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
118564140
label
Transcripts - 01/15/1974, 01/31/1974, 02/21/1974
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564140
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 01/15/1974, 01/31/1974, 02/21/1974
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
118564140
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
101c7f673e592f30
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 -
01/15/1974, 01/31/1974, 02/21/1974
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
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
Held January 15, 1974
Reported by
Beverly D. +oms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the press conference is furnished
to the members of the Capitol press corps for their convenience
only.
Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as
possible after the conference, no corrections are made and there is
no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
---000--
GOVERNOR REAGAN: We have some visitors this morning.
Oberst
Mrs. Alma Oburst and -- who is the journalism instructor at the
Contra Costa College in San Pablo, a class of 20 journalism class
there. And, incidentally, they have got to be regular visitors.
Oberst
Mrs. Oburst brings her class here and has for the last several years
at least once each year. I have an opening statement.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 27.)
O
Governor, what promoted you to make the statement now?
was it Lieutenant Governor Reinecke's comments that were reported
last week about his urging the support --
A
No, no, and let me just say with regard to that, that I've
had two Lieutenant Governors during my term in office, and it
just seems to be a habit of the political process that from the
first day in office there seems to be a desire to indicate that the
Lieutenant Governor and the Governor are at odds with each other and
splitting. My relationship with Lieutenant Governor Reinecke
remains unchanged and on the sound and good cordial basis it always
has been, but you yourselves have frequently asked me in press
conferences, and this is the first one in considerable time, and
we are getting closer to that -- that date, but you've asked me
whenher I would remain neutral or whether I would take stands. And
increasingly some of you just in individual contacts have brought up,
well, am I going to take a stand in this (primary) race or the other, but also
it's been coming in from -- from the people themselves, these
inquiries. And SO this was based -- this statement is based on
the fact that I have sent a letter to Gordon Luce, the State Republican
Chairman stating this very thing, that I believe the best service
I can be is to continue what I've done in every election SO far, is
-1-
to remain totally n. tral. And I have done tl in all primaries
since I've been Governor.
0
Governor, does this apply to your staff as well'
A
Yes. Yes, it does. And I have asked them to observe that.
0
Has the Lieutenant Governor asked you for support in
the primary?
A
No. As a matter of fact, he is in complete sympathy with
this and always has been. He's known from the first day that he
ever talked about running for Governor that I would be -- have to be
neutral in the primary.
0
Then why would he say something like he did, if you were
smart you'd support him?
A
Well, there are other news stories that seem to indicate
a -- different things. Things that -- that did not put that
emphasis on the one particular story.
So
--
you
can
ask
him
as
to what his attitude is.
0
Governor --
0
Governor, didn't you sometime earlier sort of leave the
door open for possible primary endorsement if youthought it was
needed?
A
Yes, I did. This was one of the reasons I felt a responsi-
bility to you to come in here and make this statement. I said at
one time that I was going to leave -- that while I said I felt that
I would be neutral, if you will recall I said at the same time I
was going to leave the door open, that ifin the interim something
developed that I thought I could serve the party better by aaking
a stand, I would do so. And I wanted to leave that option there.
And nothing has happened and I believe that the time has come now
to clear the air and make it plain what I'm going to do.
0
Governor, you said the Lieutenant Governor had not asked for
your endorsement. Have any of the prospective primary candidates
asked you?
A
No, no, and others -- young men in our administration that
have talked about running for office, have come to see me and the
first thing -- and I've encouraged them, I've told them this, that
I think they are the kind of men that should be running for public
office, and in each case -- and they will testify I have told them,
they understand, of course, that no matter how highly I regard them
with regard to their service in the jobs that they have been holding,
-2-
that I am neutral in the primary.
O
Hasany other candidate, particularly the Controller, asked
you not to endorse?
A
No, none of them have discussed this. All of them, I
think, have taken it for granted that this is the -- what I would
do.
0
Governor, did members of your staff discourage Mr. Kehoe
from his intention to run for Controller?
A
If they did I didn't know anything about it. I doubt it.
O
Governor, what about Lieutenant Reinecke's statement that
you would be -- that you'd -- you'd be weakening your prospective
bid for President in 1976 unless you dropped your stand for
neutrality in the race for Republican nomination for Governor?
A
Well, however that was written, or whatever it was was said,
I know the Lieutenant Governor has assured me that he was in a
conversation having to do with -- thesolidarity of the party,
particularly in the present climate in '74, and that it did not --
he did not intend that to mean that I should be in any way involved
in the primary or violate neutrality.
O
Well, Governor, nevertheless, whether he intended it or not,
it came out that way. Do you feel he was -- it wastaken out of
context?
A
None of you read the other story. There is a UPI story
out that seems quite contrary to the one you refer to.
0
Have you seen the Lieutenant Governor since those stories
were published?
A
Yes, just left him a little while ago.
O
Have you talked to him about it?
A
Yes.
O
What did he say?
A
Same thing he's already said, we have no difference of
opinion on this.
O
Did he say he was misquoted or anything that was printed
might have been misleading?
A
He said that in the general discussion that this was not the
point that he was intending to make. That the point he was intend-
ing to make was that obviously if -- if I were going to be involved
in a campaign in 1976, and he didn't know whenher I was or not, that --
that if I was that a good solid Republican party and a unified party,
-3-
Republican
party,
TA
1d be of benefit then.
1
obviously it
would be.
0
Governor, do you say you would support him?
A
No.
O
Governor, now that you raisethe question, will you be in
the contest in 1976?
A
Squire, that's too early to say. I'm --
(Laughter)
A
As I have said before, I've got about 11 more months to go
now to -- to concentrate on what we have to do here, and that's
what I'm going to do.
O
Governor, along thesame line, why wasn't the fund raiser
for Assemblyman Jerry Lewis not held in a local hotel last night and
instead at your residence?
A
Well, they asked me if they could hold it at the residence
and I was very pleased to cooperate and to -- to do that. And I
see nothing wrong with it.
O
You see no -- what is your reaction to the issue that it
may be improper to hold an event like that, inviting lobbyists,
specifically, in a state-supported residence?
A
Well, I was not responsible for the quest list. I knew
that
it was a fund raiser in connection with the party. The man who was
Governor is automatically the leader of his party. And I think it
might be interesting for some of you to check back and find out if
this was a new and unheard of thing. I don't think it was. I
think you will find that it's been customary even when the state had
a state-owned mansion instead of just renting a house for the
Governor to live in. That is my home. I don't think there is
any restriction in the constitution on who I invite or allow into
my home.
O
Do you think it is proper, though? Would you support that
sort of thing at any other state building?
A
Well, I think when you get into these state offices and
state buildings now -- I don't know what the policy might be on
that. I doubt if it would be for -- for partisan affairs unless
it was open to both and to all parties to do the same thing, but
I wouldn't see a particular need for that. I doubt if there
would be anything that -- where there would be an appropriate state
building for that. But I think you have to recognize that while
-4-
the state is supposed to provide housing for the Governor, that is
his home. That is his residence. I don't think the state says,
"Well, we will provide the home but we will tell you who you can
have in your home."
a
By the way, Governor, what's the status of building a new
mansion? That's kind of slowed down, hasn't it?
A
No, no, it was slowed down, but then when we didn't find any
arrowheads, to speak of, why --
(Laughter)
A
It's back on the --- on schedule although several months
behind schedule, because of that unnecessary delay. But the
architects are -- as a matter of fact, I have a meeting with them
today, with regard to preliminary plans that they want to show.
Q
Going back to that party, Governor, did your research
find that actually there were other times -- can you be specific
on whether there were other fund raisers?
A
I haven't pinned it down to any -- there's been general
conversation of people who have been around longer than I have that --
this was more or less a routine thing and -- in times past. And
that would mean the mansion over there, but I don't know for a fact
that -- nor have I bothered to find that out. Young lady.
Q
I heard about a meeting that you had with young people yes-
terday where you told them theyshould carefully look at the kind
of morality involved with the Watergate scandal and yet a year ago
you told me that everybody had in their campaign staff somebody who
was involved in wiretapping or conspiracy. Why have you changed
your mind?
A
No, I haven't changed my mind any. The young people asked
me the question of what effect I thought this would have and they
specified on a party.
And I tried to elaborate on what I thought
the general effect would be and the hope that there might be some
good out of this. That -- the Watergate certainly is not the
first of the idea of a laxity with regard to our reaction to campaign
shenanigans in the past, and that maybe this would be a good thing
to finally jolt us into realizing the seriousness of the privilege
of voting and that maybe out of this would come a new attitude on
the part of the people to politics in general, and to not being as
tolerant as people have been. And not just now, but back through
-5-
the past. A citizen has had a tendency to say, oh, that 's politics
and dust it off. And, as a matter of fact, I can hark back to
some 1966 campaign speeches when I said then that we should cure
that. That we shouldn't say it is excusable because it is politics.
That we should have even a more stringent requirement for this just
as we do for certain professions. I think we ask more in ethical
conduct of a clergyman or a doctor than we do of some other
occupations.
0
But one year ago you were dusting it off. Why the change
of mind?
A
No, I don't think I was ever dusting it off. No.
0
Also, in Shasta County there is a newly created Superior
Court position. Have you decided who you are going to fill that
with? It is in Shasta County.
A
I couldn't hear the first.
Q
There is a newly created third Superior Court position in
Shasta County. Have you decided who you are going to fill that
with?
A
No, we have not made a decision as yet.
Q
Are you thinking about anybody in particular?
A
Well, in the Superior Court, no, I'll have to explain
the
the process to you. I tried/first months I was up here to take
the appointment of judges out of the political influence and be
political appointees, and I couldn't get that through the legislature,
but I have been doing it voluntarily. We submit all names that are
proposed for judges to a series of committees, including laymen,
the local bar, the judiciary and the state board of Governors.
And back come these separate committee ratings of these individuals.
And we then get a --- a sheet that gives their ratings across the
board. And we have been appointing those who arechosen at the
highest level by those various committees. We have indeed taken
it out of the area of politics.
O
Which ones are you recommending? What ones that have
reached the top are you recommending?
A
Well, we haven't had the meeting on that yet. I don't
know that all the returns are in, because see, one name will come
in at one time, subsequently another name, and immediately you send
them out to these committees for that screening, and you don't
have the meeting then until you know that all the names that have
-6-
been submitted that you have the ratings back Use
0
Governor, the technical advisers to Judge Sirica reported
to him this morning that there had beenbetween 5 and 9 erasures
within that 18 minute section in one of the subpoenaed Watergate
tapes. Does that in any way make you somewhat suspicious of Rose-
mary ---
A
I don't understand. I thought that the whole 18 minutes
was simply erased on the tape and replaced by a tone.
Q
Apparently the experts, though, looked at it and found that
there were erasures and even they say rerecordings within the 18
minutes.
A
Well, all I know is that just recently an expert in that
field, the head of an audio-visual company here in California, took
the exact same kind of device -- this was reported in the press --
took the exact same kind of device and revealed where, how
accidentally, with the foot pedal, you can in twelve seconds erase
18 minutes of tape exactly. I don't know, I'm not an expert.
o
Governor, in the Watergate discussion with the young people
yesterday you said something to the effect that hopefully out of this
people will be more careful in making selections of people for office.
or people they put into government jobs in the future. What did
you mean by that?
A
Well, no --
O
Is that a reflection on anyone who is --
A
No, again we have to review the bidding with the original
inflection
inflexion. In the entire discussion of this with the young people,
if you will recall, also, I cited and used the Will Rogers' quote that
the people in government are no better and no worse than the people
who send them there. And I also pointed out that -- that too
often theelectorate turns away and thinks that they are showing
a disapproval of things political by staying away fromthe polls.
And this is not the way to solve the problem. And I used the
example of a school board election recently, not too far away, when
only 5.7 per cent of the voters turned out. Now, I would like to
know how 94.3 per cent of the voters have any right to complain about
that school or the management of this school, what happens in that
school, when they missed their chance to vote in the board --
school board election. And so I meant that there is no substitute
in our system, I think it is the best system that's ever been devised
-7-
in man's social structure and it's proven that 1. has a verility
that can withstand the nitpicking and the harrassment and the things
that go wrong better than any system ever devised. But the one
thing that the founding father could not provide was a substitute
for the people. It is a government of, by and for the people.
And that "of" is particularly important. It means that the
people cannot leave political decisions to someone else or the
choosing of candidates. They have got to take the time and trouble
to be aware of the isses, to understand the issues and then to make
the decision on candidates. And most of what is wrong today, with
our political system, is that these decisions are made by people who
too often go to the polls without a knowledge of what is at issue
and what the candidates stand for. And beyond that those others
who don't go to the polls at all and seem proud of that fact.
0
Governor, back to the Shasta County Judge, has Senator
Marler's name been entered into this process? And if he makes the
cut would you appoint him?
ED MEESE:
Governor, we have traditionally not mentioned
any names until they are finally appointed.
A
Never have.
0
Governor, somewhat by the same analogy, onthat --- on that
question, then do you think that it was improper then for the -- for
the Control of the Presidential elect campaign last year to be in
the hands of a committee under the President rather than within the
party?
A
Oh, I don't think there is anything new of that -- about
that.
Every candidate has hisown campaign organization. Outside the
party organization. You cooperate, you work with them when you can.
I've -- goth campaigns I've had my own organization outside of the
party structure. You have to if you are going to be involved in
the primary, you have to have such a structure because in California
at least the state party structure cannot participate in the sense
of endorsing or participating with regard to candidates -- individual
candidates. And it would be pretty late to start after the primary.
And turn it all over to them.
0
Governor, how could Watergate have been prevented by a
more alert electorate?
A
Well, I suppose if you are going to get down to try and take
a specific of that kind, I'll have to sit down and write a
-8-
script for that.
was talking about an att' ude--a lax attitude
that has persisted long before Watergate, that goes back through
Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes and the Tammany Hall in New York,
and Hage Machine in New Jersey, and Daley, and before that the
Kelly-Nash Machine in Chicago, and I think that all of those things
took place because of the willingness of people to go their way and
let George do it.
0
Was that true of voters in''72, five months after the
Watergate break-in was revealed, still voting for the President?
Do you think that's an example of the same thing?
A
Well, I don't know. I have often said I'm not going to go
back on a statement that I madebefore, that I can't recall a Presi-
dential election in many years in which the philosophies, the issues
were as clearly defined as they were in this one. You had two
opposing camps as to issues, and I thought the people didn't really
make so much of a decision or choice of a man as they did they
voted against the almost revolution and reconcept of our American
system that was presented by the McGovern campaign.
O
Governor, do you think Watergate was no worse than any of
those other cases that youmentioned in terms of political
corruption and scandal?
A
I'm not going to get into that game.
Q
But you keep equating every time you are asked about
Watergate you say this has been going on all along, as if this is
really nothing different. And that doesn't make it right.
And
I'm not going to get into an answer to your question because I think
that it is just as dishonest to steal a dime as it is a dollar.
O
Governor, what is your reaction to Secretary of State
Brown's suggestion that the state take back its tideland oil lands
and go into the oil business?
A
Well, I liked him better when he was picking up arrowheads.
(Laughter)
A
I think it shows a great ignorance of our system. I think
it is a very naive thing for him to propose, and I don't think that
the state should be getting into competition with the private sector
in any field, and is this to suggest that if there is trouble in
the automobile industry that the state ought to jump in and start
manufacturing automobiles? First of all, when I say ignor ance of
our system, I don't think that what he's proposing could be done
under California law and constitution.
-9-
O
Governor, in your State of the State address you suggested
that the Secretary of State's office be made a non-partisan office.
Does that have anything to do with the fact that Mr. Brown is the only
Democrat who holds the constitutional office?
A
No, it has to do with the fact that he himself has brought
this out in the last several months. He brought it out; he's
milked it. And that is theidea of the new laws, the new regulations
with regard to campaign reporting, campaign practices and so forth
that the Secretary of State's office is in charge of, the supervising
of -- of those campaign practices. Now, with that emphasis on that
office, to supervise elections, partisan elections between a major
and whatever the third and fourth parties there are, it would seem
to me that the character of the office has changed and in order to
do that and avoid any possibility of conflict of interest or of bias
and partisanship in supervising those compaign tactics, it should be
where
a non-partisan office,/mxx the man could stand above the gray and judge
each party equally. Now, as you know, we have had criticisms
recently and particularly with regard to Proposition 1, and some other
campaign things, that there has not been an even-handed administering
of the -- of the laws from that office.
Q
Why did you also suggest that other officials with not
partisan duties, such as you say the Attorney General, also be non-
partisan office?
A
No, I did't suggest that because the same thing doesn't
prevail. They are not involved in partisan activities, supervising
elections, supervising campaign contributions and the reporting of
campaign contributions and such. The Attorney General, for example,
is traditionally the Governor's lawyer. And the other constitutional
offices having to do with the Treasury and the Controller's office,
they don't have anything to do with the elections, SO there wasn't
any reason to make those -- if you went that route, then you might
as well say the Governor should be non-partisan, too, and then you
end the two party system.
0
You -- in Proposition 1 you said your budget is following
the guidelines of that.
But in Proposition 1 you suggested
a permanent reduction in income tax. This isn't in your budget.
Are you going to propose it or what?
A
No, it was voted down by the people. Right now, very frankly,
the reason we haven't proposed that in legislation is because since
-10-
that time the energ, crisis -- now themoney is here, the surplus
is there that would have been used in that tax cut, but I -- I am
willing to wait now to make sure that we don't run into an emergency.
Q
But the energy crisis was brought up when Proposition 1 was
in there and some people, including Alan Post, said it wouldn't
work because of the coming energy crisis. Does that mean Prop. 1
wouldn't have worked?
A
Yes, Prop. 1 would have worked, and our present budget
indicates it. And our money is there and everything would have
taken place exactly as it has taken place if Prop. 1 passed. But,
first of all, I don't believe with the majority we have in the
legislature there is any chance in getting the -- that tax cut.
That was one of the reasons the leadership was opposed to it. But
the - the money is hhere. It could have provided for that tax
cut.
Governor, Senator Biddle plans to fight your appoint ---
appointments to the State Air Resources Board, the four new appoint-
ments you made last month, on the grounds that they possibly aren't
qualified under law and that he says they were appointed merely
to obtain a particular decision on the '66-70 car license --
Could you comment on why you made that much of a change and --
A
Yes, I look forward to talking to Senator Biddle about that.
I can understand his concern. He represents a district that has
a very great problem. Geographically, that area over there gets
all the air pollution from Orange and Los Angeles Counties and piles
up against the mountains and they live in it until the wind comes
along and blows it away. So K know the concern and I think we all
share that concern. But the board situation is -- has not been fairly
portrayed. First of all, I was faced with three resignations, and
some of those resigning, Dr. Haagen-Smit, for a long time had intended
to retire. He'd stayed on longer than he intended to and some of those
retiring suggested that they felt this was a time now for a reorganiza-
tion of the board. A fourth member's term had come up, had expired.
The individual was -- no one was fired. This person's term had
expired and long before the whole matter of the energy crisis had come
this individual had been warned or advised -- I shouldn't put it
as a warning -- advised that very possibly might not be reappointed
and this is true of many other boards. If you notice that we -- we
do make changes in personnel. So we went forward with this.
I
-11-
have never spoken to che board with -- to any O₁ these members
individually with regard to what their course of action might be.
I think there was -- there's been question for a long time and
we have had numerous meetings about the smog control devices, their
effectiveness, whether we were moving too fast or not. We finally
went ahead with them and they still will go forward. They will apply
and be applied to cars when they change ownerships. Anyone
trading
in an old car, from '66 to '70 period, before it can be resold it
must have one of these devices put on it. The only thing that we
held up on because of the energy crisis was the plan to go forward
making every one -- while they presently own the car, install one and
that has only been a delay. This was done by the board on its own.
But there was no tie-in of any kind. I was faced with making three
appointments, whenher I wanted to or not, by three resignations and
the resignations were, as I say, for various per sonal reasons. None
of them involved with any policy dispute.
o
On that fourth one, are you aware that the members of the Air
Resources Board do not serve term appointments, they serve the
pleasure of the Governor and can be removed at any time? So her
appointment did not run out.
ED MEESE: All of the appointments were vacated at this
point as far as the reorganization and then each one was reviewed.
It is not a term appointment, but it was -- all positions were vacated.
O
Then why specifically did you replace Mrs. Mead, the one who
did not hand inher resignation?
A
For the reason that I told you, we were going ahead with three
new members, we felt that it was time -- just as some of them in
going out had recommended to us, a total reorganization of the board,
so we did.
O
Are you --
A
And we have done this before with other boards.
0
When you were asked about the board several months ago you
were asked at a press conference what you thought about their record.
You thought they had done a prettygood job.
A
I do, I think that we have been themost fortunate state
in the union to have Dr. Haagen-Smit as the Chairman of that board,
and it wasn't through my choice or desire that Dr. Haagen-Smit decided
he'd come to the end of the line.
0
Governor, in light of what some of theoil companies are
saying as far as reserves on hand, fuel reserves on hand, are you
having any second doubts that the energy crisis .S as serious as
they say it is?
A
No. No, I haven't. As you know, last May weheld a state-
wide seminar here with the best input that we could in the round-
tabling of this. More than a year ago we had a seminar and a
report to us by the best experts in the field at the National
Governor's Conference. We have had such a -- demonstration here
and by some of the same people before our own cabinet. And it's
been known for a number of years that two things were happening.
One was a vast increase in consumption. But the other was a
decline. Now, just in the years that we have been here we have
vastly increased in California the need to import energy and fuel into
California. And there has been a decrease in our own production.
And these two things coming together were giving us the picture of
an increasing problem. Now, what really happened to that, maybe it
was in a way a favor to us, because youcouldn't get much public
attention as long as you could still go in and get your tank filled
with gas, it didn't do too much good to say to people each year we
are getting more in trouble and up here, two or three years from now,
we are going to be in real trouble. The real trouble came earlier
than that, simply because the Arabs cut off the oil supply and that
precipitated the emergency quicker. In just a few years, if
the Arabs -- let me put it this way, if we don't find some of the
same answers we are talking about now, even if the Arabs start
shipping the oil tomorrow, we still are facing an energy crisis that
by - within the next ten years is going to find us in a situation
like England is, right today. So the energy crisis is for real.
O
Governor, back to your Proposition 1, and the budget. You
say that the money is there for the tax cut that Proposition 1 would
have called for, With a seven and a half per cent income tax
reduction you have got something like $105 million surplus, not
counting federal revenue sharing money -- you say that would --
and that -- and Alan Post says that doesn't count for any increase
in welfare costs because of the energy crisis, you are saying that
that would have covered that income tax cut that the Proposition 1
would have called for?
VERNE ORR: Governor, the combination of $105 million in the
free surplus, and $167 million, is 272, and the income tax rebate
of seven and a half per cent the first year would have been in the
-13-
neighborhood of $155 million.
Ω
But wecan't spend the revenue sharing money without special
allocation. We can't use it for general.
VERNE ORR: You can with special allocation by the legisla-
ture, use it for almost anything you want.
A
It is simply up to the legislature to appropriate it.
0
Governor, in your State of the State message you recommended
some constitutional changes which would require that the legislature
provide revenue sources for programs it advocates, expenditures. But
yet in the same State of the State message you made a number of
reommendations for programs which would cost a great deal of money,
like expanding the Oroville Dam andother dams, new geothermal research,
solar energy research, some changes in the Department of Education
without suggesting how those could be financed. Well, now, aren't
you at odds with yourself there?
A
No, everything that was suggested there is within the budget.
And is presently being financed. I intend to pursue and to follow
up-- I can find that no one has givena logical answer or any
answer at all as to why the things I suggested with regard to taxing
and spending should not be implemented. No one can suggest any
reason why a legislator should be able to pass a ppending measure
without indicating how the measure was going to be financed. And
I think for legislators to go on proposing hundreds of millions of dollars
billions of dollars in spending with no responsibility whatsoever
for suggesting a method of paying for them is just -- is just
a ridiculous kind of government. It's what's led tothe present cost
and size of government. Now, what we have proposed is two things.
We have proposed a constitutional amendment and I sti 11 think it
is a good one, the Governor has to submit a balanced budget to the
legislature or submit a budget and a revenue measure with it that
would make it balanced. The legislature, on the other hand, turns
around and sends back down tothe Governor, not just this Governor,
but any Governor, and has in the past, sends down a budget with
hundreds of millions of dollars of added spending that puts the
budget out of balance and provides no tax revenue, and if anything,
you almost suspect that they wait for the Governor then to pick up
the responsibility of saying, well, all right, I'll sign that and
now I'll have to ask youfor a tax increase. I think they ought to
do the same thing the Governor does. The other thing is a way to
approach this, and to have some control and in the battle over
Proposition 1 the legislature repeatedly -- or those legislators
who were opposed to it, repeatedly said this was a problem
they cauld solve, that they could handle this. Now, I'm saying
that a legislator with a spending measure should either indicate
where the money is coming from, in other words, that is is going
to supplant something else in the present budget, or suggest a
revenue measure to pay for it, and if anyone can show me why that
isn't sommon sense, I'd like to know.
0
Can I have my question back? I didn't mean to ask you
about that. I asked you about -- and my question was, why didn't you
do that in the State of the State message? I don't see any
geothermal research money in the budget.
A
Oh, yes. The state and the Water Resources Board in connec-
tion with their own state college and universities is engaged in
research, but the most of the research is going forward as it properly
should by the privately owned utilities in our state, that are going
forward with this. The Water Resources Board is right now
engaged in a study of how much more capacity we might be abl e to get
in hydroelectric. I'm sure it isn't going to be much because we
have pretty much exhausted that field.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: But those things are going forward.
SQUIRE:
Thank you, Governor.
000
-15-
PRESS ONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONAL
REAGAN
HELD JANUARY / 1974
Reported by
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
I have an opening statement, but before
that, we have in the back of the room once again some visitors,
a journalism class from the University of California, Berkeley,
under instructor Richard Reinhardt. Glad to have you here.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 60.)
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
Bill, I' m going to ask you if you'll
step up here so they see you and meet you as the new head of this
drive, and you ladies and gentlemen have any questions on this
particular subject, Bill and I will be very happy to answer these.
I'll leave it to him.
MR. LANE: Well, thank you very much, Governor, it is a
great pleasure for me to serve as chairman and as we are referring
to it, the new Proposition 1, which we feel that this is an
excellent bond to take to the people. The $90 million that the
Governor referred to goes back into local government which not only
meets the needs of the elderly add the invalid and young people, but
certainly is very timely with the energy crisis and so for that
and many other reasons, I feel this is an excellent act and I'm
very proud to be a part of the organization, and I want to thank
the Governor personally for his very strong support. Thank you.
Q
Are you able to tell us how much of this -- how much land
in Lake Tahoe would be purchased?
GOVERNOR REAGAN: You'd better get back in front of
that mike.
MR. LANE: It varies somewhat. Bill Mott and the
wonderful people in the State Park organization have made recommenda-
tions, and this is part of the ten million dollars I think you'are
referring to, and there are three pieces of property and it depends
in part upon how much those pieces of land are going to cost.
-1-
Bill, do you have a specific answer to that, in terms of numbers
of acres, if, say, all three were able to be purchased?
BILL MOTT: No. Not the total acreage.
BILL LANE: It will vary somewhat. There are three spe-
(park)
cific, sites, however. I have personally inspected them, ont at
NorthLake Tahoe, one around Cascade Lake, just south of the Emerald
Bay, and another one that is -- in the southern end of the plateau
area, down by the South Lake Tahoe airport. There are three
excellent sites, but the exact determination still has to be made.
Q
Mr. Lane, are you concerned the voters might confuse this
with the old Prop. 1?
MR. LANE: Yes, I am. I happen to be one who supported
Proposition 1, or the old Proposition. 1. I am going to do every-
thing I can and so is our committee, to make sure that that
confusion is minimized, and I certainly look forward to the sppport
that I hope we would have from you ladies and gentlemen of
the press, to be sure that the re is not a confusion on that matter,
But I anticipate that there may be some.
Q
Where will you operate your headquarters out of?
MR. LANE: We will be headquartered, I suppose, in one
sense where my office is, which is Sunset Magazine. But we will
have a northern and southern Califo rnia headquarters for this, and
hopefu lly a San Diego and perhaps one other.
Q
Where is the Sunset -- where are you?
MR. LANE: Menlo Park. Yes, sir.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Bill, thanks very much--
MR. LANE: Thank you very much.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: -- for doing it. I'll make one suggest-
ion now. Not the new propositional, that might sound like it is a
new version of the old one, the different Proposition 1.
MR. LANE: Thank you very much, Governor.
(The following answers were given by Governor Reagan
unless differentiated.)
o
Governor, several members of, as itis called, your kitchen
cabinet, Mr. Tuttle, Mr. Firestone, Mr. Smith, Mr. Packard, have
endorsed the candidacy of Mr. Flournoy for Governor. What does that
say to you about the dandidacy of Ed Reinecke?
A
Well, first of all, let me make something plain. I have
never used the term kitchen cabinet'. That's one that has been
coined. I don't recognize that there is such a kitchen cabinet.
We have got a pretty fine cabinet here. A few of the names that
you have mentioned there are men who were personal friends of mine
for a long time, and yes, they were political supporters, also. But
I've noticed in the stories of those men that have already taken a
position and women, in regard to the candidates for Governor, that
there are among them many who didn't support me in my first time out.
So I don't think that there is any block of so-called Reagan
supporters that go any direction. I think this is in keeping with
what I announced a few weeks ago, that I was going to personally
remain neutral, ask all of the staff and the administration here
to remain neutral in the campaign, and I urged everyone then to go
out and choose their candidates and just remember that after the
primary to unite behind one. And I - I find nothing surprising
in this. I think there is going to be - apparently now has
come down to a primary between Controller Hugh Flournoy and the
Lieutenant Governor, Ed Reinecke. They both are good friends.
They are goth good Republicans, and I think that they will -- they
will have a fine and open primary, and the people will make their
choice.
o
Governor, my question was, that these men are -- I think
they have earned the reputation as being astute political activists.
Now, when they go over to Mr. Flournoy, who hasn't always in the
past shared their philosophical perspective, my question is, what
does that say to you about the candidacy of Ed Reinecke who phise-
sophically, it would seem, would be more compatible to these men
than Mr. Flournoy?
A
Well, I don't feel that I have any answer for that, than
to maintain my position that I am going to be absolutely neutral.
There is no way to answer about a comparison between primary candidates
without having it being able to be interpreted one way or the other.
So I just don't feel I can answer your question. I think that
Republicans, various shadings, are making decisions. I imagine
there are going to be some that, as they have in the past, are going
to remain neutral until after the primary. I think some of these
Ev
are men who might very easily have been the supporters of Ed,
Younger, the Attorney General, if he had gone for Governor. They
will support him now for Attorney General, but they have now made
another choice. And I'm not going to read any significance into
it at all.
or
Governor, do you have any decision made on the basis of what
Republican is best -- best capable of winning in November?
A
Well, you are going to have to ask each individual what
his reasons were. And I'm not going to -- to speak for them.
I'm sure that many people take into account the chances they
feel that a candidate has. But this would be true then of those who
are supporting the Lieutenant Governor.
Q
Governor, is there an understanding that Hugh Flournoy will
support you for the presidency if, in the event that you do run for
the presidency?
A
I have had no conversation with Hugh Flournoy at all. And
the only conversation I've had with any of these men is when Holmes
Tuttle, a long-time personal friend, called me late in the afternoon
to tell me that he made made a decisionto go that way. And I told
him that's your -- "That's your decision and your choice."
O
What afternoon?
Q
Governor, almost everyone else said Ed Reinecke's candidacy
is in serious trobble. Do you disagree with that?
A
I'm not going to make any comment at all because I think
even comments of that kind, one way or the other, can be construed
as having some meaning with regard to my feelings.
O
Well, Governor, why would Mr. Tuttle callyou then and
tel 1 you what he did?
A
Because he's been a very -- we have known each other for
thirty years, been long-time friends. And I --- Holmes is aware
that his name has been associted with mine in efforts -- in the
support of Proposition 1. He supported me in everything I did,
and he just felt that he wanted me to know that - the course he was
tgoing to follow.
Q
Do you think he may have called you because it would have been
expected that he would have supported Lieutenant Governor Reinecke
because he was a supporter of you?
A
I didn't ask him anything of the kind. I made my statement
to you publicly and to all of them, sent copies of my letter to
Gordon Luce, to all the potential candidates in all the races of what
I was going to do about staying neutral, and I've had no conversation.
O
Governor, when did Holmes Tuttle call you? What day?
-4-
A
You know, I can't remember.
ED MEESE: I believe it was Tuesday afternoon, Governor.
A
Was it Tuesday afternoon? I can't remember the day.
All day yesterday I thought yesterday was Tuesday and then I
remembered I wasn't here Monday.
Q
Governor, what about the trend of some of these people
supporting Flournoy and Senator Harmer as sort of a moderate
conservative ticket? Does that appear significant to you?
A
No, because I have a hunch you'll find a number of those
names that I've read them in the -- in the press stories already,
I think you'll find a number of those names that won't. This -- so
I don't think that there is any -- you know, agreement that --
Q
Well, would you say if you see any trend developing at
this point overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate, or do you think
it is pretty wide open at this point?
A
As far as I'm concerned, it is wide open.
2
Governor, do you think a Republican will win the governor-
ship next year?
A
I certainly think they should, and I'm most hopeful, I think
they will. I just would -- I would hate to believe that the things
that have been accomplished so far might be reversed.
&
When Holmes Tuttle called you, did he discuss with you
at all the possibility of your running for President and what
his endorsement of Flournoy might mean at that contest?
A
No.
Q
How, to the best of your memory did he approach it?
A
Just told me.
o
Did he -
A
He told me he had finally come to a decision, this is what
he wasdoing to do, and told me that he was also going to meet with
Ed because they are good friends and tell him of his decision, and
that was it.
O
Governor, are you running for President?
A
What?
Q
Are you running for President?
A
No, I'm running for my life right now.
0
Governor, is it true you are going to be spending about a
week very month on cam -- on making speeches out of state from now
-5-
on, the rest of this year?
A
No, it's turned out that for three months here -- each month
I had a trip that took me out of state. And this means that I
will do what I've done for seven years. On the way to and from
I will then pick up some of the invitations and let me explain what
I mean by the invitations. And I think this istrue of a great
many of us in the party, this happens to us. I get invitations
f rom governors or party leaders in other states, will I do a fund
raiser. Sometimes it is a specific invitation, they say, "We are
having a fund raiser on "x" date. Will you come to that fund
raiser?" Many times I can't accept. Sometimes they say , "If you
ever are in the area, will you let us know in sufficient time that
we could arrange a fund raiser. Would you be willing to do one?"
Now, this is what happened on the last trip. I had two engagements
in Washington, almost a week apart. And it was a case of sitting
around waiting for the next one or trying to come back here and
turn around and go back. And I was able to get in the vicinity
there in the east, I had some of those standby invitations. I
did four fund raisers, in that interim. Now, the same thing is
true in these other trips. I have accept an invitation to appear
in Dallas, Texas, for a citizen's group that is very effective on
the whole subject of crime and law enforcement, and I'm going to
talk about our own task force here and our own plans and what it is
that we found in our task force. I am going to do some fund raisers
of this same kind that I did last week. I'm going to do them on the
way back to Califórnia. The third one, in March, happens to be
the Governor's Conference in Washington. And there I'm going to
pick up a couple on the way in and I'm going to do two on the way
back, and that's the reason for the. But so far -- and we have
scheduled no trips in which I am simply leaving the state to go
out and do some political chores. I think as we get into the
campaign, like a great many other people in my position in other
states, I will be doing that when I can. I will be accepting
invitations to go out and help other candidates.
Q
Governor, during your eastern trip you were hosted -- you
were hosted in the board room of what Spiro Agnew used to call the
Eastern Establishment Press. You've been critical of the press
in the past, did you have a message for them or didthey have a message
-6-
for you?
A
Well, a mutual friend. I've known the newspaper business
and the publishing field clear back to my sports announcing days.
And it was also a mutual friend of the Publisher of the New York
Times said again, if I was ever in New York, would I let him know
with enough time, he'd like for me to have lunch with him just to
get acquainted, and this is exactly what we did. And after they
screened me and found out I did n't eat my young and theforked tail
didh't show, why, they let me in. We had a very delightful lunch
and got better acquainted.
O
Did you have a mesagge for them?
A
What?
a
Did you have a message for them?
A
No, I answered some of their questions about things that
are going on in California. That was that.
0
Governor, are you going to cut back on your fund raising
in this state this year?
A
No.
Q
For Republican candidates.
A
No. As a matter of fact, I've committed to a number of
fund raisers to the Central Committee, doing it all through the
State Central Committee.
Q
Governor, both Governors McCall and Andrus have expressed
concern about the Air Force's plan to fly a Minuteman missile over
their states, and this missle will also fly over parts of California.
Do youshare their concern?
A
No, because -- and maybe because I wanted to say something
until I -- I had a chance to have a briefing. I've had a briefing
while I was in Washington from the Air Force. And I was greatly
pleased with what I learned. First of all, I have to say I agree
with the necessity for such a firing. This is the principal defense
weapon of the United States. And it is a gun we have never fired.
And to leave the fate of the United States dependent on a weapon
system, and you don't know whether it will go off when you pull the
trigger seems to me rather foolhearty. I would think that the
people would be demanding and would have before this, that such a
test be fired. But what Impressed me in the briefing was the thor-
oughness of the study that's going forward. We are talking about
-7-
something that will take place a year from now. And the Air Force
is conducting the most thorough study throughout this year that I
have
ever
--
ever
seen. Itwill involve element of risk as compared
to crossing the street. It will involve all the environmental
possibilities. And all of us who are concerned, such as the
governors here in the West Coast, are going to be completely informed
at every stage of this study, you might say, before final decision
is made.
Q
Why would two governors be opposed ---
A
Well; as I say, they spoke up evidently before they had
such a briefing, and I think they just envisioned that somebody
was just going to go in there and pull the trigger and that was
that. I have now learned that this is going to be -- there is
going to be a year-long study leading up to this. Every possible
facet of environmental harm, of risk, people or property, everything
is going to be thoroughly studied, and evaluated by the Air Force, and
we are going to be kept informed. Now, if something developes in that
study in which there is reasonfor controversy for concern on the
part of the western governors as, say, against the Air Force's
decision or determination to fire it, then is the time to go in on
the basis of those facts and register a protest.
Q
Are you the only governor that has been given a briefing?
B
I don't know whether it - it is availabl to the others,
but I happened to be there. I was going to be in Washington and
this was another thing, I asked for it.
O
Governor, you've said a moment ago about something about
(minuteman missile)
crossing the street. Are you saying this test firing is going to
be no more dangerous than crossing the street?
A
No, what I'm saying is we hope it won't -- but what I'm
saying is that when they go into the incidents of risk, they are not
only going to just come out with some statement, they don't think
there is any risk. They are going to statistically rate whatever
element of risk there is, to all the normal things in our daily
life. Driving to work, flying to Los Angeles, Crossing the street,
whatever it might be. They are going to -- so that people can see
actually statistically what is the percentage of possible danger
compared to all the normal pursuits of our daily life.
0
A candidate, -- how would you assess the enthusiasm and
-8-
support of people back in the east on your last trip for the
possibility of you running for the presidenty? I'm sure they came
up to you even if you didn't bring up the subject yourself.
A
Oh, of course, like any phace, there are people that talk
to you and that say this and express a hope and so forth, but I
wasn't keeping any ally. And I wasn't doing anything except
appearing at those four fund raisers. And that was the purpose of
the trip.
O
They expressed a hope for what, Governor?
A
What?
Q
Expressed a hope for what?
A
Well, what's the standard question here that was being
asked?
About a possible future candidacy of mine.
Q
Governor, more --
o
Governor, what did Admiral Zumwalt have to say about navy
bases in California and their future?
A
Well, we know that there is a re-evaluation going on and
has to be of bases of all kinds, military bases. We, on the other
hand, had an opportunity to express our concern about some of them
and I have already received word from the Deputy Secretary of the
Navy regarding one that was of principal concern to us, over in the
Bay area. And I have received just received a message that there
are no plans for phasing that out. It gives employment to several
thousand Californians.
Q
What was that Bay area base?
A
Over in Alameda.
Q
Alameda Naval Air.
0
Governor, the Senate says you haven't sent the names of
your Resources Board appointees, those controversial ones for
confirmation of -- and they can't act until you send the names to
them.
A
Have we --
ED MEESE: They should have been. Should be.
A
Should have been if they haven't --
O
Oh.
A
I don't understand that. We will try to find out why.
2
Governor, was anything said about the naval base of San
Francisco? Was anything said about closing of the naval base in
San Francisco?
A
I can't recall that there were any specifics at that time.
Everything was under review.
O
Governor, what was your personal reaction to being the first
man overridden in twenty-eight years in the State?
A
Exactly what I saidto you. You know, it's about time the
other shoe fell. I don't think it was very important or earth-
shaking, at all. And I think it was a very minor thing. It
happened to be on a bill that doesn't change anything, in reality.
It doesn't accomplish anything. The hospitals weren't going to be
closed. My one concern I've already expressed to you, I think
that -- I think it is poor administration to have it this way. I
think the legislature this opens up the possibilities now of log
rolling with regard to institutions that are in various legislative
districts.
O
Well, it's been suggested that as a lame duck Governor
you are going to be losing your grip on the legislature and that
we might be able to see more of these. How would you rate your
influence with the legislature on this last year?
A
What grip has a Governor had on a legislature that outnumb ers
him in both houses and has been fighting tooth and nail to stop him
from doing everything he's ever tried to dosince he's been here?
I'm talking through the third person, but I mean me. I don't know
if that's a grip on a legislature, it is a pretty strange one. You
know, the welfare reforms came about only because the people of
California finally made the legislature realize they couldn't
hold out ay longer after they had held out for five months. That
isn't a governor's grip on the legislature. They came to see me
and frankly said, "We can't take the heat any longer, let's sit down
and talk."
Q
What was said to Senator Marks, and why was he called?
A
What?
o
What was said to Senator Marks and why was he called on
(veto)
the override?
A
Well, any time that's going on or any time you are trying
to get a bill passed, you do what's -- they term, "working the
legislature." You call legislators and try to persuade them on a
course that you'd wish they'd take. But there were no threats made
to him. There were no threats made to anyone. Never done business
=10-
that way.
Q
Who alse was called besides Senator Marks on that bill at
that time?
A
Well, I imagine-I didn't make them, but I imagine calls
went to -- to everybody who seemed to be a possible aye vote.
0
Are you sorry, now, Governor, that you called Senator
Marks?
A
I didn't call him.
Q
I mean are you sorry that he was called?
A
No, not really.
(Laughter)
Q
Is it true that you said you'd campaign in his district
for him?
A
What?
Q
Did you say --
A
I've made no changes.
I campaign for everyone that is a
Republican nominee.
O
Governor, in the conversation was relayed to us -- related to 1,1
us by Senator Marks, as confirmed in essence by Mr. Meese, what
was said was, "You should support the governor in this, or it is
going to be difficult for him to support you." The bill itself wasn't
even discussed. What was at stake here, the bill -- the merits
(veto)
of the bill or your override?
A
Everyone was aware that the bill didn't change anything.
It didn't suddenly change a plan of ours.
Thelegislatre
had
been
assured that the hospitals were not going to be closed. And, as
I say, the -- I felt there were two things franklyinvolved there.
I thought one, as I said before, it was bad administration.
Secondtly, I think that it further ads to the confusion of a lot
of people in California who are not aware of the fact that outside
the boundaries of California this state is recognized world-wide
as having made the most progress and being farther ahead in the
treatment of the mentally ill than any place in the world. Our
national government recognizes that. We have world-wide visitors who
come here, to study what we are going in this system. And I think
this was just another case of further confusing the people who --
a great many in California who have some misconception that somehow
we are practicing economies at the expense: of mental health. And
-11-
it isn't true. Our budget has gone up tremendously. We are spend-
ing eight times as much on the subsidizing of county mental health
care clinics. We have 1400 such institutions in Los Angeles County
alone. And a thousand of them are doing a betterjob than we have
e ver been able to do in the state hospitals. Dic, you had your hand
up or did I get yours?
0
You got me.
A
Oh.
Q
Governor, what is your position on the --
A
I tell you, I've just noticed that you fellows have a
new custom here, you have given up hands and the fellow that just
raises his hands doesn't get called on because somebody else has
started talking already.
Q
What is your position on the state lottery?
A
My position on the state lottery? I've always been
opposed. I think in a state -- first of all, I've studied the other
states, and the other state lotteries. I have betters from New
York, for example, where every legislator and every committee
chairman and so forth that had anything to do with that has written
me, all individually, and in each one of them in some place in his
letter said, "If I had it to do over again, I would vote on it the
other way. But they are not as successful financially as people
have been led to believe. But, more than that, I think that a
state like California ought to be getting its revenues by appealing
to people's strengths and not their weaknesses. The other thing
that bothers me about it is I haven't seen any of the proponent S of
it suggesti what tax would be reduced, dollar for dollar. If it was
replaced by a lottery. In other words, it is another tax increase,
it is getting more money for gobernment and I think government should
be getting less.
Q
That means you would not sign that bill under any cirsum-
stances if it came to you?
A
I think they are suggesting a thing on the ballot. I
don't think U have anything to do with signing it or not.
0
What do youthink of -- I raised my hand.
A
Yeah. Almost as fast as you started asking. Go ahead.
0
What do you think of the Assembly Speaker's proposal to
-12-
lower from two-thirds to a majority the vote as to change bank and
corporation tax and its pledge to lead an initiative on there if
they can't get it through the legislature?
A
Well, I'm opposed, for one reason. I agree with the idea
that they shouldn't have any consideration more than any other tax-
payer. But I believe that we should make it two-thirds vote for any
tax increase, because I think it should be harder to increase taxes,
not easier.
Q
Governor, for the past -- for the past year the state has
been Sacramento and Stockton that its unemployment rates were around
five per cent. Now, the federal government has come in and told
us they are really up around seven per cent. Who are we to
believe?
A
Well, I'm glad you asked that question because that reveals
the kind of donfusion that is going to follow what I think was a
ridiculous move by the Labor Department in Washington. They have
devised a new statistical system for calling unemployment.
We
think we have had a pretty accurate system. Now I can give you the
example. By our system WE know that unemployment in January went
up over December. By the new statistical system they make it look
like we have seven and a half, not five and a half per cent,
unemployment, but under their figures your unemployment goes down.
Now, we know it went up from December to January, but under their
new systemthey're figuring it we went down in unemployment in this
month. And we know itisn't true. But we think a great many people
are not going to understand and they are going to suddenly,
particularly in the energy crisis, see unemployment rates suddenly
of seven and eight per cent. And they are going to think it is an
increase of that much because they won't recognize that where last
month our figures showed 5.3 per -- unemployment, under the newly
adopted system, which we announced today, those figures would have
been 7.5. Now, what they have done, among other things, is go all
the way down and include 14 year olds as unemployed. The truth of
the matter is the federal system for declaring unemployed is nothing
more than a bottery itself. They make 50,000 periodically -- 50,000
phone calls to households in the United States and ask them if they
got anybody there that wants work. Now, if yougot a 14 year old
kid going to school, and mama wants to say, "Yeah, I wish he did have
a job after school," bang, he's now unemployed. And I have used
this figure before. Sweden, where, being socialist, they have an
accurate count of the unemployed. know exactly how many people are
of work - Sweden, a few years ago, used the American system as
an experiment and found that their actual unemployment of 46,000 went
up to 137,000 under the American system. And we are in disagreement
with this shift to this new method. But we are a little confused.
We don't understand it and we particularly don't understand it
because apparently Washington, for the national level, is going to
continue to use the old figures. And this one's got us really
spinning. So, it is bureaucracy at its worst.
Q
Governor, what's your view of the propriety of Bob Moretti
remaining as Speaker while he's out running for Governor?
A
Well, that's a legislative matter. There is no question
but that he gets advantage of a position and the risk is there of
the use of state funds by way of staff and so forth, involved in
the campaign. But this, I think, is something for his primary
opponents and others to --- to bring up and cal 1 to people's attention.
Q
Well, if you were Speaker of the Assembly and you were
running for Governor, what would you do?
A
That's a hypothetical question, because I can't conceive
of ever being Speaker of the Assembly.
(Laughter)
A
I know, I say it is a hypothetical question and I don't go
for hypothetical answers.
o
Governor, do you welcome the possibility of Jesse Unruh coming
back to the Assembly?
A
Well, I got to tellyou, in the last year or so I've missed
him more than I thought I would.
Q
Governor, just on the point, on clarification. On the
response to the question on would you campaign for Senator Marks,
you said that you -- you made no changes and you'd campaigh for
every Republican or every Republican nominee.
A
Well, when you do that you can't actually personally
get into that. Let me say, I've gone to the aid of every Republican
nominee whenever I could and I have no intention of changing that --
that plan. I believe the St ate would be in better hands if we had
a Republican majority.
Q
Governor, last night your proposal' to change the
exclusionary rule died in the Senate without coming to a vote,
Senator Lagomarsino's bill. Do you plan to take that up to the
legislature again this year in some form or another?
A
Well, I have encouraged them, yes, to keep trying on that
and I certainly inte.
to keep trying myself, because I think there
is wide public acceptance for it. And I think this is another
example of legislative leadership that is out of tune with the
is
people's thinking. I just think that if somebody/stopped for going
through a red light and he's got a bucket of heroin on the front
eaat, there is something pretty ridiculous about some rule that says
he can't introduce that bucket of heroin in court, all he can do is
give a ticket for going through a red light.
0
Yesterday, in a follow-up question, Senator Moscone said
that if that bill were passed it would would be all right for
people to break into the Ellsburg psychiatrist's office.
A
No, it wouldn't, and that is a complete distortion, and
Senator Moscone must know better than that. He was -- there is
nothing of the kind. Nothing endangers what we are really
trying to do is put two letters back into the application -- or
in the constitution, U N, unreasonable search and seizure. And
this is what we are supposed to be protected against. And what we
are actually doing under this exclusionary rule is protecting a --
some possible criminals against reasonable search and seizure. The
great diaper case is the classic example. A nine-month old baby,
they found the heroin in the baby's diapers, and the judge ruled that
the ninemonth old baby had not given permission for a violation
of its constitutional rights.
Q
Governor, your example of a policeman finding a bucket
of heroin on the front seat of a car when he stops a speeder, is
that an actual example that you are citing, or is that -- was that --
A
Yes, yes, we have had we have had actual examples of that.
We have had several times examples of -- of weapons in cars that
could lead to the belief that - there might have been involv ement
in a crime of violence, and so forth. And the exclusionary rule
has made all of that. The list of horror stories of cases that
have been thrown out -- now all our change is based on is the
opinion that was given by Chief Justice Berger of the United States
Supreme Court and Chief Justice Berger said that this rule had
been abused, and what still is required is the warrant for a search,
but if in the searching you find something beyond what you were
looking for, but that is evidence of a crime, that this can be
introduced in evidence. At the same time what we do, and that
we don't have today, is we give the citizen whose rights might have
-15-
been violated -- say, If a policeman barged in W. hout the warrant,
we give the citizen now redress that he can sue and government must
provide the legal counsel for him to sue for damages. So that he
gets his damages. And certainly law enforcement is going to be
constrained to obey the constitution rather than constantly being
taken into court in lawsuits, and at the same time you don't have to
throw out evidence of a real crime.
O
Governor, how well did you like the President's State of
the Union message, and what do you think it is going to do for him
to weather the sough times ahead?
A
Well, I -- you realize now you can't talk in specifics on
the legislative proposals because those are contained in the longer
report which we will have to wait and see what wasinvolved.
In
the spoken address, I thought that it certainly should have cleared
the air on a number of things. I thought the effect -- it was
apparent that for a great many people there it did. And I would
hope now that on top of that that the President would continue to
make himself available now to the press in more frequent press
conferences so that the people could have a chance to see the
questions and their answers on the various issuea. I frankly
thought it was fine and I thought that his closing -- it was
impossible for him to make that speech and not discuss Watergate,
and I thought he did it very forthrightly, and I hope that the --
that the issue will be resolved, as he asked. I hope that we will
make the decision, and, as he said, punish the guilty and acknowledge
the innocent.
Q
Governor --
O
On another subject --
O
On that same subject. Governor, how can the President
expect to have the air cleared if he, as he did in his State of the
Union address, he would volunteer no more information on any of the
questions that are being raised in connection with the scandal? Now,
how do you clear the air by keeping the door closed?
A
No, I understand that he said he would cooperate with the
committee of the Congress that is doing the investigation -- the
Judiciary committee, that he would make available and had made
available to them all the information that was pertinent to the case,
and the only reservation he held back on was -- and I think had to,
that he could not suddenly open up the entire presidential files for
hunting expeditions, and I don't think anyone would expect him to.
This is a tradition. He didn't start it. It started with Thomas
Jefferson'and has been going on for a long time.
0
Governor, what's your opinion of the President's income
maintenance or negative income tax plans he's coming up before --
A
Well, I don't know the plan. I know that I was in favor
of what he said about philosophy when he said that he did not believe
we should have a welfare plan, that it made it more advantageous
to not work than to work. And this is the very basis of our
reforms. I have to feel that Cap Weinberger, in there as secretary,
together with the other people, Jim Dwight and Bob Carlson, and these
other people he has hired with this real push forward he has made,
and some of our reforms and the changes he'd made back there --
I don't think it is a revival at all of the family assistance plan.
I know there was a leak to the press that might be forthcoming,
but all of the evidence I've had is that -- that's not true.
O
Governor, have you given the final O. K. now to the plans
for the new mansion and what do you think of the bill passed by
the Assembly to shift the location again downtown?
A
Well, I think they are foolish. I think this should be
a residence. I think they have got to contemplate that the person
that's going to occupy that residence, and it won't be me, as you
well know, is very likely going to have a family. And many of the
men who arerunning for Governor now have younger children. I had
the experience of living for a while in the old residence here down
in the downtown section and with an eight year old who came homefrom
school and what did he do, and where did he go? And the same is
true with the site they have downtown here. It is like living
in an office building. And the residential site has been picked, it
has been donated to the state for this purpose. The plans are
going forward and I hope that we are in construction by August or
September onthis new residence. Mery beautiful plans have been
adopted and they are just now being submitted. The preliminary
plans, and the estimates, and from there, if approved by the committee,
they will go forward with the working plans.
2
Have youapproved -- you have given your approval to it?
A
Yes. I thought they were lovely. As a matter of fact,
it is a good thing they didn't show them to me before I made my
decision about not running.
-17-
Q
Governor, if that bill reached your desk would you veto it?
A
What?
Q
The bill moving the site downtown.
A
Well, I've always said that I would 't -- I wouldn't comment
on a veto, but let me just answer it this way, you know I don't want
to break my rule about saying I will or I will not veto.
2
You've done it before.
A
Let me just say I am unalterably opposed to this idea of
down here in the office complex establishing a residence that is
actually part office building and part residence, because these
have been -- all the previous plans for a residence for the governor
have been like a white house where you live upstairs over the store.
O
Governor, this is one supplemental question. What do you
think of the idea to construct a separate executive building for the
executive and leave the legislature in this building, instead of build-
ing a new legislative building?
A
Well, I'm in favor of expanding the space that the legisla-
building
tureneeds, either in this new wing or in/a building for staff and
some of their functions that will take care oftheir space needs, but
maintaining the old wing, the old Capitol, restoring it and maintain-
ing it as the Capitol Now, I don't know, I havefound it very
convenient many times to be in the same building with the legislators.
There come times when they are up and down stairs to you, constantly,
when caucuses are held
---
well come budget time I've been
in that office until four o'clock in the morning, when the legislature
was discussing the budget before the deadline, when they stopped the
clock. And there might be quite a contest of -- as to who had to
get out in the rain and cross the street for meetings of that kind
if the governor was across the street somewhere.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
Q
Do I understand you to say that you think 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue is a lousy place to bring up children?
A
I told the Alfalfa Club that I thought a new residence
should be built, just west of the present location, about 3,000 miles
west, in California.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
000
-18-
2/
LA
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD FEBRUARY 21, 1974
Reported by:
Beverly D. Toms
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is for 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, no corrections are made and there is no guaranty of
absolute accuracy.)
oOo
GOVERNOR REAGAN: I have an opening statement today.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 116)
Q
Mr. Rank, how many jobs will you think you are finding
using these four techniquez?
MR. RANK: There will be about --
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Better move over here, those fellows
will be unhappy.
MR. RANK: There will be an additional 35 to 40
thousand new jobs available through the Employment Development
Department offices, through the three methods described there.
The fourth general area that of the retired executive's assistance
to failing businesses, we have a potential of 20,000 people --
jobs saved for them.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Anything else on this subject?
Q
Yes, Governor, who are you going to appoint as the
Directof of the Employment Development Department?
VOICE: We will have something coming up.
A
We will have an announcement on that and final decision
made.
O
Today?
VOICE:
Yes.
A
Will it be today? Yeah. Anyone else with any questions
on it? well, all right. I thank you might be interested to know,
though, that California in this regard, jobs and what we have done,
has been -- this department has been very effective. Last year
they found jobs for approximately 275,000 people, and our community
work experiment that we have been conducting in those 35 counties,
California last year put 57,000 people directly from Welfare into
private employment. And so far in the first six months of this
year we have put 39,000 from that program alone -- I might say I'm
wrong, the 275,000 is not a year, 275,000 was in the first six months
of this year. That's right. Correction.
Q
Governor, do you have any comment on the Michigan election?
A
Well, disappointed, of course. Nothing mar e than that.
Sorry it turned out that way. Sorry that morepeople didn't turn
out to vote.
0
Governor, in view of the continuing Watergate scenario and
new disclosures, indictments, trials, the Michigan election as
Dick mentioned, do you think it is expedient for Republicans to
campaign defending the record of Richard Nixon?
A
Well, I think that -- we certainly have a right to point
out theaccomplishments of this administration, and the changes that
have taken place under this administration. It is my understanding
that the Republican candidate did not in any way refer to that
record in his campaign.
Q
But the Democratic candidate did.
A
Well, the Democratic candidate, I think, was rather
demagogic and ran on nothing except the basis that anyone who is
running on the Republican side is somehow guilty of Watergate. And
I think that is pure demagoguery and it is an awful lot of hypocrisy.
O
Would you say then of the Republicans, if they are not at
least defending the President's record that they -- in other words
if they are not attacking the President's record that they should
disassocia themselves and run on their own?
A
Well, that's up to every candidate to make his decision on
how he thinks he ould run and what -- what he's going to do. I've
never found it necessary to run away from the fact that there is
a relaxing of tensions in the word; that there have been some of
the boldest and most imaginative and innovative steps taken in the
(Nixon)
field of international affairs under this administration, that
we have known in the last four decades. I think the fact that
this country could bring ceasefire in the Middle East, and I think
we have to be given credit for that -- I think the fact that for
the first time that either side has ever retreated one inch from
the territory, that it has taken place under the -- under this --
the auspices of this -- of this country. We have secured that.
-2-
The talks go forwa. now, leading hopefully to d permanent peace.
And this is just one thing along. And I don't think that we should
shut our eyes to these things. I think we have accomplished
a
great deal.
0
Governor, you were quoted earlier in the week as saying
that the outcome of the Michigan election was due more to voter
apathy than to anti Republican sentiment.
A
No, I never used the word "apathy". It is far more -- I
think, dangerous than that. I criticize the fact that there was
such a low turnout. And I said that if this is going to be the
effect of Watergate, that many people instead of taking one side
or the other simply are going to stand back and say, "Ce won't
participate at all," then we are going to be in a bad way. We are
going to have government by a minority of the people, a small
minority of the people, instead of government by the people.
O
Governor, this --- is this officially rescinding your
statement that you weren't going to comment on out-of-state issues?
A
What's that?
O
From now on we can talk about international and national
issues?
You had a statement a few months ago that you weren't
going to talk about anything except state issues. Are you rescind-
ing that?
A
This is because you fellows came in talking like Johnny
one-note, you wouldn't talk about anything about California.
O
You wouldn't talk about anything but California?
A
That's right.
O
Now you are wibling --
A
I answered these questions and I don't think this is
getting into the same tone of questioning that you fellows were
using back there for a while, back where you wanted me to set
myself up as an authority on the case.
0
Governor, the Lieutenant Governor's current problems
in the ITT case, do you see that in any way as a reflection back
on you because you appointed him?
A
No, and I don't see it as a reflection on him. Here
again, it -- there seems to be a difference of opinion about when
some meetings took place, or when some phone calls were made. And
I've seen no evidence of wrong-doing on his part. But, no, I
appointed a man who has done a good job as Lieutenant Governor.
Been a fine Lieutenant Governor, a great many people have agreed
2
Has he talked with you specifically about the case and
what's going on in Washington? Has he told you that he's
innocent of any wrongdoing personally?
A
Well, I have understood from the beginning the whole thing
that came out from his testimony in Washington, and came back here
and checked his own schedule and records and found out that he
himself had made a mistake as to the trips when he was in Washington.
And
0
Has he personally assured you of that?
A
Yes. Yeah.
Q
Governor, how do youjustify to the citizens of this
state your taking a week off every month or so to -- to go
and campaign and make political speeches out of state when you are
on a full-time salary from the state?
A
Well, I don't take a week off to go and campaign and do
full-time campaigning chores when I'm out of the state. I haven't
changed anything, really, that -- than what I have ever done.
And as I have often explained, it is true that you are the head of
your party and you are within the state as well holding this public
office, and it is recognized, the fact that other people from other
states come here and aid fn party chores for both parties, just as I
in turn go there. But these have not been junkets of that kind,
and it's been a slight distortion on the part of some of you to
paint them as that. They have been tied every time to what I felt
was a legitimate errand.
Now I had two legitimate reasons for
being in Washington, a few days apart. In those few days, which
were not enough to permit coming back tothecoast, I did perform
those party chores in between, concluded the business in Washington
and came home.
The last trip was with regard to an invitation
to Dalas, Texas, and something that I think I made a contribution
was to their crime commission. It was with regard to our own
findings here and our crime report, and I took a couple of days
on the way back and did some party chores on the way back.
A
number of these trips you will find take place also involve week-
ends, which I think I am entitled to. The third trip which you
are talking about is coming up, the bulk of that trip is in Washin-
ton, D. C. to a National Governor's Conference. Now, I would be
going to that, and I would be going to that in connection with
my job as Governor. And I am going to do a fund raiser on the way
in and I'm going to do as fund raiser on the way back.
2
Don't -- doing these fund raisers actually make it for
a longer trip, you would be back sooner if you didn't have to stop?
A
Andsometimes they all add week-endedays, also.
0
What -- just one other thing, do you expect this will
continue for the rest of the year, with this rate? Would you
expect to do what you are doing now?
A
Oh, no. No, no, because as we get into our -- our own
campaign, I'm going to be doing what I'll try to do to help the party
in the state.
0
You were critical of the use by Speaker Moretti of state
paid employees for political purposes on Proposition 1 campaign.
Apparently there are some staff members in your office, security
and other members who are doing advance work and accompanying you
on these political junkets, fund raising efforts for the Republican
party. How is that dffferent from Speaker Moretti's use of his
employees and secondly, how much has this amounted to?
A
Well, first of all, security is àn around-the-clock and
around-the calendar. That's a part of the job. And I have no con-
trol of that and wherever I am and whether it is on vacation or on
a week-end or anything else, that goes on. And I think that is
customary and anyone else in this position would have the same
situation. Now, as to taking aides along on these trips, again
I can't -- I can't separate myself and say, "I'm not Governor,"
and I take a minimum along and the only -- and they are there to
help me keep liaison, such as while I'm at the Governor's Conference,
with the state, with the things that are going on here. And I
think that's in keeping with the job because I'm still Governor,
no matter where I am.
2
Yes, Governor, but some of these men, the security, why
shouldn't their salaries be paid by the Republican party when
their efforts are devoted to protecting you in a fund-raiser?
A
Will you explain the details on this?
ED MEESE: all the expenses related tothose trips are
paid.
2
How about the salaries?
ED MEESE: Salaries are not because they'd be working
wherever they were.
-5-
O
They wouldn't be working on the same thing, would they?
ED MEESE: Yes, protecting the Governor.
A
Oh, yes, same people would be assigned, no change in
that.
That's what I mean, around the clock, and around the calendar.
This particular position is -- has that kind of security.
Q
Paid by whom?
ED MEESE: The expenses are paid by whatever the event
is that the Governor -- political event the Governor is involved
in.
A
May I just add one thing. And there is no comparison
between the -- what we think was an evasion of the campaign account-
ing laws of Proposition 1, and the use of full-time staff while
they were here supposedly performing their legislative duties.
There is on comparison. And we have been scrupulously overzealous,
if anything, in insuring that there is nothing that is dumped on
the taxpayers in this state.
O
Governor, new subject. Governor, what importance do you
attach to the outcome of the special election coming up in the
13th State Senatorial District?
A
Well --
a
Excuse me, Congressional District.
A
Congressional District. Well, the importance I attach
to it is that we hope we can win it. We reoognize that it is
like every -- practically every other district in the state, it
is -- we are outnumbered. We are the minority party and we hope
that we can retain that seat.
0
If the party loses -- excuse me, Governor, if the party
loses that seat, how would you interpret that?
A
Well, let's talk about that when we see what happens.
0
Governor, the Attorney General's office issued an opinion
yesterday say&ng that the campaign antribution laws of San Diego,
chule
San Francisco, Tule Vista, and the County of San Diego, are all
unenforcable because the State has preempted the field and that
therefore the cities cannot say that there is a maximum amount
of money that you can contribute to a local campaign. Do you
have any reaction tothat in light of your frequent statement s that
there should be local control?
A
Well, you just -- this is thefirst time that I've heard
about it and I'm not going to comment on a legal opinion, not being
a lawyer myself until I find out what it is based on, what the law
is. It is true there are many areas that the state has preempted
for local government. Some of those I may agree with and some I
may disagree with.
0
Governor, would you comment on the latest event in the
Hearst kidnapping, this demand for $4 million dollars?
A
No, this is -- this is a subject again where I repeat
what I've said before, this is too sensitive to - for me to make
any co mme nt on this. There is only one concern that I think all of
us have, we want that young lady returned safety. There
is
a
young
fellow way in the back row there.
Q
Governor, you've been asked by the makers of a movie in
the
Oroville, called/Klansman, to appear in that movie. Do you have
any comment and do you plan on appea ring in it?
A
First of all, I have read in the papers and heard on the
air that I have been asked to appear in that movie. No one's asked
me and I think that all of you have cooperated in giving a very
bright young public relations man the attention that he wanted for
the picture. And, no, I haven't been asked and no, I 'm not going
(motion
)
to play in that or any other picture.
o
Governor, you met with Assemblyman Charles Warren yesterday
on the energy crisis bill. What did you agree on?
A
Well, we are continuing to talk, we have been talking
for sometime. The only thing we are agreed on is we all want
to -- a bill that we can all be happy with and that will do the
job, and there are certain points of difference between us and the
negotiations are con -- the conferences are going to go forward
on trying to minimize those and arrive at something that I will
support.
O
Do you take a personal part in the negotiation?
A
No.
0
What are your main areas of disagreement right now?
A
I'd rather not talk while we are still in the discussion
on this,
I don't want to do anything that will prejudice it or
make it difficult for those who are going to be trying to iron out the
differences, but I don't think they aretoo tremendous.
0
On a related subject, the gasoline situation, particularly
in southern California, it is pretty grim, and you do have a con-
tingency rationing plan before you. Do youhave any immediate
plans to try to implement some sort of a system to relieve the
pressure of -- in southern California?
A
Well, W( lave that contingency plan as you know, and
we are monitoring daily as to whether it is going to be required
or not. We know that the County Board of Supervisors in Los
Angeles County has discussed doing something of their own on a
local basis. And this might -- this might be called for more than
a statewide plan because a statewide plan affects the whole state and
there are many areas in the state where there's no problem. The
thing again, and I -- I wish tyat you could all help in this.
This panic buying, there is absolutely no reason for it.
Andit
has been caused and created by nothing but gossip and rumor and
the thought that maybe there is going to be some kind of nationing.
Now, rationing has never been considered by us. Rationing is
not a part of the plan. The contingency plan even. But the
talk of that literally started the panic buying. The situation is,
as I explained it the other day, Californians have 80 per cent for
their use, for their personal use, of all the gas they ever had
before there was an energy shortage. It just seems that with a
little care, a little attention to thespeed limit and the elimination
of some useless trips and doubling up here and there that it isn't
too difficult to eliminate one out of the five miles of travel, and
that's all they have to do. And the -- this thing of lining up
and waiting for hours to top off a gas tank with a gallon and a half
of gasoline is just sheer panic and it is ridiculous.
Q
It is a big area, and there are many drivers there,
probably more than the rest of the state. Why are you so hesitant
to use that plan?
A
Well, as I say, we are -- we are monitoring this plan and
we will put it into effect if we believe that this plan can be of
help, resolve the issue. There was a big panic over the long week-
end. Now we are monitoring to seewhether this is -- being
alleviated as people are finding out that they can get gas. And,
as I say, if the people understand the facts, if they understand
that there is no threat to this andit is not going to be reduced,
and it is there and it is 80 per cent, approximately, available,
to them of everything they ever had, it is a little bit like the
thermostats and turning down the lights. Just alittle effort
can
actually reduce the amount of gas that people are using.
0
You say there is no need for that plan now?
A
Well, as I say, we are monitoring to make sure and find
out. After all, that plan has not been a raging success in a number
0
Governor, the panic is brought on to d large extent by
the fact that there are not many service stations open. Over the
week-end a very small percentage. There may be 80 per cent gas
available, but maybe 85 per cent of the stations are shut down.
A
No, but the panic buying is draining gas stations of their
allocation and they rush in and finally the station has to close.
We think that -- if people -- they didn't have to have it last
month, there was no panic buying and everyone seemed to be getting
all the gas they needed, and occasionally stations closed, there
was no real hardship, and we had the same amount of gas we had then.
Believe me. when I tell you that this whole rush and panic buying
started with the first newspaper releases that we were considering
and would have available a contingency plan if it became necessary,
and suddenly this was interpreted by the people as rationing and
that they weren't going to be able to get the gas. The same
thing as the erroneous stories that the states that got extra
allocation were going to take it away from the states that already
had it.
A nd this is not true. This was not taken from any other
state.
0
Governor, yesterday I understand you called Senator Jack
Schrade into your office and told him you were goingto veto
the first bill that you ever vetoed of his during your administra-
tion because of a fight between subcontractors and contractors,
as I understand it. Can you tell -- can you relate that conversa -
tion and why you are vetoing the Schrade bill? The press release
is onits way.
A
The veto message is on its way. The whole thing evolved
not around the bill itself, which was a very good bill and one
which would -- could have been signed very easily, but about a
last-minute amendment that was put onto the bill without having
any consideration by committees, and it just didn't belong in that
bill.
Q
What was that amendment?
A
It was an amendment --
ED MEESE: Related to subcontrators listing --
A
-- about listing the subcontractors on -- on public
contracts.
0
Governor, to go back to the gas situation, just briefly, do
-9-
you think gas stat on owners are justified in hreatening to
close down if they don't get increased costs for --
A
I think this is an offshoot of the same thing. If you
are asking about the price situation, I made my position clear many
times. I wish that they would leave this to the marketplace.
I wish that we would end wage andprice controls. I think that there
would be an upsurge of prices on a number of things, very temporary,
anothen I think the marketplace would take care ofthat.
And it
would seek and find its own level on a lower level.
Q
Do you think it is proper for them to threaten to close down
if they don't get their prices?
A
Well, I wish they wouldn't. I don't think we have
accomplished anything with those kind of -- ofactions. I think this
is a time for -- some patience and some common sense and for people
to have a little good will and try and resolve their problems.
o
Governor, back to my question, a second. Are you taking
sides here with the electrical subcontractors over the general
entractors on the Schrade bill?
A
No, I'm just doing what I think I have to do about an
amendment that shoul have gone through the committee process and
been ddequately considered, and it was a last-minute thing that
changed the benure of a bill.
0
Governor, what is the policy of your administration
regarding proposals such as that made last week by Alan Post to
merge all the environment relates boards, air, water, solid waste,
into one super board? Do you go for something like that or do
you think they should be -- should stay as individual entities?
A
Well, I can't say that we have had any great study or
research on that proposal as yet. It is something to be looked at
and something to be studied.
O
Just parenthetically, it also moved to upgrade individuals
of the Air Resources Board into a full-time, full-paid term appoint-
ment board. As the water board.
A
Well, I haven't -- I don't think we have had any discussion
on that as yet.
0
Governor, we have what appears on first reports another
political kidnapping in Atlanta. Are you concerned at all we
might be seeing a new type of technique that governments are going
to have to deal with?
-10-
A
Well, I think this is a concern you always have with any
crime that gets a great deal of attention. We have known that --
that it just seems to be the nature of crime that -- imitators
spring up and that -- those crimes are imitated. Particularly
when one receives the attention that this one is naturally receiving.
But this has been true as long as there has been crime. It gives
somebody else an idea; of course, it is a matter of concern.
O
But this technique has been used quite extensively in other
countries, for political purposes.
A
Yeah.
O
Is the state doing anything? Are you at all concerned
that this might become something that we will see much more of?
A
Well, all I can say is we are continuing to stay in touch
with our own problem here, in touch with the law enforcement offices
who have the jurisdiction over this. But --
O
How close is the contact between your office and the FBI
on the Hearst case?
A
Well, we have a liaison with every level of law enforce-
ment.
Can't go beyond that.
&
Governor, have you talked with Mr. Hearts yourself just
to offer him your assurances?
A
Yes.
O
When was that?
A
This was my goodness, it's probably been a week or so
ago.
O
You talked to him just the one time?
A
Yes.
0
What was discussed, Governor, can you relate that?
A
Just have him my -- told him my regrets and my sympathy
and that -- a great many of us were praying that she would be safely
returned.
O
Governor, I'm still trying to get a full answer to this --
this question. This last-minute amendment that you didh't like,
would you say that -- are you saying that Senator Schrade or the
contractors -- someone did something that was wrong or untoward and --
A
No, I'm just saying that an amendment made thebill
unacceptable and it was adopted without the legislative process,
and --
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
0
Yes.
T
k
on the Lieutenant Gover
r.
If there is an
indictment, do you think he should resign? Resulting from the ITT
affair.
A
Well, again, those are things-I'm not going to comment on
hypothetical things of that kind.
Ω
Governor, there is a Revenue and Taxation Senate-passed
bill extending the imposition of the one cent increase in the sales
tax for another six months. Is there any chance there will be
enough money in the budget, you know, you are going to look that over,
whether that could take place?
A
No. It does make me realize that I advised and suggested
to the legislature when they did this the first time, they should
have made it a half a cent for a year instead of a penny for six
months and they absolutely would not listen to it. But I've seen
no suggestion as to where the money is going to come from, another
$320 million dollars.
Q
You don't think -- they talked about an increase in"the
oil revenues offsetting that. Do you see any hope there?
A
No.
O
Tidelands oil.
A
No, all -- I think that -- I think the wieest thing for
the State to consider the oil revenues that the state gets, I think
has -- they have to accept those as capital. That those are not
like a tax that's an ongoing source of revenue, and that the state
ought to be very careful to see that those are spent not for ongoing
programs, but are spent for basically capital expenditures.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
000
-12-