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
118564148
label
Transcripts - 08/06/1974, 08/27/1974, 09/04/1974, 09/24/1974
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564148
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 08/06/1974, 08/27/1974, 09/04/1974, 09/24/1974
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
118564148
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
1f3166de6db517d8
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 -
08/06/1974, 08/27/1974, 09/04/1974, 09/24/1974
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
9/8
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD AUGUST 6, 1974
Reported by:
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcriptof the Governor's press conference is for
the convenience of the News Corps. only. Because of the need to get
it to the News Corps. as quickly as possible, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: I have an opening statement here.
Q
Have we got copies, Governor?
A
Yes, there will be copies available.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 442.)
Q
Do you think he shouldresign?
A
What? No, I believe that this process should go forward.
I made it clear, I think before -- I always believed that resignation
is a way in which the issues, many of them, willremain unresolved. There
will be constant speculation and I think the only way is through this
judicial process to determine the whole truth.
Q
Governor, when you say that he go before the Congress, do you
mean make an appearance before the Congress or do you just - are you just
urging the impeachment --
A
No, go before the Congress and submit himself to questions.
Q
Governor, are you now convinced that he ought to be impeached?
A
Well, if you use "impeachment" in thecourse of the process
of impeachment, not as so many people erroneously do, conviction, I --
as I have said, I think that process should now go forward. I believe
it is the only way that we will obtain the truth.
Q
Do you think that he should be impeached? Do you think -- are
you now convinced that there is evidence that warrants his impeachment
in the house?
A
Apparently there is. Those members of the judiciary committee
that were opposed said that they -- this, they believe, substantiates one
of the articles of impeachment.
Q
Governor, what could you do at this point if you were President
and in Mr. Nixon's situation?
A
Well, I never like to answer those hypothetical questions.
-1-
First of all, it is a hypothesis that I do not agree that I would find
myself. in.
or
Governor, with these latest disclosures, do youthink it is
possible for the President to effectively govern?
A
Well, I think that this process should be done speedily.
I
don't believe it is a process, you know, that requires months. If it
goes before, and the matter is laid out, I think this should -- this
should take place in very short order. Now, on the other hand, if there
appears to be any difficulty as to whether there is any danger to the
government while that process is going on, then there is the 25th
memdment, which also adds to theprocess, in which he could step down and
the Vice President would take over while the process is goingforward.
a
Governor, you said that you have done your best to follow the
progress of the investigation.
Could you tell us what that what have
you done?
A
Well, I mean as you know, trying to read the transcript of
the tapes, trying to follow the -- the evidence that was presented before
the judiciary committee. I have tried to stay abreast of this.
Q
Have you read any of the books? Woodward and Bernstein's book
or Magruder's book or any other books?
A
No, I haven't read those books yet. I thought sticking to
theactual report and the evidence, inasmuch as I could see in the actual
tapes or the transcript myself was better than reading someone else's
opinion.
I
Governor, are you thinking in terms of a joint session of
Congress or -
A
No, I was thinking in the impeachment process that's already
going forward now. Since the decision of the judiciary committee
appearing before the House --
Q
That he should ---
Q
That he should appear before the House?
A
That's right.
Q
And the House is considering the impeachment articles.
Q
When you say go before the Congress immediately --
A
Yes.
&
They are not at that point in the impeachment proceeding now
where he would go before them immediately.
A
Well, I see no reason why the process could not be stepped up
-2-
to deal with this as quickly as possible. And I think the people are
entitled to that.
&
Governor, have you talked to the President?
A
No.
Q
Governor, by not calling for the President's resignation,
are you implying that you still support him and possibly think he could
be found -- or not impeached or found guilty?
A
I am staying cosistent with theposition I've held all along,
that resignation is not a proper resolution of the issue. There is a
onstitutional process provided, one in which all the evidence then
becomes available and the people have full knowledge of all of the
evidence. Resignation would not provide that.
Q
Are you saying then by this statement that you still stand by
the President and support him?
A
I'm saying by this statement that I'm deeply disturbed by
what has been revealed now that we know that not all of the truth has
been told or all of the evidence has been presented; that all of the
evidence should be presented to all of the people and then the impeach-
ment process based on whatever that truth and that evidence is goes
forward.
Q
Are you planning to talk to the President?
A
No.
Q
Have you tried --
Q
One of your supporters said yesterday that he felt you were
holding back a little bit because you thought that if Ford was to become
President your own chances to become President would be much reduced.
Would you comment on that?
a
A
Yes, that's/pretty ridiculous idea. I have told you and told
you all the truth over and over again. I have said that this is no time
for anyone to even be considering that possibility because circumstances
do change. And -- no, that would -- that's the farthest thing thing from
my mind.
I
Governor, if Gerald Ford becomes President, would you be
interested in becoming Vice President?
A
No comment.
(Laughter)
Q
Governor, if this -- if yesterday's declaration is the worst
thing that is disclosed by a full laying out of the evidence by the
President, do you think that warrants conviction by the Senate?
-3-
A
Well, there again you are asking me to prejudge something.
I
think that what I'm suggesting is no one should make a decision of that
kind until all of the truth is told and all of the evidence is there.
Q
Governor, when you talk about resorting to the 25th amendment
and the President temporarily stepping down, doyou mean that -- you
don't - if you go to the 25th amendment, do you consider that --- if that
was used would you consider that to be a resignation or just a temporary
tepping --
A
Well, that's a temporary thing in the event that a President
is incapacitated in any way, so that he cannot manage the business.
The question was, what -- if the government was in limbo and could not
go forward and perform the services it is supposed to perform while
this other - this judging process, impeachment process was going forward,
so that swhat the 25th amendment is for. That is, in my understanding
of it, a temporary step down.
Q
Are you urging that the 25th amendment vehicle be used?
A
I said that should be used and I'm -- if it developed that
the -- that during this process of impeachment the running of the govern-
ment was in danger.
I
How have your -- not your, the state's dependence or information
and assistance or whatever, with the federal government been affected in
recent months? Are things getting worse? Is it more difficult to
get information or help or whatever you need?
A
No, I have to say that that's one thing that speaks well for
this system of ours, and I think anyone over here, any of our group
could confirm it. No, the business of government has gone on and we have
noticed no problems whatsoever with all of the relations that the state
has with thefederal government.
Q
But aren't the governors -- when governors meet, aren't they
forever saying that Watergate's got to be concluded because it is
paralyzing our relationships with the federal government?
A
Well, I don't know -- I haven't heard any of them say it, and I
know I couldn't savit because I have to tell you that business is usual,
the order of the day.
Q
Governor, Senator Carl Curtis of Nebraska this morning said
that Watergate was not serious enough to remove the President of the
United States, but to bring us a situation where both the President and
the Vice President would not have been elected by the american people.
And he says that, you know, we'd end up being a banana republic, and
didn't think Watergate was important enough for that. Can you comment on
that aspect, that under the 25th amendment, if the President were
impeached we'd have a President and Vice President who would not have
been elected by the american people. Is Watergate significant enough
to bring on that situation?
A
Well, that's to be determined in the impeachment process and
based on all of the truth, all of the facts and all of the evidence.
0
Well, the syndrome of what we call Watergate, the whole
evidence, you know, can that be -- should we consider this factor of the
President of the United States and the Vice President being non-elected?
You know, should that be taking into consideration in the impeachment
process?
A
I don't quite know how to answer your question there as to what
should be taken into account. I would think that everything including
the seriousness of the move that was suggested would be a part of the
deliverations.
Q
Well, that's what I'm getting at, there is a question between
should the President be impeached on legal grounds, if there is evidence
of impeachable offenses, that is sufficient for impeachment and removal
from office or shall we consider what is supportive, and he himself felt
that the ramifications on government and our prestige overseas - you
know, the political implications.
A
Well, again I think this is -- this is a legitimate part of
the evidence. I think -- theconsideration, the determination of what
is an impeachable offense and whether it is an offense that warrants the
removal from office of a President of the United States, this is part of
the consideration. I don't think that anyone there is contemplating
just a technicality in finding someone technically guilty of something
and then doing this. I suppose this is what was back of the suggestion
the other day of censure instead. But that -- that has to be a part
of the consideration.
or
Governor --
&
Governor, I'm still not clear on this. Do you think it would
be best for the country if the President were to immediately declare
himself incapacitated and turn the powers of the Presidency over to
Gerald Ford?
A
No, I think this is a judgment to be made in Washington as
to whether the government -- whether there willbe interference in this
-5-
process, with the normal routine of government. Things that have to be
done.
I'm not in a position, I don't think any of us out here can make
that decision, but it is there. It is available if that should prove
to be true.
&
Governor, since Watergate has President Nixon ever personally
assured you that he is not a participant in any coverup activity?
Why I'm asking. you, of course, did the disclosure yesterday indicate to
you that the President had liedpersonally to you about his --
A
No, we have never had any discussion of that kind. After all,
we don't have many conversations.
Q
Governor, when you were at the Republican Governor's Conference
last November in Memphis, you and other governors met with the President
and at thattime he told you that there were no more bombs -- or no more
bombshells waiting in the wings.
Do you now agree that he's lied to the
governors and you?
A
I'm trying to remember that -- that meeting and that conversa-
tion and what he said. I think he said something that to the best of
his knowledge that he didn't know ofany, but I don't think he made any
flat promise. I think if I recall correctly he indicated at the time
that he didn't know for sure that -- what could happen or what might come
out.
Q
What was disclosed yesterday, of course, Governor, showed that
he knew six days after the break-in and yet he told you a year and a half
later in Memphis that there were no more bombshells waiting in the wings.
A
If you want to term that a lie, it is a lie. I don't know
whether it was a lie or whether he made a statement in good faith that
he didn't think there were.
Q
Can you give us yourgeneral assessment at this point of the
President's credibility in your mind.
A
Well, obviously his credibility has been damaged very seriously
by this latest statement. This is why I believe the only answer lies
in going before the Congress and the american people and telling the whole
truth.
&
Congressman Wiggins was very upset and was very personally
hurt yesterday. Do you have any feelings along that now that the
President, it is evident, has not been honest with everyone?
A
Well, I understand Congressman Wiggins' position. He fought
very hard before the judiciary committee, and obviously he has found
out now that something not even the lawyers presenting the President's
-6-
case had known.
And it does have a bearing, as me said, on one of the
articles of impeachment. And as he has made it plain, his vote would
have been different had he had this information.
Q
My question is, was his feeling personally, do you take it that
way?
Do you feel that deeply personally about it?
A
Well, I haven't been in that same position as he was.
I
am
personally deeply disturbed, shocked and saddened by what is happening.
Q
Do you feel betrayed yourself, though? You have supported the
President consistently and now it comes out that six days after this
happened he knew some of the details of what was going on, and directed
a coverup. Do you feel personally that you have been betrayed, your
trust in him has been betrayed?
A
Well, this is -- I think too soon to make any such statement.
This is why I'm calling for a full disclosure of all of the facts and all
ofthe truth.
Ω
Governor, I'd like --
Ω
If the President fails to make a full disclosure recommending -
what do you suggest the Congress should do at that point?
A
I think the impeachment process should go forward in an effort
to arrive at the truth, the full truth.
Q
Governor, aren't you --
Q
In light of what happened yesterday, how can you -- how can
the Congress believe what the President tells them if they have a meeting?
A
Well, I know that's a question that comes up, but now after the
disclosure yesterday and with all of the tapes now being made available
with nothingheld back, he has no place to go but the full truth.
Q
But, Governor, don't you think he should have made a full
disclosure a year ago? What's the difference, you know? Shouldn't he
have been making a full disclosure to Congress and the american public?
A
You can call on his own statement for that. He himself has
said that he deeply regrets what he has done. He deeply regrets the
holding back ofthis and it shouldn't have been done.
0
Is there any difference in your position on this now than it
was a year ago on this?
A
I'm not sure I know what you are asking.
Q
Well, you know, didn't you say a year ago or a year and a half
ago that he should make a full disclosure? Haven't you always said that,
that he should tell the people the truth? So what difference is there now?
In your position.
-7-
A
Well, excep - that a year ago he made a statement that he said ==
and revealed tapes that he said were the full truth.
Q
Governor, I'd like to clarify what you are proposing now.
Is it your feeling now that the House should vote the articles of
impeachment so that the case goes to the Senate, where there is a trial,
where all thefacts do come out?
A
This is the process of impeachment, but as a part of that and
prior to the House voting that I have suggested and I feel very strongly
that the President should go before the House and make available all the
information that he has and all of the facts and his reasons for whatever
actions he took and submit to alltheir questions. Then if the House
els that - that this is supportive of their articles of impeachment,
hey vote those articles of impeachment and the case goes to the Senate.
If there is evidence and thefeeling on the part of the Senate that an
impeachable offense has been committed, that warrants removal from office,
that should take place.
I
But you are not saying -- you are not saying then right now
that you feel that the House should vote for the articles of impeachment
and send the caseto the Senate for trial? Or are you?
A
Well, I'd be a little inconsistent if I asked for someone to go
and make a full disclosure and submit himself to questions and answers
before the House of Representatives and then prejudge and make their
decision for them before he had done this.
Q
But you said --
Q
The President concedes that impeachment by the House is now
inevitable. Why not let that take its course and let the President make
his appearance before the Senate?
A
Well, if that should be the decision, I just feel that the
process now -- I would like to see the speediest possible consummation
of this process. And it is presently in the House and therefore it was
my feeling that he go to the placewhere the - where the action is.
Q
Would that necessarily be speedier than letting it go to the
Senate first?
A
Well, certainly the people would have a better understanding and
better knowledge of all the facts.
Q
Governor --
A
Right now.
&
Aren't the tapes better evidence than anything he might say at
this point?
-8-
A
Well, I think they -- I think they go together. I think just
to clear a record of a conversation, I think a man is entitled to - if you
are going to interpret it, to present his side of that, his interpretation.
I think this all goes together and as I say, the tapes are there for
substantiation or repudiation of anything he says.
Q
Governor, do you think the withholding of evidence is an
impeachable offense?
A
What's that?
&
The withholding of evidence is an impeachable offense.
A
Well, again, you --
&
DO you personally think that?
A
You are continually pressing me for a decision that I think
is -- should be made by the House of Representatives. The judiciary
committee has already voted that this, they believe, is true. A number
of the members who did not think that the evidence that had been
presented had warranted that have now said that they would change their
vote, that they do believe it is. true.
Q
What do you think personally, as a citizen, who has been
betrayed - what do you think about the withholding of evidence and what
you know about what went on?
A
Again, I would like to stay with my statement, I would like
to have all of the truth, the full truth, disclosed, to myself as well
as to the rest of the people and to the Congress.
Q
Governor, what political costs do you think that the congressional
offenders will pay in the upcoming election?
A
What?
Q
What political costs do you think the congressional offenders
will pay in the upcoming election? Do you think the Republican party
will be devastated?
A
Well, it shouldn't be. As a matter of fact, I have felt for
a long time that the -- that thecoming election should not be based on
Watergate at all. And no one that's running for office in the coming
election had anything to do with Watergate. Whether they are at statewide
offices or congressional offices or whatever. And I think that the coming
election should be based on the people's knowledge of the candidates and
what they represent, what they stand for and the decisions they are going
to make in the years to come that will affect this nation, and -- and their
various states. How properly is Watergate an issue in that regard?
-9-
How is it going to afrect the people of California? First of all, I
don't know of anyone who doesn't disapprove of Watergate. I don't
know of anyone who doesn't think that the actions were immoral, that
they were illegal. The only question that's been at hand for the last
two years is how many and who were responsible and involved. Who were
guilty and who were innocent of those deeds. The deeds themselves,
thre is no -- I know of no question about them. Everyone agrees they
were wrong. Now maybe -- maybe we should suggest that in the coming
election we put a separate box on the ballot, do you approve or disapprove
of Watergate, and then let everybody vote. Everybody would disapprove
and that would resolve that. But this election, as any election, is far
too important for us to be conserned with something that is not pertinent.
We are going to select a governor of the State of California. What
should be of interest to the People of California is what are the policies
that are going to be pursued by the candidates. What will they do or
propose for the State of California? Now, how can there -- their opinion
on Watergate have a bearing on that?
Q
Do you think the coverup of evidence was wrong or just the bur-
glary itself?
A
Oh, I think the whole thing. No one can condone breaking and
entering.
Q
Governor, do you see your statements here this morning, your
saying apparently there is evidence to support impeachment -- do you see
these statements as backing off from the previous support of President
Nixon?
Do you see a difference in what you are saying here today and
what you said previously?
A
No, I have held previously what you are calling a defense -- I
have held previously and I still hold, that anyone , be it President
or pauper, has the right to presumption of innocence unless and until
proven guilty. Now, by his own statements there is additional evidence
and I believe the only way to resolve this entire matter is determine the
extent of it, the degree of guilty or innocence is through the constitutional
process of impeachment.
Or
Governor --
0
Governor, I want to get to another subject briefly, but --
it won't take long.
A
You have a lot of competition.
tapes
Q
In reference to the states, governor, don't you think the American
eqple have a doubt about whatever the President says now, no matter what
-10
the subject?
A
Yes, but in that kind ofa hearing and faced with that kind of
a questioning, couldn't that be resolved with the backup evidence of the
tapes?
Q
But hasn't his tapes revealed yesterday -- admitted that he with-
held evidence and if he did that how are the American people going to
believe him, no matter what he talks about, be it economics, or foreign
relations or what?
A
Well, you are suggesting that the very thing that is a part
ad parcel of any trial, credibility of the people involved and what the
jurors, in this case Congressmen and Senators feel about it.
Q
Governor, --
Q
Governor, you said in your statement until yesterday, until the
President released the new transcripts, you were not convinced that
evidence of an impeachment offense had been presented in the Congress.
Are you now convinced that evidence of an impeachable offense has been
presented to the people, to the Congress?
A
Well, I amconvinced that the only way that issue can be resolved
is now by going forward with the process.
Q
Governor, is it your hope that -- is it yourhope that Congress,
the House, would consider a ullconfession and promise not to do it again
as sufficient --
(Laughter)
A
I have not written any script for what is going to take place.
I don't really know. I just feel that the time has come that if this
country is to go forward and the people are to be reassured and their
faith restored in their institutions, they are entitled to have all of the
facts and all of the truth about this entire matter.
Q
Governor Reagan, you are calling on the President to make a full
disclosure of all the facts. are you emphasizing all the truth? This
would mean you think he is withholding more evidence?
A
That remains to be seen.
I don't know.
But I know the
people are going to have to have the feeling, and I want the feeling, that
I have heard all of thefacts and all of the truth.
Q
Governor, you don't have that feeling now, I take it.
A
What?
Q
You do not have the feeling now that you have all the evidence
that's available?
-11-
A
No, I don't.
Q
Governor, if there were a presidential election today, would you
vote for Nixon or McGovern, based on what you know?
(Laughter)
A
If there were a president -- that's a hypothetical question.
I couldn't conceive of myself voting for the philosophy that McGovern
represented under any circumstances.
Q
Governor, can you tell us about your conversations with
Lieutenant Governor Reinecke yesterday?
A
Well, now, wait a minute, if we are going to change the subject
here I got someone ahead of you.
Q
I understand you are going to approve funds for the Warren,
Earl, library project, isthat correct?
A
Yes.
Q
Governor, do you also approve of renaming the Resources
Building for Earl Warren? It's beenproposed by Bagley.
A
I didn't know anything about it. You are throwing one at me.
&
Governor -
A
I don't know what the process is for naming buildings even.
O
He's put ina resolution to do that.
A
Well, I certainly wouldn't veto that.
&
Governor, why did you tell the Lieutenant Governor Reinecke
yesterday that you were misunderstood last Friday when you answered yes to
a question about whether or not he should resign now?
A
It wasn't a case of being misunderstood. And I'm sorry it was
put that way. I pointed out to him and remind all of you, that when I
was asked, having just received the verdict from the Attorney General's
office, about the problems facing the state, and the Lieutenant Governor
Reinecke's present situation, I said that until I talked to him and found
out what his own problems were and what word he had from his lawyers, I
wanted to understand his situation, because the law is very plain, that
de process involves his not being liable here at the state level until
sentence is passed, and a conviction is thus recorded. So I made that
qualification. I said that on the basis of the Attorney Genera's concerns
for the -- for thegood of the state and the convenience of the state, yes,
resignation seemed to be in order. Was in order. But I did make that
qualification to those newspaper people who were asking me in Los Angeles,
that I still wanted saying that was still -- and called to their
-12-
attention that I stil_ had to meet with the Lieutenant Governor here.
Now the Lieutenant Governor told me yesterday of the post-trial motions
that his attorneys are making and of their optimism with regard to one or
more of those which would conceivably result in a reversal of the verdict.
Now, if that takes place, then he certainly -- I have no right to ask him
to step down which is an irretrievable movement. This isn't a temporary
thing, to have him step down, if that possibility remains. But he assured
me that before the - - well, in the next few weeks, before the end of the
month, undoubtedly there will be resolution of those and he will know and
that he has no intention of holding office if those post-trial motions
are --- fail.
Q
Are you saying that you no longer have any concern about
problems that may be created for the state by -
A
Oh, yes, I do have those concerns. But, on the other hand,
he has -- he has the problem that involves the possibility of a reversal
of this verdict in which he is then not a convicted felon and I think
that has to be considered.
I
Well, Governor, which do you think should take precedent?
Which consideration should be given top priority?
A
Well, it doesn't make much difference what I feel about it.
Ihave no legal authority in this matter other than to advise and counsel.
I pointed out to him the problems that accompany -- accrue to the state.
He made it plain that he does not believe in these few weeks before he
gets a decision on this that thre is going to be any action required of
him in any way that would -- could lead to some of these problems.
Q
Governor, what is your intention during this period, are you
planning to stay and sit tight in California, are you going to pursue some
travels?
A
I tell you, I'm reviwing my plans and my schedule right now.
9
You haven't decided whether you will go or not?
A
No, I'm -- as I say, I'm reviewing it.
Q
Isn't that kind of tough on the people putting together the fund
raiser in Kings County?
A
I know, and being an old performer I feel very deeply about that.
I've never -- I've never held with those who lightly -- fail to show up
for a -- for a commitment.
0
Governor, how have both the President's situation and the
Lieutenant Governor's situation affected California's government?
A
Well, I see no -- no effect other than the obvious effect of the
-13-
Lieutenant Governor possibly having to step down from office by the end
of the month. And then under necessity we will appoint another Lieutenant
Governor. No, government is going forward, and as I say, in our dealings
with Washington, with the various agencies, there has been no change
matsoever. Government has gone on.
I
But if the President is impeached or if he resigns, what kind
of effect do you think California would feel?
A
Well, again, I think that the government is -- government of
ours goes along. It proceeds and it goes through elections and then
presidents stepping down and other presidents being inaugurated and there --
I have never noticed in the time I've been here there's been any lapse
in governmental activity or any cessation of activity. Sometimes, in the
event of a new president, you might have to wait while a cabinet secretary
is appointed, but even thre most of the business is fairly routine and
you deal with the permanent employees. That's the whole basis of
Civil Service, the ongoing permanency of the structure of government.
Q
Have you had any conversations with Senator Harmer about the
oqsibility of him requesting --
A
I have not met Senator Harmer at all, nor have I talked to him
on the phone.
(Laughter)
Q
What is your position about speculation that he would be your
ikely choice?
A
Well, I think he's one, but I'm not going to speculate now, you
know, on that one, fellows. I've never -- I've never speculated on
even an appointment to staff or cabinet, because I don't think it is fair
to any of the people who might be considered. So I won't speculate on
that.
Obviously he is a candidate to be considered.
I
If the Lieutenant Governor's post-trial motions are not concluded,
they are not finished by the end of the month, what will you recommend to
him then? If they are still somewhat hanging in abeyance by August 30.
A
Here again, I'll have to look overhere to the legal lights
for a little advice. I don't believe there is any of those that can
conceivably delay the August 30th date of sentencing, could they?
ED MEESE: Not that we know of now.
Q
So once he's sentenced, regardless of appeals, he --
A
Yes, this does not apply to appeals. In appeals -- once he's
sentenced, that's it. Our constitution is very clear. But what we are
-14-
talking about is post-trial motions that might be ruled upon favorable
prior to August 30th, that could throw out the last trial.
Q
Regardless of the Lieutenant Governor's position, if he's
sentenced on August 30th you will move to fill the vacancy?
A
That's right, yes.
I
Governor, will the Lieutenant Governor Reinecke participate
in any cabinet meetings during this month?
A
That's up to him. I don't know.
I
Is he welcome to attend?
A
Yes.
Q
You are not -- as far as any activities in -- connected with
your office, you are not freezing him out of any?
A
No, no.
Q
Governor, you said you had not had any discussions at all with
Senator Harmer about an appointment.
A
No.
Q
We were given to believe last week that you had.
A
Well, I know, and this was in error, and it was a legitimate
e rror, someone in the press section thought that I had talked to him about
it.
I had not.
Q
Governor, when the Lieutenant Governor Harmer was in Washington
being questioned --
(Laughter)
Q
Can I have a transcript back.
A
Yes, I appreciate that we have already won office and it's going
to make the campaign a lot easier.
&
When Mr. Reinecke was before the Senate Judiciary Committee
he was questioned about whether he had had conversations with Mr. Mitchell.
Now -- and his tact now is that, well, I thought they were talking about
face-to-face conversations. But isn't it a fact that he did know --
everybody had to know what information the commitee was seeking, they are
trying to establish because of Mr. Mitchell knowing about the ITT offer
and everybody had to have known that. What do you think of a person in
high public office who did not contribute the information he knew was
being sought, whether or not the question was asked exactly or not? He
knew what information they wanted. And he withheld that information.
Now, what do you think about a man given a public trust who does something
like that?
A
Well, now, you are talking about the very issue of the trial
itself, and I'm not ting to speak to that. 1 have said, and I have --
and I happen to believe that the Lieutenant Governor from all I've known
him
&
Excuse me, I'm not talking about the trial itself, I'm talking
about the semantics and legal technicalities involved, whether or not he--
conceding that he may have thought they were talking about face-to-face
conversations rather than telephone converations, he did know that they
wanted to find out whether John Mitchell knew about the ITT convention
offer. Mr. Reinecke had personal knowledge that Mr. Mitchell did know
about the offer before the ITT anti-Trust case was settled, but he did not
contribute that information.
A
Well, it is -- you are talking about the very basis -
Q
I'm talking about the moral -- the morality of the matter.
A
You are talking about the basis of the trial. On the other
hand, as he himself testified, he was -- he was reminded by legal
advisers when he got there that as a witness you don't volunteer anything,
you answer the specific question that is asked. And as he himself said,
he had flown all night and given this extensive briefing, he was sent into
this -- into this hearing. On the moral question, I just have to say, to
my knowledge, over the years of Ed Reinecke, he's a deeply religious man,
he is a very moral man and I cannot conceive in my mind that Ed Reinecke
would consciously do anything dishonest or immoral.
Q.
Then you don't accept the jury's verdict, is that it?
A
I didn't say that. I said that he would consciously do
anything immoral.
Q
Well, the jury was ruling whether he did it wilfully, that was
the point they ruled on, they found he did do it willfully.
A
All right, this. is what they have ruled, and this is what is
tilsl in due process, and is being determined now. And I'm not going to
comment further on that. I've said what my personal opinion of a man who's
that I've known for some years is. If the conviction is upheld, and the law
takes its course, there is no question about what happens. But I'm not
going to comment and speculate here on what should have been in his mind
or was in his mind at the time.
SQUIRE:
Thank you, Governor.
000
-16-
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD AUGUST 27, 1974
Reported by
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is
furnished for the convenience of the Capitol Press Corps. Because of
the need to get it to the Press Corps. as rapidly as possible, no corrections
are made and there is noguaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning.
Q
Governor, are you going to sign the bill allowing the Democrats
to get but of having their state convention this year? It is on your desk.
A
I haven't even -- you've thrown one at me here, I haven't even
seen it or had an opportunity to look at it. I just -- I got in by plane,
I didn't know they passed such a bill, so I can't comment. Wait till I
see it.
2
Governor, can you comment on President Ford's statement that
he may be leaning on the question of amnesty, to the draft evaders?
A
Yes, I think it is -- I think there is a great question as to
exactly what it was he ad libed in that speech. And what he was sounding
out on. I'm not sure myself that he was using the proper word "amnesty"
or whether he was talking clemency after someone came back and went
through the judicial process. My position remains unchanged and I think
the national position should be. But there never has been nor should
there be such a thing as simply a blanket amnesty in which everyone is
totally forgiven and returned. I think that anyone who wants to come
back and go through our judicial process, then I think compassion based
on the individual situation for each individual and compassion -- clemency
for fthem, perhaps finding some way of their paying their debt other than
jail sentence, -- this I think all of us could -- could look at because
that is in our tradition. Lincoln, for example, gave deserters amnesty
at the Civil War time on provision that they came back and served out
their enlistment, and they served without pay. There have been other
situations the same. But I think that they broke the law. And I do not
believe that we should establish a precedent for just a blanket forgetting
-1-
of that particularly when you have so many who are not hesitant at all
to declare that they have no regret whatsoever about it. They don't
feel they did anything wrong in choosing the laws they would break, and
that they simply want the country to recognize them as somehow being in
the moral right.
Q
Governor, isn't that inconsistent with your statement about
President Nixon--
A
No.
Q
--- not being prosecuted?
A
No, no, I think justice is an individual thing in each case.
We are talking about punishment fitting the crime, and as I have said
before, I think in this instance it seems the majority of the people
feel the same way. I believe that in this instance the punishment
certainly is more than adequate for the crime.
Q
What punishment is that, Governor?
A
What?
Q
What punishment are you talking about?
A
In the --
Q
For the President.
A
In the resignation of the President.
I
He lost his job, a lot of people lose jobs.
A
Well, I hardly think that you say this is just losing a job.
Q
Governor, youmentioned that in the case of those people that
left the country, draft-dodgers, etcetera, that compassion ought to be
considered after they have gone through the judicial process. Don't you
think that compassion could be considered for former President Nixon
after he had gone through the judicial process?
A
Well, I think to a certain extent he's been through a process.
The process provided by the Constitution. But when I speak about these
and the individual situation, yes, there is the -- you could have a young
man that came back who did what he did on a moral conviction and he now
wants to be reinstituted in this country, citizenship, and he's willing
to come in and admit that he broke a law and you take this into considera-
tion. On the other hand, you may have a man that literally deserted
under fire and left his comrades on either side of him while he took off.
I think this is a -- this would be a different situation.
-2-
Q
Governor, have you made any effort to contact Mr. Nixon since
he's been back in California?
A
I have had a brief telephone conversation with him, yes.
I
thought it was proper, welcoming him back to California.
Q
When was that?
A
It was a few days ago.
Q
How did he seem to you?
A
What?
(Nixon)
Q
How did he seem, his frame of mind.
A
Fine, he seemed to be fine, yes.
Q
Did he give any indication to you when he might come out of his
self-imposed seclusion?
A
No, no, there wasn't any talk of anything like that. Or his
plans or anything of the kind. It was just --
Q
What did you talk about?
A
Purely a courteous call, and courtesy call.
Q
Are you making any plans to visit him?
A
No, I have no plans at the moment.
Q
Governor, while you were in the east this last week-end you
dropped a hint that if the Republican party moves too far away from your
philosophy that you might look with favor on a third party effort. Do
you think that now that is your only chance at the presidency in 1976,
and do you see that happening?
A
No, I didn't do that exactly. A specific question was asked,
if it came down to a question of being loyal to a party or loyal to my
own philosophy, which would prevail, and I said obviously being loyal to
my own beliefs and my own philosophy. The tone of my remarks, I think,
that led to that question and the remarks that I gave publicly was my
reiteration that this administration, I think, and the government in
Washington is bound by a mandate of the people given in the 1972 election,
the biggest majority ever given, voted I believe on the basis of the
great philosophical difference that was so clean cut, that was laid out
for us. More so than in any election that I can recall. And the people
made it very clear the direction they wanted their government to take.
And I don't believe that we should forget that mandate or that we should
allow those in government to forget.
Q
Well --
A
That's what I was speaking of.
-3-
Q
Do you have some reason to believe that this new administration
is or has some -- do you have some indication that they are moving away
from this mandate?
A
No, I didn't say anything of the kind. I just cited the mandate
and believed that the American people should be firm in this.
Q
Well, Governor, some conservatives are somewhat upset that
that may be happening, pointing toward the President's statement of the
draft, the appointment of -- nomination of Governor Rockefeller. Do you
share that concern? I mean are these --
A
No, there have been other things and some Congressmen that I
know who are closer to the scene and who I think believe, from conversa-
tions with people in the White House as to views on upcoming legislation,
feel that way. My own feeling isthat this administration should have
all our support. This administration should be given very opportunity
to do the job that has to be done. But I see nothing wrong with this
reminder that they should have the support of the people, also the
knowledge that the people want this mandate carried out. Nothing has
changed that.
Q
Governor, are you sympathetic to the position of the California
segment of Young Americans for Freedom in which they said the other day
that they would do their best to prevent Rockefeller from being on the
ticket in '76?
A
Well, here again, I think anyone starts talking about '76, you
wait and see what the record of the administration is.
Q
Does that include --
A
I seem to be the only person here that's been trying to say that
'76, we ought to wait for a long time before anybody decides anything
about 1976.
or
So you can't at this point endorse a Ford-Rockefeller ticket
in '76, you want to wait and see?
A
No, I didn't say that.
(Laughter.)
A
I said what's going to happen in '76 depends on what the
situation is.
Q
Because the Conservatives are disappointed about the appointment
of Nelson Rockefeller for Vice-President, do you think that nominates
you more of a leading spokesman of the Conservative party?
A
Well, you'd have -- you'd have to ask those people in the
-4-
Republican party how they feel or whether they want a leader or not.
I'm speaking my mind and what I believe is - and has been maintained
in the polls is the basic philosophy of a majority of the American
people. Incidentally, let me just add to your question here. Make
one thing perfectly clear.
(Laughter)
A
I would think that all of us would hope and pray that this
(Ford)
administration in the next twoyears will be so successful that there
will be no question about 1976. Because if an administration in Wash-
ington isn't successful the load falls on all of us.
Q
Does it change in any way your political aspirations for
the future?
A
No. If you say political aspirations, no, my plans remain
what they always were. I intend starting in January to speak out on
the issues that -- about which I feel strongly and express my views and
to travel the mashed-potato circuit, and that remains unchanged.
Q
Governor, do you have a list of invitations after January of
'76 over the country?
A
No, no, we haven't made any plans as yet.
Q
Do you have any concern at all about Rockefeller's selection as
a Vice-President?
A
No. The President selected him. And evidently selected him
withthe belief that he could be helpful to him in his administration.
As I said before, I hope that turns out to be correct. No question
that Nelson Rockefeller and I at times have differed, but we have had
a very cordial and friendly relationship as governors.
Q
Governor, have you resolved how you'll finance going on the
mashed-potato circuit next year? What you are going to be doing? How
you'll earn a living?
A
No, but usually the mashed-potato circuit at very minimum
usually takes care of itself. I've had quite a number of years experience
on that and they usually provide expenses.
Q
Governor, when you said you would think that all of us would hope
and pray that this administration would be so successful that there would
be no question about '76, are you saying that you hope that President
(Ford)
Ford will do a good job and ifhe does you assume that he'll be the nominee
and that you will support him?
-5-
A
That will be fine with me.
&
Governor, unless something happens back in Washington in three
days, your - Mr. Reinecke will step down as Lieutenant Governor. Have
you given any thought yet to a successor?
A
No, I'm not-going to speculate on that. And it is no longer
a three-day situation. The judge as of just a moment ago -- now don't
all rush for the telephones, has called and said that he himself feels
that a complete review is necessary, and he has postponed until October
1 any decision while he makes that review.
Q
Doesn't that now prolong the situation we have had now for the
last couple months where there is a question every time you go out of
the state as to who legally is in charge of the state?
A
Well, on the other hand, we are talking about a man and his
right to the judicial process. And if the judge who presided over the
trial and who is to pass sentence has himself now recognized that there
may be some question as to whether this man is guilty or not, the place
that he is going to take the next two months plus a few days to review
the entire proceedings at the last trial, then I think that resolves the
situation between now and October 1.
Q
Well, how does it resolve -- I mean aren't we still in the
course -- if the judicial decision --- or if the verdict is upheld and
even on October 3rd Mr. Reinecke is sentenced, then any of his actions
between the time he was convicted and the time he's sentenced and steps
down, if that's what happened, are still subject to the same question
they have been this last month.
A
I don't think so.
MR.
MEESE: No. There is no question about this situation.
There is no conviction until sentence is passed. The law is clear.
And therefore he remains the Lieutenant Governor until such time of
conviction, at which time there is a forfeiture. And there's never been
any legal question about this.
Q
Yeah, but the Attorney General suggested he step down, some way
he said someone could file a suit that he's not a hundred per cent sure
of it, that could be overthrown in --
ED MEESE: He's a hundred per cent sure of it, anyone could
file a suit any time they want.
Q
Why do you suggest that Reinecke step down anyway?
5-
ED MEESE:
To remove even that possibility. Anybody can file
a suit, but the law is clear.
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
Ithink at that time it seemed to be only
a few weeks and it looks as if it would be cut and dry. The Attorney
General -- I found myself having to say yes, it would be more convenient
for the state. But under the situation now, where the judge himself
has expressed his concern about this, I see no problem whatsoever.
I
Governor, if someone on your staff was in that situation,
someone on your staff had been convicted of a felony by a jury, but is
awaiting sentencing, would -- what would you do in that case? Would
you let him stay on your staff until the sentencing is done?
A
Now you are asking a hypothetical question. Without being
able to go into each individual circumstance, and all, there is a far
greater difference between someone who has been appointed by me at my
pleasure and who can be discontinued at my pleasure and someone who was
elected by the people of the State of California. And to a constitutional
dfice. Now, we've had instances where even without waiting for a trial
to be held, but simply because I felt that even the appearance of wrong-
doing or the bad judgment could shake the people's confidence, and I have
asked them to resign. It would depend on each individual case, and what
we were talking about. I can't give a blanket answer as to what I would
do. I think the record of our administration, the record of what we have
done in the one or two minor instances, where there might be a problem,
is clear.
Q
Well, Governor, as you say, that you expressed some concern
about the Lieutenant Governor remaining in office before sentencing,
and now you say, "I see no problem whatsoever." Well, what has come along
within that period of a month or six weeks to have changed your mind?
A
The very fact that in regard -- with respect to a post-trial
motion, which we didn't even know about at the time that the Attorney
General made those statements. And as I say, what we have both said, was
it would be simpler for the state, yes, and we were talking about a few
days. Now the post-trial motion has been made and the judge has handed
down a decision, in one sense, that certainly indicates that there is
still -- must be innocence until proven guilty. I think it is an
entirely different situation.
Q
Governor, how did you find out about the Judge's decision?
-7-
A
Just found out by a call this morning.
&
Did the judge call you or did someone in Washington --
A
No, the Lieutenant Governor called me because he knew I was
coming in here to a press conference.
Q
What did Mr. Reinecke say to you?
A
What?
I
What did he say to you?
A
He justsimply relayed to me that the -- his attorneys had had
about
this call from the judge/this delay, and I said, "Is this now public
information?" And he said, "Yes."
Q
Did you discuss anything else?
A
Nope. Because I was on my way in here.
Q
Has he attended any of your cabinet meetings since the jury came
n?
A
Yes.
Q
And you expect him to continue to?
A
Yes, when he's not busy on some other duties.
Q
You are satisfied then that there is no conflict or no possibility
of conflict in the remaining -- in Mr. Reinecke remaining in his office
and acting as Governor during any of your absences?
A
No, the Constitution of California is very clear on that matter.
And I also think that if you look back over the record of several years
that record is very clear on that matter.
I
Governor, if that's the case, then why do you set up this special
hot line when you've been gone out of state lately and why have you given
us bulletins saying that -- well, "I'm going to be gone for so many
hours and there will be a special plane standing by or whatever, to get
me back in case I have to get here."
A
Because there were so many who seemed to be so terribly
concerned.
Q
That's all?
A
That's right.
0
You, yourself, are not concerned?
A
I was not. And this is what I mean about the record of the past
several years. He has been -- he has filled the duties of Lieutenant
Governor, I believe, extremely well, and by comparison better than some
I -- in my memory.
-8-
Q
Governor, are you going to continue those precautions if your
plans take you out of the state between now and October 1?
A
Well, --
ED MEESE: We always have.
A
Yes, we always have. That's what I was just going to say.
This is not -- we simply emphasized something that has always been true.
And this has been true from the first day I was in office when Bob
Finch was Lieutenant Governor, and true since Lieutenant Governor
Reinecke has been, and I imagine that I felt so strongly about this
remembering a situation in Los Angeles when the Governor was in Greece,
and nothing happened while Watts was burning down.
Q
Was that the Lieutenant Governor you were referring to?
A
No, I didn't -- no, sir, I'm -- you are not going to get an
answer to that one, George.
Q
Was it Bob Finch or Glen Anderson?
A
Well, neither Bob Finch nor I were holding offices when Watts
was burning down. We were just straight civilians.
Q
Can we go on to another subject?
Q
Well, I wanted to ask one more question about the presidency.
Governor, if President Ford decides to become - or declares his intention
to become a candidate for the nomination and seems to have the support
of the majority of the Republican party, can you conceive under any
(presidential)
circumstances under which you might become a candidate? Regardless of
what aspirations you might have.
A
No, because it has nothing to do with my aspirations. And what
you are saying is what I havealready -- what I've already stated.
What's important, I think, in Washington is what is done, not who does it.
And I feel very strongly, as I have said, about the mandate that has been
given by the people and if the majority of the Republican party felt
that mandate was being carried out, I'd probably be one of that majority.
I
Governor, on another subject, when you were running for Governor
eight years ago you charged Democratic Governor Brown with, "appointing hack
cronies and defeated candidates to positions of high responsibility." How
does that jive with your recent appointments of a defeated Republican
assemblyman to the Adult Authority and also one of your former press aides
to the Adult Authority, neither of whom has any particular experience
in correctional systems or law enforcement?
-9-
A
No, and I think that the -- I think that the record of the
thousands of appointments that I have made in these several years speaks
for itself. This does not mean that everyone who has served in government
is automatically precluded from continuing to serve in government. But
I think if you will look at the total record and if you will look at the
type of individual who was picked for departmental assignment and for
cabinet positions over these years, they did not necessarily reflect
someone who was'being rewarded for their party service. As a matter of
fact, we went out -- we combed the state of California, we had the help
of a citizen's committee to find the kind of people who could come in
and we thought lift the level of appointments. And I think we have done
it. As a matter of fact, my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, made
no secret of the fact that they think that California has found the
highest level of people willing to serve in government of any state
they know, and they have asked us how we did it.
Q
Well, Governor, along the same line, what special qualifications
(Adult Auth.
or expertise do either one of these men have for that sensitive board?
A
Well, you could ask that about almost any appointee. I was
confident that they could handle this.
Q
What's different? That's the question. Certainly Governor
Brown would say the same thing if he were asked in 1966 why he made certain
appointments.
A
I think the answer lies in numbers. And proportions.
And I'll -- if you look at the record of performance, and I say in these
eight years the performance of this administration has been rather
outstanding.
Q
Governor, is that an adequate answer for someone for -- for a
prisoner who is coming up for parole, to be told the answer is in numbers?
He's wondering about the individuals who are going to be dealing with his
fate.
A
Well, let's look at the record of -- in that particular area up
until now.
2
Are you saying this is something different, that now that you have
been appointing qualitative people up to now, and now you have gone back
to the -- I forget Marty's phrase, but political cronies, hacks and
defeated office holders?
A
No, no, I haven't. But here and there there is an individual--
-10-
for example, when some individual who is personally known to me, and I
ould judge his performance by service in some other area of government,
I had confidence and made the appointment.
Q
Governor, did a citizen's committee have a role in these selec-
tions?
A
We have a process that -- yes, that involves a great deal of
checking throughout the state on every kind of appointment. I don't
think there is a time that we just sit up here and make one by ourselves.
Just as we do - and have a formalized system for the appointment of
judges, that we follow. And you could talk to Ned Hutchinson about this
and find out the procedure, but it involves a great deal of checking.
Now --
Q
It is not a committee as such, it is not a state body, a man
who will sit down and consider the qualifications of your possible
appointments?
A
Well, you could ask Ned Hutchinson about how this is done. And
he could tell you. But I can tell you that the screening is very
thorough. But now we have made -- I made appointments to County Supervisor
positions of two legislators and they seem to have been upheld by the vote
of the people in both of those instances. It doesn't rule out that every
one who has served in government and served on the legislature should
a utomatically be cancelled out of any considerations. Sometimes you find
that there is great value there that we can continue to give to the people
of California.
Q
Governor, can you tell us what qualifications and background
Rudy Garcia --
A
What?
I
What are the qualifications and background for Rudy Garcia's
appointment to the Adult Authority?
A
Well, could you tell me what' particular qualifications and
experience or whatever it might be that anyone should have?
You have confidence in the human being's ability to judge.
Q
Governor, you also promised to take judges out of politics and
80 per cent of your appointments have been Republicans over the past eight
years.
A
Over the previous eight years there weren't any Democrats left.
(Laughter)
-11-
Q
Haven't you just about exhausted all the Republicans?
A
What?
Q
Haven't you just about exhausted all the Republicans?
A
The funny thing is that does not have a consideration.
Our system of appointing judges has been to take very individual who
wants to nominate himself, who wants to be proposed by someone else,
and all of those names go through a screening process, of a committee
consisting of the judiciary, of thelocal bar, of their fellow citizens
ndaof the State Board of Governors, 15 of the 16 members of which are
Democrats, and when that spread sheet comes back to me with their ratings
we pick from the top of the list those with the best rating. And I
will challenge anyone here when it comes to judicial appointments, you
go out and check with the legal profession of California from top to
bottom, and they will tell you there has never been eight years of better
selection of judges or better quality of judges than has been selected
by this administration.
Q
And the 80 per cent Republicans is just coincidental then?
A
Yes.
Q
Even though Republicans are like thirty-five per cent of
registered voters?
A
That's right.
Q
Governor, are you concerned that the Rules Committee may hold
up some of your appointments, though, and not pass them along?
A
I have been concerned, yes. I think there is a rather unusual
game that's beenplayed - is being played. I was encouraged when they
finally passed some of them through. There is a gigantic backlog up
there. But -- and I think this is again by acts - some individuals
trying to change the Constitution.
Q
Governor, Assemblyman Wood, what has he done as a legislator
not known for his correctional legislation to distinguish himself to be
appointed to the Adult Authority? He's known as a rural legislator,
mostly interested in agriculture.
A
Yes, but you also know him as a man, you know his abilities.
He - before that he had experience in local government in his own area.
You are talking about a man who is going to sit there and pass judgment
on a human being on the basis of the man's conduct and so forth, as to
whther he can be trusted to go back out on the street.
VOICE: Gentlemen, for the record, Wood was not defeated.
-12-
He was reapportioned out of office.
Q
Retired.
SQUIRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Oh, there was one, Squire -- could I -- there
was one that had his hand up when that interruption came.
Q
Governor, can I change the subject? It was reported to U. S.
News and World Reports that you are a top choice for Vice President,
however you insisted that President Ford agree to step aside in 1976.
The President is reported to have said, "No deal." Can you comment on
that?
A
You got to be kidding. I haven't read the magazine.
Q
Have you been in touch with the White House?
A
No, I have had not a word with President Ford since he was Vice
President Ford and sat beside me at lunch in the Republican convention in
San Jose. No, there was no such thing. I never felt that I was in
consideration. There has never been any such contact made and this is
absolutely invented out of hole cloth, and I'm surprised -- you said it
was United States News and World Report?
I
U. S. News and World Report.
A
I could have thought some publications that might have -- I
can't understand them.
Q
Governor, is there any reason you haven't talked -- turning
that around, is there any reason you haven't talked to President Ford?
A
I just haven't had anything to say. I guess he hasn't had any
reason to call me.
(Laughter)
OOO
-13-
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD SEPTEMBER 4, 1974
Reported by
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's newsconference is furnished
to the members of the Capitol News Corps for their convenience only.
Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as possible, there
are no corrections made and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
-
GOVERNOR REAGAN: I have a statement. Last Saturday the
legislature made - oops.
I look better in the dark anyway.
(Laughter)
&
Thank you, Governor.
A
You bet. Wait till he turns on his Brownie. All set?
O
Wait a minute, you got some copies coming along.
A
Yes.
Yes, the copies are coming out there.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read News Release No. 502.)
Q
Do you think that the two year session is a failure or just the
members involved in it?
A
Well, a two year sessin has grown out of the full-time legislature
that was - I myself supported the idea back in '66, and I suggested
that both of these, I think should be -- now that they have had an
opportunity to work, I think should be reviewed as I have suggested by
a Blue Ribbon Citizens Committee to determine if this is the effective
way to go.
I
Governor, do you see any redeeming social value in a two-year
session?
A
Well, on the basis of that one time it does not seem to have changed
anything.
Q
One of the arguments that Charlie Warren mentioned is, if it hadn't
been for a two-year session he wouldn't have been able to get through an
Energy Conservation Bill, in that sense he thinks it is healthy.
I just wonder if you looked at both sides of the coin.
A
I have seen in these several years -- I've seen them come back with
a revised version of a bill and reintroduce it in the very next session,
if it is something they really want and we need, we manage to do that.
0
Governor, what are your impressions of the gubernatorial campaign
-1-
so far?
Q
Can we stick on this?
Q
I'm sorry.
Q
Governor, I assume you mean the governor -- the next governor should
appoint a Blue Ribbon Commission, is that what you are talking about?
A
However this is determined, it is obviously too late in the --
too late for me, and --
Q
Why, but this is not the first time -
A
Whether this would be a governor's appointment or whether this
should be from the legislature itself, because again we have the
separation of powers. So
-
&
Governor, what's your questions about the full-time legislature
concept?
You said that should be reviewed, too.
A
Well, as I said, the - nothing seems to have - it doesn't
seem to have the improvements that we were supposed to have from
the time when legislators were citizens who came up here to do the
state's business and then return to their own businesses andprofessions.
And I would suggest that the commission should take a look and see
whether wehave improved the situation or not.
Q
Do you think the situation could be improved ever simply by
changing the machinery or is there something else beyond that?
A
Well, it is worth taking a look at. As I say, there have
been many fine legislators and have themselves expressed concern in the
last few years with the way things are going, and I've heard this from
both sides of the aisle.
Q
Governor, along with that full-time legislature, bigger salaries,
do you think that should be reviewed, too?
A
Well, I've suggested a -- I wouldn't like to stand here and
suggest to the committee what the committee should come up with or
resolve. I think the entire picture of representative government in
California should possibly be reviewed by this -- by such a committee.
Q
Would the governor appoint the committee?
A
I just answered that, I'm not sure. It is a separation of
powers.
I haven't thought as to who should -- as to whether the
governor should.
Q
It seems it might be contradictory. You are
talking
about
being isolated in Sacramento, but yet you want them to go on a full week.
Did you mean if they went on a full week they wouldn't have to be here
-2-
so many months, there could be more months at home?
A
Was
it Hugh Burns said that air conditioning in the
Capitol destroyed the legislature?
(Laughter)
Q
Governor, you've experienced similar end of session bills in
previous years, how come you are just now recommending some sort of a
Blue Ribbon Task Force, study this proble
A
Well, you start first of all with a matter of the separation of
powers
that
you
try
to observe. But the second thing is, first we went
to the full-time and we have - each time you give it a chance to work,
and then we went to the two-year, and we've had a chance to see it work
and the same thing has resulted. Wepassed about -- throughout the whole
y
ear they passed out about roughly 600 bills. In the last week they
have passed out more than a thousand.
Q
Do you know how many you have waiting?
A
What's that?
I
How many bills you have down there waiting for you to sign now?
A
It will be something more than a thousand.
Q
Governor, you say it cost $52 million a year to run the legisla-
ture.
How wasteful do you think that body is of the public's money?
A
Well, here again there is no way to know because there is --
one of you, I think, recently received an answer to that question when
you asked for some accounting of one of the body's spending and were
told that it was no one's business but their own.
Q
Governor, you have the constitutional authority to trim the
legislature's budget, why haven't you exercised it?
A
Well, very practical considerations. First of all, there is
the separation of powers. Second of all, however, there is the matter
of what would happen to any governor who attempted by budgeting to
blue pencil when obviously all it would take is a two-thirds vote of the
legislature to override that veto, and then open up the whole retaliatory
thing, the contest, in which they could get even by deleting the
executive branch budget and there isn't anything you can do about that
because you can't override their veto, when you are in this spot.
Whatever they take out cannot be put back in.
Q
Couldn't you veto some of these pension bills that have been
coming down and been signed? The ones that cause a lot of controversy
now?
-3-
A
Well, as I say, again this -- in the separation of powers I've
tried to observe that.
2
Are you saying that you actually feared retaliatory action by
the legislature if you tampered with their -- with their private
programs?
A
Oh, I think this is what practically you are talking about.
If you try to use your budget authority between the various branches.
Q
Governor, you have a thousand bills before you, will you be
able to take care of those before you leave the state?
a 30-
A
Well, we are going to be working at them.
We
have
day
period --
September
ED MEESE:
December 30.
A
-- in which to deal with these bills. A great many of them
I'm sure aren't going to take too much time for these. There are
many of them minor and technical word bills and those one-word change
bills and so forth. But I think that -- I understand your question,
Squire. I'll sign or veto anything that has to be signed or vetoed.
Q
Governor, specifically are you inclined to sign the bill which
rolls back the smog device program for 1966-70 automobiles outside the
basin
L. A. air base?
A
Well, now, don't ask me to comment - start commenting on any
one of those thousands yet, because they have just come down. They
will all go through the usual process with the cabinet and staff. And
I'd rather not get into that. If I start trying to comment or guess
on one of them before we have seen it or studied it, I could be here for
a thousand of them.
Q
The reason I ask you that is that during recent visits to
Riverside you did state you favored such legislation.
A
Yes. Now we are talking about a general thing as against
a specific piece oflegislation. I have to also say that in Riverside
some of the statements that I made in the informal discussion down there
the other day have not been interpreted -- my legislative intent was
misinterpreted.
&
So you are saying you are inclined to sign the Holmdahl Bill,
is that right, is that what you are saying?
A
I'm saying I'm not commenting on specific bills.
(Laughter)
0
Would you say when are you going to take some action on it?
In the next few days? Because they are meeting on the 11th.
A
Yes, this is one I think must immediately be taken up, because
there are decisions that have to be made as Mr. Simmons has pointed out
a lready. Members of the press.
(Smog)
Q
Governor, does the fact that the Holmdahl, Bill leaves out the
Basin
Southcoast air base pose a problem for you?
Do you have. some question
about the state setting off the south Coast air base Basin from enforcement
of this program?
A
No, I think it mentioned about what I said in Riverside, is that
you have to recognize the South Coast air base Basin differs very drastically
from Modoc County, or Nevada County or some of the other counties and
their problems. And this has been one of the problems that I have
thought we should bepaying more attention to, is statewide cures for
what is a problem peculiar to one area.
Q
Well, Governor, speaking of - new subject? Speaking of Modoc
County, they say as Modoc County goes, so goes the state. Have you
talked to people up there? Are they voting for Flournoy or Brown up
there?
A
Well, I don't know, the first thing that anyone did to me when I
got there at the fairground was to pin a Flournoy button on me, which
I hadn't brought myself, being a non-political trip. I don't know
how
Modoc County is going to go.
Q
So you think they are going to go for Flournoy, is that what you
are saying?
A
They seem enthusiastic.
Q
What are your impressions of the race so far?
A
Of course I believe he's the best qualified man for this job,
thre
is no question about that. You can accuse me of partisanship on
that, if you want to, but I think in the campaign so far that his
opponent has had difficulty making up his mind, whether he really is
running against Hugh Flournoy. I think for a while he was running
against me, but then just the other day, over Labor Day it seemed like
he was running against Herbert Hoover. As soon as he settles on an
opponent we will be able to get a better judgment of how he's campaigning.
Q
He says you are wasting public money by not -- with your freeze
on the building of state -- state office buildings. Wasting $21 million
dollars by renting building space. What is your response?
A
I think there is a point at which you can go overboard in renting.
I think there is another point, however that you should figure, when
-5-
the state builds it takes land off the tax base at the local level of
government, off the property tax base. And there are some economics
involved there in both renting and government building, and which I
don't think that it is necessary that the state should build every
single space that it needs to occupy. I think this could be wasteful.
I do think that, yes --- I think there is some building to be done. But
I don't --
Q
You agree with Mr. Brown?
A
What?
Q
You agree with Mr. Brown?
A
Never.
(Laughter)
A
We differ in a matter of degrees.
0
What's altered your opinion now about the need for a total
freeze on statebuilding, state office building?
VERNE ORR: Governor, two years ago we put thirty million
dollars in for legislature building. They haven't started yet. That
would remove a great deal of the rental space in Cali- in Sacramento.
We added to it this year.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, we haven't had such a freeze. As a
matter of fact, we asked the legislature for the use of some money for
building both north and south earlier this year, and were refused.
As a matter of fact, we wanted, if I recall it was the oil revenues that
we had wanted.
VERNE ORR: We asked for an L. A. building and they took that
out of the budget.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, the new state building there, because
the old building doesn't meet the earthquake standards.
&
Governor, there is a study of building space needs in state
government that's being done by General Services. It was due last
November, and has apparently been held up in General Services, has not
yet been released.
When will that be made available?
A
I wish I knew.
VERNE ORR: I don't know, either. I see the draft of it, but
I don't know when it will be ready for release.
2
Governor, the Departmentof Water Resources came out with its
environmental impact report on the Peripheral Canal this morning. What
is your position on whether the canal should or should not be built?
-E
A
Well, I happen to be one who's always favored the canal and I
favor it from an enviromental standpoint, actually, because the present
system of pumping out of the delta in my mind is harmful to the environ-
ment. It has reversed the stream flow in certain streams, the pumping.
Streams that were spawning streams for fish, for trout, for salmon, and
Fish and Game can account that in some of those streams because of the
confusion of the fish, which is supposed to swim upstream to its spawning
ground, and suddenly finds itself swimming downstream because that flow
has been reversed by a pump, they just don't spawn. They turn around
and go the other way. And I believe with proper protection for the
quality of water in the delta this can be achieved very easily. That
this is the easiest and the best way to move the water past the delta.
Q
Governor, had there not been the hassle in the Senate over
your appointees, do you think this news conference would have dealt
with this today? What I'm trying to say, are you critical because
of the hassle or had you thought of this before?
A
No, as a matter of fact, I even questioned for a time whether
I should even leave that paragraph in this statement today for fear
that just that, someone might make that assumption. No, I think that it
was an unprecedented action. I don't recall it being done before. It
certainly has never been done to me before in these several years, and
I don't - in my memory have any knowledge of it ever happening to any
ther governor, but no, I think that the spectacle of more than a thousand
bills being passed in sessions that run through the night, that run
continuously for hours in which it is obvious that no one can even read
the bills, with amendments being offered that weren't even read - this
(legislative)
happened last year, or I mean the last session before the two year
session began. If you will remember then, in one all night session they
passed down several hundred bills, including hundreds of millions of
dollars of spending. The stories that have come out of this last
session, of men who were voted on roll call votes and at midnight they
dscover they hadn't been there since morning -- the device of the
roll call vote, the automatic roll call voting, of taking that vote on
a non-controversial measure and then simply taking number after number
of a bill up and asking for permission to record the same roll call vote
on it, many individuals not being there and not understanding what the
bill was about, I just think that it is not the way to do business for
the state of California. Maybe they could start one improvement by
-7-
reversing it, you know. Do the thousand bills in the rest of the year,
and 600 in the last session.
Q
On state buildings, do you expect to be doing some groundbreaking
for the mansion soon?
A
I hope SO.
Q
Is there any time of the week, t ) weeks or a month or two
months?
A
I don't know.
VERNE ORR: Bids are due in September 24, is their expectation,
and soon after that they will be able to award the bid and they will start
construction, hopefully, I guess, might break ground the first week in
October.
&
Governor, will you try to accelerate the mansion construction
in light of Jerry Brown's comments that he won't live there and might
turn it into a children's home or something?
A
Well, I know that he's concerned and I suppose it is because
the house that we planned to build there is too small for him. He
prefers to go backand live in the one that's 4,000 square feet bigger
than the one that's presently being built. But having no family or
anything, I thought that 12,000 square feet of floor space ought to be
enough for him out there. He might learn to love it out there in the
fresh air. I am hopeful that we don't have that problem at all because
I hope that come January he'll be providing his own domicile some place
and someone else will be -
Q
Governor, what's going to happen to the residence here you are
n OW renting or being rented for you?
A
I suppose that the owners of it will put it up for sale.
&
Do you think they will make it available to the next Governor
during the interim, before the mansion -
A
You'll have to ask them, and the legislature. It is between
them and the legislature. I must say we have enjoyed it very much and
enjoyed living there. And it was a contrast with the other place.
Q
Back to the Blue Ribbon Citizen's Task Force, I'm just not sure
how something like that would operate. You have admitted that you have
got a fear of retaliation if you take some action in trimming legislative
expenditures. If a task force is appointed by the legislature, won't
it be just a -- in effect, a white wash of legislative activities? How
-8-
can you get something out that will actually have a meaningful effect
on the legislature?
A
Well, on this basis -- look, you are jumping to some conclusions.
Maybe $52 million dollars is a proper amount for a legislature.
I
don't know. I put in here this is an indication of the growth of what
has happened in the efforts going to full time, that going to the two-
year session and all, and all I'm saying now is since the problems that
we were told these moves would solve are still with us, that maybe it is
time to take a look. The Blue Ribbon Commission might decide that
you could still have this session and find ways to alleviate the
problems. I'm quite sure that some of this last-minute rush would have
been unnecessary if the leadership of the majority party had really
led the way they should. For example, there are scores and scores of
bills, hundreds of bills that are technical bills that literally change
one word in the law. It seems to me that author's pride, for a
legislator to have his name on a bill, that many of these could have been
committee bills. The whole committee process earlier in the year, the
witnesses being brought up here to -- for an open hearing on a committee
bill, and then finally one or two committee members in attendance
and then it being put over and so forth -- I just think that we can
start -
Q
Any more questions?
Q
Yes, Squire, just one. Governor, have you communicated with
President Ford since your last press conference with us in which you
remarked about amnesty and some other subjects of national interest?
A
No, I've had no direct communication -- Oh, I've - I've
addressed one or two letters to the President, but on specific routine
state matters that require his attention.
Q
Mr. Flournoy said that -- or his staff people said he is going
to fly to New York to try to see some of Mr. Rockefeller's financial
backers, to get some money for his campaign. Do you plan to try and
raise money for Flournoy outside of California?
A
No, I'm committed for all the campaigning I'm going to do, and
outside of thesstate I will be campaigning for Congressional, Senate
and Gubernatorial candidates that have been determined in advance by
the Republican Governor's Conference, by the Congressional and the
Senate campaign committees.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
-9-
Q
Just one, have you received any word what former Senator
Kuchel is going to get from the Ford administration? Position.
A
Well, no, I thought it was published, though, at one point.
Q
There was a report he was going to become Ambassador to the
United Nations, but that's not official.
A
That's all that I know, is what I've read.
SQUIRE:
Thank you, Governor.
000
-10-
9/24
NEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD SEPTEMBER 24, 1974
Reported by:
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is
furnished to the members of the News Corps. for their convenience only.
Because of the need to get it to the News Corps. as quickly as possible,
no corrections are made andthere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
I have a statement, opening statement.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read News Release No. 531.)
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Because of this particular issue I brought
Assemblyman McLennan here with me, and I have to say I hope the people
of California recognize that it was Assemblyman McLennan by authoring --
not only authoring the bill, but keeping this issue alive on behalf of
the people. I think that he's responsible now for at least the
possibility of resolving this issue once and for all. So I have him
nere with me for any questions that you might have about the particular
legislation.
Q
Dr. McLennan, you are in a very tough race for re-election
because of the reapportionment. Do you think that the Democratic
leadership is going to let you carry that bill and are yougoing to
insist on it?
ASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: Oh, I will certainly endeavor in every
(pension)
way possible to carry the bill. I expect there would be some obstruc-
tive tactics used to try to get it away from me. But I want it for
the benefit of the people of the State of California. I'm not doing
it for any personal glory of any kind, I just --
So you have no pride of authorship -- Assemblyman Gonzalves
would carry it, that wouldn't bother you?
ASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: Well, it would be a little bit upsetting.
I'd carried it this long and then it would be turned over to my opponent.
But this is not the -- the most urgent thing on my mind anyway, right
at this time.
Q
Thank you.
&
Governor Reagan, if the Democratic leadership decides to convene
and then adjourn and not meet again until Monday so as to observe the
high holy days, would you have any objection to that?
-1-
(By Governor Reagan)
Well, there isn't anything that I could
do about it. That is their prerogative, they can do that.
The
only point that I've made, having had three opportunities to deal with
this in the last session and being able to send down to my desk 1184
bills in ten days, I don't see that there would be any reason or justi-
fication for not treating with this on Wednesday and getting home in
plenty of time for the beginning of the high holy days.
Q
Governor, are you being critical of the Democratic leadership
for having passed the bill originally or having failed to repeal it
once the bonanza features of it became apparent?
A
I'm critical of them for not having repealed it once we knew the
extent of it and what the problem was.
Q
Governor, can you clarify again what you thought the amendments
to this procedure were a few years ago?
A
Yes, the original bill when it was passed in '66 was a bill --
at that time we'd had the one-man one-vote decision and it was mainly
aimed at the Senate. And suddenly men, by this change, this court
decision in Washington, suddenly have their careers and their entire
districts just simply pulled out from under them and it seemed like a
fair bill at thetime. Then a few years ago, in '71, this was augmented
and changed. I don't think that any one of us saw -- first of all, I
start from the standpoint of in the separation of powers, of usually
eaving to the legislature thosematters that are purely theirs. But
in signing it I don't think that any of us -- and I don't charge that
the legislature really envisioned the manner in which it -- now it
develops it can be used.
Q
What manner is that you are talking about?
A
Well, the fact that without any regard to reapportionment, that
in a reapportionment year anyone can quit or decide to run for another
difice and whatever he does, and walk away with his full pension beginning
at whatever age.
Q
You say it is being abused and interpreted too loosely?
A
No, I'm afraid that we found out that this is what the bill
actually said.
Q
Governor, you didn't see that when you signed it then?
A
No.
0
Governor, in 1971 Frank Lanterman carried a bill which extended
these early bonus benefits and it was very clearly debated in the
-2-
legislature at that time.
A
Well, the bill was passed and, as I say, I've observed the
separation of powers of the legislature. I haven't intervened in
their particular affairs.
I
Governor, why did you call a special session fifteen minutes
after the legislature called a special session?
A
Well, I didn't know that the legislature was -- had called one
in fifteen minutes. I had had the leadership, the Democratic
eadership contacted as to whether it would be worthwhile to call a
special session. I was aware of the public sentiment in agreement with
it. But there was no point in calling them back when they had refused
three times to deal with this during the last session, if they were going
to do the same thing. So I was informed by them it would be an exercise
in futility. They had no intention of doing anything about it and it
would be useless to call them back into special session.
Now, the public pressure built -- thanks to Assemblyman
McLennan, and built to the place that the word was brought to me that
the Democrats were ready now to go into special session, but the talk
at the time that I called the session was that they were discussing,
well, going into a session sometime down the line in the next few
weeks. I feltthat the people feeling as they did, deserved better
than that and, as I say, it is something that could be settled in an
hour, they could be here and on their way home in the same afternoon.
And I called the meeting for Wednesday, which is the soonest I thought
we could.
Q
Governor, for just years, and previous Governors, too, you sat
idly by while the legislature did funny things with their own operating
budget, trebled it, probably. Spent a lot of that money for increased
campaign activities by their staff. Took junkets without filing
meaningful reports. Did all kinds of things. And you've observed a
hands off policy. What's so difference about this?
A
Well, I don't think that's exactly a fair description. I have
spoken out and been quite critical of a great many things that the
legislature does in running its affairs upstairs.
Q
Yeah, but you had -- you know, with your blue pencil, you had
the opportunity to focus public attention squarely on it, make them
justify some of the things that they did.
A
And as I said the other day in here, I was well aware also of
-3-
the limitations of power in the separations of power that the Executive
branch could be treated with obstructionism at the same time that you
attempted to use the budget with regard to the legislative affairs.
While I could take out what they put into the budget, I could not put
back anything they have taken out. And when you are hanging under
literally a blackmail threat of what they could do simply by wiping out
whole areas of staff, whole sections of the executive branch, and there
woudln't be any recourse under this setup of being the governor of the
minority party while they are the majority party in the legislature.
No, I - I recognize the realities.
o
Governor, do you think that a retiring legislator, you know,
prior to the age of 60, is entitled to any compensation for the -- for
his service and the risk he takes? Anything at all?
A
That what?
Q
Do you think that a retiring legislator prior to the age of 60
is entitled to any compensation for the risk he takes or for the service
he renders?
A
Well, I think that first of all, you know, we have a very
generous pension plan. As a matter of fact, it is extremely generous
with regard to the employees contribution. And this plan would be
unchanged. There is only one facet of it that would be changed and
this is the early retirement provision. I saw the justice at the time
of the whole one-man one-vote change when that took place. I didn't
have any particular quarrel with that. But I believe that now as we
envision this beyond that point going on to cover just every contingency,
no, I think that there is no justification for this.
2
Do you think it is justified to maintain early retirement for
legislators who are in fact affected by reapportionment in the future?
A
Well, Bob, would you like to answer what your bill does about
that?
ASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: Yes, I see no justification for a
guarantee just because of reapportionment taking place any more than a
freeway coming by and changing the route of traffic for a man running
a filling station. I think this is the risks you take when you become
elected to office. If you get defeated, regardless of reapportionment,
I think this is one of the risks you take in serving the public.
Q
Governor, you said that you felt it was justified ten years ago.
-4-
Why is it not justified now?
A
Well, I thought it was justified ten years ago does not mean
necessarily that I could foresee what would happen andhow it went.
It
seemed a logical and a fair thing at the time. I, as a matter of fact,
wasn't a part of government at that time. I didn't have any particular
quarrel with it. Now we have seen this extension of it. The place,
where as I say, they can just choose to quit or be defeated in the
normal process of election and they now want protection against even
that, the hazard of being defeated when they run for office. This
could mean that someone who is voted out of office because he has been
incompetent and so forth is rewarded for that for the rest ofhis life.
I can see a great many things that perhaps we did not see in 1966.
ASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: I might add just one thing there, that
the salary of the legislators at that time was $6,000 a year when this
was voted in '65. And it is a little different than getting $19,000
that -- what they are getting now. So I think the circumstances were
quite different as the Governor has mentioned.
Q
Governor, there's some talk that legislation may be proposed to
reduce thepension benefit but not eliminate it totally. Will you
accept legislation if that were the only bill that came to you that
would reduce the pension benefit but not eliminate it totally?
A
Well, now, you are asking me to comment on hypothetical
legislation that might come down and I'd rather not give a hypothetical
answer. I'd have to wait and see what it was they did.
Q
Governor, Mr. Brown and others have said that there is in effect
a contract between members and the state, and that it would be plain
illegal to abort that contract. Or one provision of that contract.
Do you have legal advice that it can be done?
A
I have better legal advice than the Secretary of State.
2
On this issue?
A
On all issues.
(Laughter)
Q
Are you saying it is legal then? Governor, are you saying it
would be legal to do so?
A
I'll refer to my legal advisers.
ED MEESE: I'll refer to Mr. McLennan.
ASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN:
Well, we anticipated this, of course,
and we got a direct opinion from George Murphy himself, who wrote an
-5-
opinion by -- with his own research that we were completely on legal
constitutional grounds in our efforts to rescind this program.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: That George Murphy being the Legislative
Counsel.
0
You say -- did you really expect the legislature can dispose
of this question in a matter of a couple of hours? What do you mean by
a couple of hours, two -- three, what?
A
I mean a couple of hours. That gives them time to say hello
to each otherand tell the latest story they have heard while they are
home and everything else. I figure that any legislature could send
down to my desk more than a thousand bills in four days, they didn't
give a couple of hours to each one of those; they couldn't have, there
aren't that many hours -- so I figure they shouldn't have any trouble
at all in passing one bill, at say, the same relative speed.
I
The bill would still have to go out to print, apparently,
through the normal committee process. Public Employees and Retirement
Committee is still in theprocess of being reconstituted.
A
I still stand on it, that this bill that has been before them,
this bill that has had committee hearing, this bill that has moved
through the branches of the legislature, that they have had several
opportunities to do it, there is no reason in the world why they cannot
(pension)
be on their way home after having voted on this bill.
Q
Governor, it is possible that the legislature could call
itself -- reconvene itself and consider other legislation. Would you
say now flatly that you will not sign any legislation that may conceivably
pass in a general session?
A
No, I didn't say that. And I realize they have that power.
They always have had that power. They can do that at any time they
want to. I would think that it might strike the people strange, the
expense of an added session, having rushed through the flood of legisla-
tion they did in order to meet the adjournment deadline and get out of
here, that they now would come back and add to the taxpayer's woes by
taking up business after the end of a two-year session. Business that
very easily could have been handled. It is significant that they
passed 1184 bills in ten days and only passed 500 and some bills in all
of the rest of the two-year session.
Q
Governor, some of the Democratic leadership seems to think that
your decision to jump into this thing and call a special session on this
-6-
one topic is designed to help Hugh Flournoy. Would you comment?
A
No, it was designed for one thing only. Every once in a while,
fortunately, in this administration of mine, we have had the support
of the people on something. There would have been no welfare reforms
if the people -- public opinion had not forced them on a hostile
legislature -- hostile legislative leadership that in the beginning
refused to allow me to even present those proposals to them. The same
thing has been true although it too longer in property tax reforms.
The same thing was true with regard to implementing capital punishment
and a number ofthings of that kind. And here again we've had the
people making it unmistakably plain how they feel. Now I didn't wait
necessarily for that. As I said, I asked -- had our people ask the
legislative leadership would there be any useful purpose served in my
calling a special session. I was ready to and wanted to and the only
reason I held back was when I was informed by the majority, and I
can't do anything about that majority vote, that no, they would take
no useful action in such a session. Then, however, when they themselves
felt the pressure of public opinion and moved -- indicated they were
(pension)
going to come back and deal with this problem, I then, to expedite it
and get it called as quickly as possible, called the special session
myself.
Q
Well, it is a fact, isn't it, that Mr. Flournoy would benefit
from it all, as it stands now, being --
A
Well, I don't know in what way he would benefit. Of course
he agrees with me, but then I think -- and he agrees with Assemblyman
McLennan, but I think also every right-thinking person does. As a
matter of fact, let me make one thing plain, this is not a blanket
indictment of Democrats, per say, because I have also had communication
from individual Democratic legislators within the last few days begging
me to call the special session, and disagreeing totally with their
leadership.
&
Who, Governor?
A
What?
2
Which Democratic legislators have contacted you?
A
I'm not going to use their names, who communicated with me, and
cause them problems with their peers on the Democratic side in the future.
0
You won't reveal your sources then?
A
What?
-7-
(Laughter)
A
Well, one is a co-author of this legislation, Wadie Deddeh.
I don't think there is any question about how he feels and I don't think
he'd mind my saying so.
&
May I ask Mr. McLennan, rules have to be waived to have this
thing heard without the thirty-day waiting period. Does that require
54 votes in the Assembly? Did you check thatout?
ASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: Yes, in fact the vote on the bill will
require 54 votes because it is an urgency bill.
Q
But to have it heard inthe first place without - or to waive
the rules, isn't -- doesn' that require unanimous consent?
ASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: No, not unanimous consent. I think
it is just a two-thirds - a majority in the Rules Committee would
have to vote on the waivering the rules, I'm sure, and then if the
rules were waivered in the Rules Committee we could hear it immediately
in the Retirement Committee, and then have a floor vote on it within a
very short time. It would require 54 votes in the Assembly.
&
Governor, Speaker McCarthy has intimated you would like the
legislature out of town when you do your end of - rather your deadline
vetoing. Any truth to that suspicion?
A
Well, he's part right. I find that a certain calm settles over
the Capitol when they are out of town at any time. I have something
the feeling a: teacher must have when the students have all fled out the
door at vacation time. But, no, I'm well aware of the fact that they
could bring themselves back in any session and if they feel strongly
enough they will do it. And I'm also well aware that in my calling a
special session they can recess that session and then meet again in
general session. So I think he would just -- he was just giving voice
to the political season.
Q
Governor, you said some legislators had contacted you about your
calling a special session and many legislators were telling us they
received a lot of heat from their constituents. Had many people written
(pension
bill)
you or called you, constituents, voters, complaining about it? Have
you received much mail on that?
A
Yes, as a matter of fact, we have had more mail than on any other
single issue in this two-year session. A flood of mail.
Q
How many letters, Governor? Estimate.
A
Well, just in the last few days I know that it's topped a
-8-
thousand.
Q
How much mail have you had, Dr. McLennan?
ASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: We stopped counting a couple weeks ago
after 2500 letters came to our office individually. This was in
addition to petitions signed by hundreds of people and also calls to --
over the telephone coming to my -- both my district office and to this
office. And I might say that at least 90 per cent of all the questions
and conversation in any of my appearances has been in regards to this
(pension)
program that we've been endeavoring to repeal.
Q
How do you feel about this, doctor? You are a freshman
Assemblyman. You admitted sometime earlier that you didn't know very
much about the parliamentary maneuvering that are involved in something
like this. Do you feel like David slaying Goliath?
MCLENNAN: I've had a crash course in parliamentary procedure in the last
two months, I would say, and I've learned more, I'd say, in this time
than I have for many, many months and years in other subjects. But
it's beeva very revealing thing that the power of the news media and the
power of the people's wishes can make such a dramatic change that would
completely - the door slammed so dramatically in our face that every
attempt up here during the session, and when the people became riled
up enough about a suject they got in contact with their legislators and
now we have had a reversal of the interest, certainly, to the extent that
we'll have a chance to vote on it and the people can know how their -
their representatives will be voting, SO --
Q
DO you feel it is a personal victory for you?
ASSEMBLYMAN McLENNAN: Well, I - I really don't. I don't
take any great credit. I think it's - I've got a staff and an office
personnel, and I've got an organization in my campaign down there that
won't quit and I have to givemost of the credit to them, plus the news
media. I take no personal credit forit.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: I can give you some personal credit. I
think that he may refer to himself as a freshman, but I think he stopped
being a freshman when you learn how much can be done not by shedding
light but by raising the heat level. And he sure raised the heat level
in the legislature.
VOICE: Thank you, Governor.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Thank you.
000
-9-