the face of the hundreds of thousands of
people who have signed the petitions.
Q
Would you go for a delay until October 1st, Governor?
A
What?
O
Would you go for a delay to October 1st?
A
Yes, although I realize we'd simply be putting off, again, this
same hassle in going through this. In other words, you mean a quarter?
Do it for one quarter.
-2-
o
A compromise.
A
Yes, just as they did the one month. Yes, I would accept that
if it had to be done, but I would also insist at the time, then, that
any further negotiation that they want to do now be done, between now
and October 1st, and not wait until September 29 and come in with
it
another take/or leave it offer.
O
Governor, on your initiative, isn't there a specific provision
in that, particularly on the income tax rebate, that provides for the
chance that the legislature can solve that problem?
A
That's right. And also there is that regulates that if the money
should not be up to the level that we've proposed, that it could be
reduced. But, as I say, now, this is not compromise; this is not
sitting down and working a difference of opinion; this is attaching
their view to the necessity now for deciding the necessity for the
sales tax deferral and saying, take it or leave it, or there will be
no sales tax deferral. And this is why I have to tell you this is on
their heads, not mine. If I find that it is necessary to veto this,
it would be on the basis that they have made me an offer I can refuse.
Q
Aren't you say, take it or leave it, too?
A
What?
A
Aren't you saying take it or leave it; that I'll sign at six
months or three months and that's it??
A
No. No. I've said, now look, if it's signed for six months, this
hasn't even precluded the possibility of it being an agreement coming
out to make it even longer. This simply gives us six months, and
that
assures/the people will at least get about a $350 million rebate by
way of the sales tax.
or
Won't they lose their bargaining power, though, if they give you
the six months with anything else?
A
Well, you see this started out when you start talking compromise
and the effort always being made to portray us as not being in the
compromise mood. Fundamentally and philosophically, I think every one
of you in fairness has to agree, that the difference with regard to
the rebate of the surplus is their belief that there should be more
emphasis on the income tax as a source of revenue and our belief that
it is more fair in the face of a federal tax to have the emphasis on
sales tax. Now, had I proposed a total rebate by way of the income
tax, as they proposed a total rebate by way of the sales tax, isn't
it logical to assume that we would have settled up meeting someplace
in the middle, with giving half of it back one way and half the other.
-3-
Now, we didn't even wait for that. We didn't even make this kind of
a thing and say well we'll sit back now, here, and dicker with them.
No. We said, alright, let's meet them in advance. Let's say, we'll
give it back both ways, your way and our way and about half way down
the middle, which I think is a compromise in advance. Now, my main
objection, and what actually has me very upset is that all of these
months, when they should have come back and said we've got some other
ideas, maybe we can find a meeting ground here. No, they wait until
hours before the sales tax is to be increased, and then suddenly come
down with what they would like to call a compromise. And it's simply
an offer with no chance for us to study it, with no chance to debate
whether there are other possible alternatives or not. And I say that
the simple matter that is before the people and before the legislature
that does have a time element involved, is the matter of are we or are
we not going to defer the increase in the sales tax. And this can do
and continue to negotiate the other.
O
You said yesterday that the delay beyond six months infringes upon
your tax initiative, and the tax initiative also includes a 20 percent
income tax credit; where would there be room for negotiation, then,
short of your way?
A
Well, the terms are whatever they may want to decide they have
already suggested different terms with regard to the income tax
rebate. What I was objecting to the other day is their flat declara-
tion that they wanted the full year's sales tax deferral which would
have used up the total surplus and then left us with an empty promise
that couldn't be fulfilled on the ballot initiative.
Q
What you object to in their proposal now is up to a $200 income
tax rebate for a couple. Do you object to any sort of limit on the
amount of rebate you can get back? Do you favor a percentage across
the board? That's what I'm asking.
A
I think that this is something that I shouldn't answer in here
on that flat a question. As I say, if they want to open negotiations
and discussions of how we go about this, or any differing in the terms,
that is something, then, that I should take up with them, and not make
some declaration here as to what might be my position
O
Is it possible that you will negotiate that type of thing today,
then? or would you prefer not to.
-4-
A
I resent very much, now, being pressured on a Friday, 48 hours
before the thing is going into effect or less, Or being pressured to do
this. I think if there is actually any honesty on their side, and any
sincerity in this proposal, they' 11 go ahead and send down a bill to
delay or defer the sales tax increase by six months.
Q
Governor, aside from the fact that it has worked in the last
couple of years, and that seems to be the way we can resolve major
issues now between the administration and the legislature is advance
negotiations on what a bill contains, isn't the traditional way for
the system to operate that the legislature sends down a bill and the
governor then decides either to accept or veto---I mean, isn't that
really what you're faced with today--the traditional concept that
if the legislature passes this, and you decide to veto rather than the
way it has worked
A
Well, except that it's the same trick that the Congress has been
pulling in Washington in the last few days. It's attaching the portion
be
that I might/tempted to veto--it's attaching that something that I
myself have said I favor and want to give the people, which is the
deferral of the sales tax. And, therefore, it becomes a political
trick. It is not good legislative process in the interest of the
people.
Q
Governor, if the legislature did send you a bill that extended a
moratorium until January 1st, is their any conceivable circumstances
under which you would agree past that point to keep that moratorium?
I mean would you go for a delay beyond six months under any circumstances
A
I think this is something to be negotiated and talked over with
them in the months following their doing this, just as I say, if they
hadn'
you know they didn't do it in the last six months, if they
had even come around after they had extended it even the one month
and said let's sit down and talk about this before we get to July 1st;
they didn't. They waited until it's virtually July 1st
Q
You're not frozen on an absolute six months?
A
No.
Q
Governor, are you ruling out the possibility that you would accept
anything but a flat, simple six months' delay?
A
Well, I think I just answered that question. I said no, I'm
willing to sit here and discuss with them a need to get some figures
as we come closer to the time, as to the total amount of surplus, is
there some flexibility in there for additional time? But, again, this
just further illustrates the fact that this isn't a decision that
can be made instantly, now, on their demand. One simple issue is before
the people- to defer the increase in the sales tax.
#
(ras)
PRES. CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RON. D REAGAN
HELD August 2, 1973
Reported by
Beverly D. Toms
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 428)
GOVERNOR REAGAN: End of statement, and you will have
your copies soon.
Ω
Governor, what, if anything, isthe advantage of a half
(sales tax)
cent for a year over one sent for six months?
A
Well, I think there are a number of things. I wish we had
thought of it before, frankly, when this whole thing was up. I
wish we had thought of this. One of the things is there is evidence
that a one cent deferral for alimited period of time for a short
peridd of time, does have a tendency to throw the normal trade
channels out of kilter. People, particularly with large purchases
in mind, are tempted to go into that period. When they -- with the
extra half cent in the Bay Areafor Bart this did not occur.
Evidently the difference, the one half cent, is -- is not that much.
The other thing is that the -- now that it has been implemented,
now that they let July first go by and put the sales tax -- the
increase into effect, this thing of yo-yoing the tradesman, the
storekeeper, becomes a costly thing administratively, in his overhead
to him, in this chain. So if we are going to have a change, this
would at least give them stability over a whole year's period.
0
When would you have this become effective, Governor?
A
As soon as possible. Well, I think it should -- we have
always -- we have learned that it is administratively a hassle
and an expense for the State, too, to have it occur in the middle
or the -- of a quarter. So the next quarter beginning would be
Outober 1.
2
While the State now, I assume, or the merchant or somebody
collects what might be referred to as the breakage on a retail
sale, on a one cent basis; isn't there more of a breakage involved
if you start going to a half cent or a fraction?
-1-
A
I -- som he else -- I don't think :
I know that
we have found sometimes, you know, there have been proposals about
quarter cent taxes and so forth. We found that there is great
resistance to that, but it seems that a half a cent is a breaking
point that -- that works out all right.
MR. ORR: The State collects on the total that the
retail merchant sells. He collects enough on individual sales
to make that up and you adjust your charts to try and keep the
breakage to nothing.
0
Well, isn't there -- just by the nature of things, isn't
there more of a breakage involved in a fraction of a cent than
there is in --
MR. ORR: I don't think so, but I'll be honest, I
haven't checked it. I think itcan be adjusted, instead of changing
from three to four cents at 55 cents, for instance, you may change
at 56 or 57. And it keeps the breakage about the same.
0
Governor, what did the Republican leadership of both houses
tell you as far as the possible overrides? Since two-thirds of
each house passed the bill originally.
A
They didn't seem to think that there was much of a possi-
bility. They recognized also that we could complete -- we could
have complete chaos in an override. How do you retroactively
override the sales tax that's gone into effect and has been
collected now for --- more than a month? And I -- I don't know
how you would how you rebate on that.
Q
Another subject.
A
All right.
Q
Governor, I'm wondering are you in agreement that the
price freeze should be lifted on beef and if you are, have you had
any communication with the President to change his mind on the
subject?
A
Well, no, I haven't had any communication on any subject
directly with the President on this. But I believe that the whole
problem of the beef market today is -- is one in whi we literally
are forcing them to seek other markets than the domestic market.
This has been evidenced by some beef growers in just the last few
days, because if you cannot pass on the -- the actual cost that you
have in the -- in the animal and therefore you can multiply your
loss by the number of animals you sell, it is going to reduce the
number of animals he sells and right now in the export market, the
The beef problem, I think, is very little understood. And the -
the thing that the people have to realize is that the farmer is not
a villain in this. In fact I don't think there is a villain along
the line any ace. We are faced with an outright shortage and part
of that shortage is due to the fact that in the last several years
the American Consumer has gone from an annualconsumption per capita
of 86 pounds of beef to 116 pounds. And you also now have an export
market inwhich other countires in the world growing more affluent
have begun to increase their diet and the quality of their diet.
And have provided a market for beef. But added to this, and
probably far more important than just the law of supply and demand
has been the fact that we have had the current crop of cattle,
the beef that you would be eating, they have had in their brief
lifetime,, those animals, a drought that forced them to start being
fed commercially at an earlier time when hormally they are eating
free on pasture. And this was coupled with last year's severe
storms that -- well, as I have pointed out before in:one storm
in Texas alone wiped out a hundred million dollars worth of cattle.
And you can't -- I know that everyone is conscious of inflation and
they try to tie everything into thesame inflationary pattern.
With farm stuff, with food stuffs, this doesn't work. We had a
year last year that wiped out a great deal of our vegetable crop.
We lost in the south, because of the heavy rains, most of the
soybean crop. And all of these things are reflected now in the
market. You add a few labor disputes at the same time, and I
think all of us saw the horrifying pictures of California fruit
being picked up in the skiploaders and dumped because of the recent
cannery strike.
Q
Would you like to see the freeze lifted?
A
Yes, because this ties in with philosophically what I
have to say. They have to be able to pass on their added costs.
Philosophically I would like to see the government and for twenty
years I've been pleading this, I would like to see the government
get out of the farm economy and turn the balance of the farm economy
that is still regulated by government and subsidized by government charges
turn it back to the free market.
2
Would you place any antrols on the amounts of beef that
could be shipped out of the country overseas?
-3-
A
What's th-t?
Q
Would you place any governmental regulations or controls --
A
No, I'd like - I'd like to see the government stop
controlling in this area. Only 25 per cent of agriculture has
ever been in the government program, and that 25 per cent has been
the one that's been in trouble for all these years. The other 75
per cent of agriculture that's out in the free market has year
after year been increasing the per capita consumption of its product,
has been getting along just fine. Except when we have periods
as we have just had in which you have acts of God, weather conditions
that destroy crops.
O
Governor --
A
Raise the price of it.
Q
Would you like to see farm subsidies lifted, too?
A
What?
0
Would you like to see -
A
Eventually : would like to see agriculture, like industry,
out on a free market.
0
Governor, on another subject.
a
One more Die the beef question before we change.
Governor, how much of the current shortage -- you know, notwith-
standing droughts, and storms and all those other natural causes,
how much of the current beef shortage, the immediate beef shortage,
do you feel is due to this technique of saying we are going to
control prices today but next month they will be lifted? Somehow --
I mean wouldn't a farmer be astute to hold his cattle for a month?
A
Well, if this -- if this were the case. I don't know
that it is, but I would think so. And this is another reason why you
just -- I just don't think that government has ever been successful
in this kind of regulation.
o
Would you say the freeze was a mistake in the first place
then?
A
Oh, I can't say that I have all the information that
was in the possession of those who put it into effect, to know why
they called it or whether it was psychological in part or whether
it was to -- embridge some particular moment. I'd hesitate to
answer that.
Q
Governor, the report filed by the Campaign Committee for
your tax limitation initiative indicates that a record or a near
record amount was spent to qualify it for the ballot and also that
you required about 62,000 paid signatures. Now
jibe with your ear. description of it as a sroots movement?
A
Wel 1, I think it was grassroots. I can answer that. I
think that thereport that was released, the Secretary of State was
so anxious to get out to all of you with the report that I don't
think he read things very carefully. He included in that proposed
record amount of money borrowing to get the campaign launched.
An amount of money that was borrowed that is going to be paid back.
So that the cost of the campaign was not the figure that he gave
out and therefore it was not a record. When you stop to think
that this was a campaign in a non-election year that had to start
from scratch and that brought in the signatures in a record time,
shorter time than has ever beendone in any initiative before,
obviously this had something to dowith cost features. But as for
it being grassroots, I think we set another record in that we had
over 16,000 contributors, who averaged somewhere down at a small --
relatively small amount of contribution which sounds pretty much
like grassroots to me.
Q
What about the -- your office withdrawn claims to the
Controller's office for payment of some of the costs on the task
force report for your initiative?
A
Well, I think we are talking about something that has
to do with accounting. As long as Verne is here, I can let him
give you --- he's in that accounting business, I'd let him give you'
what the situations were that -
MR. ORR: Well, we have told the Controller that to be
certain that claims are restudied from an accounting standpoint to
see where they should be properly allocated and it is possible
some of them may be allocated to private sector money.
O
You said earlier that the cost justified the amount --
A
We felt that it was and we still feel it was.
Q
You disagree with the Controller?
A
This is an accounting problem and technically if there
is some of this that should be allocated to the committee, it
will be.
Q
Well, then, were you wrong to spend statemoney on it
originally?
A
No, not when I thought I was right.
MR. ORR: And we still do. This is just to remove any
possible question.
A
He said it. I wish I thought of that.
-5-
O
Governor, didn't comment on my ot question about
the paid signatures needed to qualify the initiative.
A
Well, wewanted to do this in such haste that, yes,
there was an insurance matter that we decided to sort of
insure getting enough by employing, which is done in most campaigns,
the idea of hired hands getting some of the signatures. It was a
relatively small amount. I haven't checked to see whether we
would have made it without them or not.
MR.MEESE: We probably would have.
A
Well, he says we probably could. I haven't seen the
final account.
Q
Not according to the campaign headquarters. I checked
with them and they listed the figure that was given -- they had
122,000 valid signatures gathered by paid, and they -- they got a
total of 586,000, so after you make the deductions you need at least
62,000 of those valid signatures.
A
Now, let me ask, I don't know, did we go ahead and turn
all of the petitions in or when we reached the --
MR. MEESE: Yes, we did.
A
-- when we reached the limit did we just stop?
MR. MEESE: There were probably some that were not turned
in because we made our final figure that came in after that.
But this was an insurance factor and it was very close.
Q
Governor, did I understand you a moment ago to suggest
that Mr. Brown was wrong in listing borrowed money expended as
expenditures?
A
Well, he lumped it all in. I guess he was counting some
money twice.
Q
Then the loans have beenpaid back?
MR. ORR: Basically, Governor, if I could give the figures,
the actual expenses were $361,000 which is somewhat less than what
he quoted, I think, as the record previously by C.S.E.A. at 394,
whatever that figure was, The difference between the 261 and the 436
had to do with the loans that were paid back, about $75,000 in loans.
The way the reporting system works is you have to count tn loan
paybacks as part of your expenditures in the way they are reported.
If anybody is interested we can go into details later.
Q
You are saying those were counted twice?
MR. MEESE: So it was counted twice.
O
Governor, have you been going to any parties lately?
(Laughter)
-6-
A
I had a
all dinner party last nig'
I think I -
0
Did you read the Washington Post yesterday?
A
The Washington Post is not on mine. I know what you
are referring to. But I don't know what they are referring to.
I was a perfect picture of decorum.
(Laughter)
0
Even at the party you don't know -- to which they are
referring?
A
I don't know, but you know the -- you have really caught
me here with mixed emotions, because I don't know whether to get a
sort of glint in my eye and let you think that there was a side of
me no one knows or what not. But I'm afraid there isn't.
Q
Governor, do you resent that kind of investigation?
A
Oh, first of all I don't even know that there is anything --
any foundation to it that there is any investigation going on. I
don't think really that there was. And I guess what I do resent
is the tendency, whether it is done over a back fence gossiping,
or whether it is done in ink or whether it is done inthe media or
whether it is done just between people walking up and down the
corridors, to just let fly with rumors. I don't know, maybe I ought
to tell you once that back in the picture business once we decided
that a motion picture studio was the greatest place in the world
for gossip and rumors, and for sometime, until some people began to
get onto it, we had a lot of fun. We used to start a rumor out
at nine o'clock in the morning on our set, piece of totally false
gossip and then we sort of make book, like a ships' pool, to find out
how quickly that rumor would come back to our set from some place
else statedto us as absolute fact, and then of course usually
distorted and added to. And as I say, for sometime it was -- we
were having a lot of fun with it, doing a little gambling with it.
o
Governor, you said you didn't think there was an
investigation. Do you have any reason on which to base that belief
that --
A
I haven't seen anybody spying on me. Haven't been to any
parties where I didn't know who was there.
0
What was that party like, Governor?
(Laughter)
A
As I say --
0
You seem to remember what went on. What was it like.
A
Huh?
-7-
0
If there was nothing to investigate, hen what -- what
was the setting of the party? What went on?
A
I don't think I don't know of any party that anyone
is talking about. Might have been the -- the annual clam feed that
we have with the legislature over here at the Sutter Club, or maybe
it was last year's Senate President Pro Tem party.
Q
I think they were referring to a party with one of Mayor
Lindsay's brothers on the East Coast, do you remember that?
MR. MEESE: No, that's not right.
0
No, that's not right, Governor.
(Laughter)
MR. MEESE: What party was it, Dick?
A
Yes, I'm all ears. I don't know that Mayor Lindsay has a
brother. I didn't know that.
(watergate)
Q
Governor, while we are on this subject, do you think
the President should release those tapes or not?
A
I think this is a decision that he has to make with regard
to his trusteeship of executive privilege. He's standing in a
position that some 16 other presidents, including Lincoln, Washington
and Jefferson and F.D.R., Teddy Roosevelt have all stood, and I
assume he's on safe ground.
0
Do you think that a forcing of this issue is good for the
country, though?
A
What?
Q
Do you think forcing this issue is good for the country?
A
Well, now, you aregetting into an area here that I'll
stand on my statement of some weeks ago. I'm like the rest of
you, I only know what I see and what -- what I'm reading and I'm not
going to comment onthat. Surely there are enough exciting things
going on in California, and I haven't been here for several weeks,
that you --
0
How about the investigation of the State Bar that was
announced yesterday?
(Laughter)
A
I still stand on the previous statement.
0
Governor, are you watching the Watergate hearings on
T.V.?
A
Oh, I've seen some. I don't run to the set and know
the schedule of when they are on exactly. If I happen to be at
-8-
home and as I have en on vacation for a coup of weeks in
front of the set, I'll see whatever and whoever is there, that's
all.
Q
Governor, do you in your own office do any of the kind of
taping that's come out about the President's -- do you tape any
phone calls or any of that?
A
No.
O
Conversations in your office?
A
No.
Q
Has that ever been considered?
A
No, no taping.
0
Do you tape meetings? Do you tape meetings for record?
A
No. Only thing that goes on is Rudy back there tapes
all my speeches, because it is the only way they can get a copy of
them.
Because, you know, I don't usually have an advanced copy,
I wing it.
0
Have you ever thought that it might be desirable to do
that for any -- for any purpose such as your own memoir or anything
like that?
A
No, I'm too lazy to write memoirs.
O
Governor, I assume that you've been in the President's
office and you may be on some of those tapes. Did you --
A
Could be.
o
Do you see anything ethically wrong with taping --
without the consent of both parties?
A
Well, evidently in the District of Columbia it isn't
considered. The law does not proscribe that. And it evidently
is a presidential custom that has gone back as long as there has
been this kind of surveillance. The records indicate that every
President has done it and most of them to a far greater extent
than the present occupant of the White House.
Q
Did you know you were being taped when youtalked to the
President?
A
No. Wouldn't have changed anything I said.
Q
What was your reaction when you found out you had been?
A
Well, there were a couple of phone calls that if I
thought he was going to release them I'd kind of like to have heard
them.
As a matter of fact, one or twoof them made me sound good.
Q
You are not offended, you would not be offended by
that action?
0
Change the subject. Governor, with regard to the news
conference and brie.ing that was held this morning on the
exclusionary rule, with regard to repeal of the exclusionary rule -
A
Yes.
Q
-- yes, how high on your scale of priorities would
you plase that?
A
Oh, I think -- I may be wrong on this, this is just my
personal opinion, but out ofthe entire report I think that this one
thing alone could be as significant as anything in the report or
any of the changes suggested in helping thiskuse in the curbing
of the ever-increasing crime rate.
Q
Governor, when you campaigned against Governor Brown, one
of your issues was that you complained that the rate of crime had
gone up under Governor Brown.
A
Yes.
O
And the report released yesterday shows that for the
first -- for the seven years before you took office crime went up
9 per cent and in the next four years under you it went up 94
per cent. In view of that do you think you were fair in criticizing
Governor Brown?
A
Now, I don't know in the seven major crimes, it was my
understanding that up until 1969 when we passed the -- some 40
anti-crime bills that the annual rate of increase in serious crime
was about 15 per cent, and it's been down around 7 or 8 per cent since
then. The problem is the fact that we have cut the rate of increase'
in two, but 10 is still increasing and you can't really say that you
have gotten a hold of this until you start pointing to a decrease
in crime, just as today we can point to a decrease in the
fatality rate on the highways. We haven't just reduced the
increase in death rate, we were actually decreasing, and I think we
are the only state where that's happening. Well, this is what
should happen with crime.
MR. GRAY: Whose report was that, Marty?
Q
It showed -- it is in that booklet. It shows that since
1960 the crime has gone up 184 per cent and of that 184 per cent
nine per cent occurred during 1960 to 1967, and the other 90 or
94 per cent was from 1967 to '71.
MR. MEESE: The Governor is correct, though, about the
annual increase being cut in halfsince '69. And also the fact
that since he took office the California Crime rate has considerably
separated and been lower than the increase in crime gener ally
throughout the COI
ry.
Q
If that is the case, why is there a need to ban the
exclusionary rule?
A
Do what?
e
Why is there a need to ban the exclusionary rule if crime
is leveled out?
A
Because that rule more than any other has permitted
criminals and even confessed criminals, to talk free with no punish-
ment for their crime. Now, we recognize the problem of a police
blunder in search and seizure or lack of complete reason in
a search and seizure causing inconvenience or distress or even harm
to the inhabitants of a house. But if at the same time when they
do that they find incontrovertible evidence that leads -- can
lead to the conviction of a criminal, there is something wrong
as it stands at the moment that there is no redress for the person
whose home has been invaded. He is still a victim of this police
blunder. But at the same time the criminal goes free because you
can't introduce the evidence in trial. What we have proposed is
that you set up now a system whereby the victim, the person whose
home was invaded, can be reimbursed by the local government entity
or whatever government entity is in command of the police force,
he can receive damages, but at the same time you can introduce
in evidence the -- what you have found that would lead to the
conviction of the guilty.
O
Couldn't that person sue for damages now and don't you --
don't you feel that this might be in effect giving a blank check
to some over-zealous law officers who might be --
A
No, we don't, because the government entity -- supppose
it is the City police and the City police -- the city then is
liable for this damage and the City must also provide the legal
expense for the person whose home has geen invaded. There is no
burden on them for seeking redress or damages.
Q
They have to pay --
A
Now if the City has this happen enough I have a hunch that
thecity will do something about the blunders being committed by
their police.
0
Would they have to pay the expenses regardless of the
outcome of the suit?
A
Yes. Yes.
Q
Can persons sue now for damages?
-11-
A
I assume anyone can,
MR. MEESE: They can sue but it is an entirely different
picture. You have a jury trial and you have whole different
circumstances that makes it pretty well unavailing.
a
Are you proposing a Judge --
MR. MEESE: Yes.
2
Governor, what if the evidence was obtained legally, do
you think it still should be admissible in the court?
A
Well, I'm going to have to turn to lawyers when we get
into the differences between illegal or a police blunder. I
suppose a blunder is illegal if it violates --
MR. MEESE: If the blunder is unreasonable and this
would be -- and we are not interested in illegal police conduct justi-
fying that. And for this reason such things as illegal wiretapping,
burglary, violation of people's rights by physical harm, such as
choking or things like this, to get evidence -- these would not be
permitted under the proposed statute that's included in the report.
O
Well, doesn't -- those acts would not be permitted, but
would the evidence be admissible under your proposal?
MR. MEESE: Probably not, because these would be viola-
tions of the FifthAAmendment rather than the Fourth Amendment.
o
Doesn't this give police carte blanche to go anywhere
they want to at any time?
A
No.
O
Walk into your house at any hour of the day or night?
MR. MEESE: No, it doesn't change at all the restrictions.
It merely returns the stae of the law to where it was in California
prior to 1955, and I don't think there is anybody who is ledge-
able in the field who contends that police conduct in this area was
worse prior to 1955 than it has beensince.
A
See, there is no language in either the state or the
federal Constitution, nor is there any legislation that has been
passed either by Congress or a state legislature with regard to
setting up the exclusionary rule as itnow stands. This is a
judicial decision that was made.
0
Well, then you feel that you could do this merely by a
statute?
A
Is this --
-12-
MR. MEES. Yes, it would be done by statute, but the
statute would be subject to review by the State Supreme Court and
by the United States Supreme Court. The Chief Justice Burger
has made it pretty clear that the court is no ready to overturn
the exclusionary rule if a state proposes a suitable substitute
for it, such as the -- award of damages for unreasonable search
and seizures that the Governor referred to.
Q
There were some emphases in the report on riot control and
sniper suppression. Does that not suggest we are fighting the
last
war? Isn't that pretty much behind us?
A
No, this is to improve the training of this, and I would
think that this in itself is to reduce the possibility of innocent
victims. What we are talking about, this comes under the heading
of some more uniform training so that in a smaller community,
smaller police departments where they haven't had the means to
have the training, that some of our more sophisticated law enforce-
ment agencies have in the larger cities, that this can be uniform.
Q
Does it suggest that you anticipate riots? 8 We have been
I
it's been qui te lately.
A
No. I don't, but I think in government you have to be
prepared for anything that might happen. Our government's
responsibility is the protection of the people.
Q
Governor, another subject. Do you think Casper Wein-
berger would be a worthy successor to yourself?
A
Now, restating my position of neutrality, with regard
to the coming race and knowing that you arebasing this on some of
the newspaper accounts that have been held, I don't think anyone
in the world can denythe capabilities of Cap Weinberger for any
job that I've ever seen him assigned. He not only was great
when he was here in our ownstate administration, but in Washington,
the Office of Management and Budget, and now as the Secretary in
the Cabinet for HEW. I think his performance has been brilliant.
This is a man of great capacity.
0
Do you know if any of the men who financially backed you
are financially backing a run by Weinberger?
A
I don't, and as a matter of fact, I don't even know that --
that Cap Weinberger is interested in that at all. I do know that
there are people in the state who in the talk about candidates --
everyone -- there is no secrets in politics. I know that there are
people of all persuasions in the Republican party, who have expressed
that -- the wish + t they could persuade him be a candidate.
O
Do you count many of them among your supporters, though?
A
I'm sure there are some that would be among mine. But, as
I say, I'm not imposing on anyone. I'm maintaining my neutrality.
Q
Governor, is there a Reagan-Reinecke rift?
A
Oh, no. Yesterday afternoon we were three and a half
hours together in a cabinet meeting sitting side by side and trying
to work out some of the problems of the things that will now be
facing us with the legislature returning, and no, I don't think
there is any strain at all. I'm afraid old Herb has done it again.
o
Governor, in view of the fact you calledfor public hearings
on a new legislative building, why don't you go for public hearings
on the Governor's Mansion plans?
A
Well, for one reason the state accepted sometime ago the
gift of some land as a site for a Governor's residence. The
legislature then approved that site. The legislature then put into
the budget money to go ahead with the building after some 40 years
of trying to have a governor's residence and never having
succeeded. The process by which allof this was done, there is
a law that proscribes how the architect must be selected. The
architect was selected under the provisions of that law by a committee
that does not include me. A committee in state government. The
architect has proceeded to the point, I understand, of having plans
working drawings of the residence and I have seen some of the floor
plans, I have not seen actual working drawings nor have I seen
the artist's concept, but I saw those because the legislature in
putting this into the budget also put in language that said that
it should be shown to the Governor and have the Governor's approval.
And it is my understanding that the committee where that was done,
and it was a Democratic Senator voicing this, believed that one
of the ways to expedite this and finally end the 40-year stalemate
was to have sombody say yes instead of having it continue to be
thrown around in various groups. So I did what the budget language
prescribed.
Q
Governor, the issue of the mansion has become one of the
hottest ones in town again right now. How do you assess the
debate that's going on between your prospective successors on the
issue?
A
Well, I think you have to recognize that candidates talk
different than other people, and they are sure talking different,
on the controvers bout it. I don't know W
there should be
a controversy. The legislature also -- ifthis concerns the
possibility of a -- of an Indian village site, the legislature also
passed anact which I signed and is now law which appropriated
money for an archeological dig which is the only way to determine
whether that is the site of an Indian village or burial ground or
both, and the law also prescribed that if it is and the artifacts
removed, that any remains that are found must then be reinterred on
the same property in a location that will not be oovered by any
structure. And I mysel £ have said in my interpretation of that, if
it should come to that while I'm stifl Governor, I believe that a
spot should be picked that was appropriate on that property --
there is 11 acres of it that is appropriate, that it should be
properly landscaped, that it should be properly designated and
marked as to what it is and that all respect should be paid to it as
it would to any other burial ground of anyone else. I must tell
you that I have to think that some of the claims of some individuals
that we are threatening the sanctity of their relatives' burial
grounds is a little far-fetched when if there is such a village
there archeologists seem agreed that it is probably 3,000 years old
and I doubt if anyone alive today can trace back the location of
his ancestry and his particular family or even his -- ethnic group
back 3,000 years.
Q
If there are indeed remains found to be relocated,
would you envision that they would be open to the public, the
public could inspect that?
A
Oh, I think that's something that could be decided then as
to whether -- whether they would or not.
O
Governor, back onthe sales tax problem, you say in one
proposal you accept the half cent rollback for a year. What's
another one?
A
What's that?
O
What's another proposal you will accept? You say one is
a half cent rollback for a year. What other one will you take?
A
Well, as I say, this is the one that seems to have been
proposed right now. And was discussed with the legislative leaders.
But our original proposal, add I still hold with that concept, was
that the fairest way to give the money back to the people was a
half
roughly / by way of income tax and half by way of sales tax. And
if there is some other format for doing that sales tax wise, fine,
-15-
that's
all
right
W
h
me. I think inconnection with that, and
as long as you broughtthe question up, let me-- let me say something
that I think most people don't understand and should understand
about the imposition of the sales tax increase. This is not adding
to the surplus, as so many have written and so many have claimed.
That here we are with a great surplus and we are raising a tax to
add to it. This is not adding to it at all. The penny of sales tax
increase was not a net increase, nor -- remember this was Senabe
Bill 90, and the sales tax increase was a shift from property tax
to sales tax. And the only place that the surplus came into it
was when we tried to figure how do you give back half of the one-
time surplus in a rebate to sales tax payers. There is no way.
Some people on major purchases may keep their records. Most people
don't. So we -- here was the coincidence of having this tax shift
and what we proposed was for a period of time using a portion of
the one-time surplus to subsidize the property tax reduction.
Instead of having to implement the sales tax on the prescribed date.
And this -- I asked for. And I'd like to point out that the idea
of deferring the sales tax increase came from -- from me. This
was my proposal to the legislature. A good several months ago
and for several months I have been asking for it. And I would like
to suggest that the majority legislative leadership made it plain
from the very first that it wasn't an argument over sales tax or some
other means of giving it back. Their reply was they didn't want
togive it back. And very frankly, I dm't think still they want
to give it back. We believe it is an overcharge, it should be
given back to the people, and we have suggested what we think are
two methods that will give the bulk of this money back to the
people who gave it to us in the first place.
2
Governor, on specifics, would you still consider that
final proposal that you made to the legislature in that last --
A
Yes, from the very first I said to the legislature that
the idea of the income tax portion of the rebate, if the legislature
would pass that, that was fine with me. When it appeared that
they didn't want to do that, that was a balking point also, I made
it very plain and right down to the last minute on that final day,
to the Speaker of the Assembly, I said, "Then, for heaven's sake,
if we are all at least agreed onthe sales tax, send that down. Let
us simply defer the sales tax increase and we can -- we have got
-16-
plenty of time to deal with the other, and in he meantime it is
on the ballot for the people to make the decision." But that same
majority leadership has a kind of arrogance about not wanting
to let the people vote on such things, just as they don't want them
to vote on the death penalty, and I just -- as I say, I think
that the real contest here is who definitely wants to give the
money back to the people and who would rather keep it and find ways
to spend it.
Thank you, Governor.
o0o
-17-