California Public TV Special; An Interview with Senator John Seymour; Tape Number 42

Do you see e public affairs specials are made possible by Disneyland park by the Peter and Mary move Foundation and by viewer support. On January 10th of this year John Seymour with worn into office as California the newest United States senator. He had to hit the ground running after his appointment as a U.S. senator while serving as a ninth year as a California faith editor. His first vote was the support the president in going to war in the Middle East as he near the end of his first year in the U.S. Senate. What are his accomplishment his priorities and his vision. I'm Jim Cooper and I'll talk about the with the senator today here in Washington. John Seymour served four years in the Marine Corps before graduating from UCLA after building a

successful real estate business. He was elected councilman and later maire of Anaheim in 1902. He was elected to the state Senate during his nine years in the state senate he was Republican caucus chairman for four years he ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor last year. He was appointed to fill the Senate seat formerly held by California Governor Pete Wilson. He now serves on the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture Energy and Governmental Affairs and small business. What an enormous transference of governmental service you've gone through from city level to state level. And up here to the Senate a senator serves on a different dimension input with national international affairs and national affairs and what he get done for his own state. How would you put your own priorities. Well I've got a very simple old philosophy about that. I want to be the world as a senator for California not the senator from California. California for California for that is that. Does that transfer

into a lot of activity. In other words how do you intend to embody that. Mandy well it transfers into my legislative activities has occurred in some major in their lives that I got in the crime bill that the Senate passed. That dealt with very specific California issues like music you'd go to prison battered women's syndrome and the protection of women whether it was in transportation where I worked with a number of other large state senators to. Bring home the gas tax dollars you know it just bothered me for years and years and years you when I was a councilman back in the city of Anaheim. That we would send a dollar of our gas tax back here to Washington D.C. where we get about 85 cents back. While a member of the large state senator said myself there that we had enough. And so we put together some political muscle and we now have that formula trained so that

within over the next five year period we will move from 85 percent return on the dollar to 99. I'd like to talk about some California issues but first I'd like to get your reaction on the president step that he took to reduce nuclear and tactical weapons that we get apparently caught a lot of the Congress by surprise with that whole reactor that well he did in in the United States Senate and many of the Democrats were talking about the peace dividend the peace dividend Where's the peace dividend we've got to cut the defense budget. And so the president very bold statement I thought very courageous very bold stroke of leadership just being for the war and you supported. Absolutely I think he's absolutely right the elimination of land based nuclear missiles is going to make this world safer everywhere on the other hand we have to be careful of is that we don't just cut for cutting say who knows whether another Saddam

Hussein will raise his ugly head around the world. It is an uncertain world and therefore we still need a strong defense. But as to the nuclear missile you know it's time that we said that. Aside from people like Senator Nunn they're saying we should also go further than that if cutting the B-1 for example which is produced in California. What about the impact of all that on California the aerospace industry and our economy. Well I've been fighting very hard to keep the B2 alive and contract the B-2 bomber. In fact just last week. How close things can get around here on a vote of 51 to 48. It takes 51 votes to get anything done so the bare number of votes in the needed. We kept the B-2 alive. Now as I say there's more talk of that from the Democrats who would say you know we need to cut the defense budget even for the old guys who are already cutting that 25 percent over a five year

period and now with this this new bold step of President Bush's will be able to improve on those. But somewhere you need to maintain a defense because as they say who knows when the next Saddam Hussein is going to raise and send the B-2 is an integral part of that will it will that whole cutback didn't you think depress the California aerospace industry or will it not. Well I think there's going to be a transition period for sure transitioning away from military more into. The private sector kind of goods in production and I think our in our airspace industries can do that and of course there's this whole commercial field of aerospace the space station for example that I fought to keep in the budget. As we move into that area so I think that California will survive just fine. You said that your mandate your personal mandate is to be California first here. How have you gotten yourself up to speed to come to some kind of

a graph with all of the things you have to know in the United States senator. Well Jim I've had a lot of experience as you know I was a counselor in the mayor of Anaheim for eight years and then. Like a lot of years in the California State Senate and prior to all of that a businessman had two corporations but one hundred twenty five employees so I come to this job with a bit of experience and I think I'd like to think some real grass roots experience how the laws that we passed back here the decisions we make impacts the folks back home the folks in Anaheim the folks in Orange County. So I I come with that grassroots experience. Are you intimidated or awed when you think of just the sheer numbers of for example comparing the California state budget fifty six billion this year with the United States budget of one point three trillion dollars. It's an awesome thing to contemplate that not only is it awesome

but when you realize that this year's budget is out of balance just this year's budget is out of balance. Approximately two hundred forty five billion dollars. But it's not about at least in California you've got a constitution like that a lot. It says you must have a balanced budget. And here that's not that doesn't apply. Not at all our deficits continue to grow and so when we talk about peace dividend for life vote I think the peace dividend should occur by balancing the budget first and then begin to reduce the deficit. I have a shopping list of things to talk to you about with California. Let's start with drought or drought. Five years our reservoirs are 58 percent field. You could say that they're down 42 percent from normal. Let's start with the drought. What do you want to get done and what have you gotten done to attack our water problem. Just last week one of my committee assignments as you said in the introduction to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee just lacked last week we passed out legislation that I said last week that had this

legislation been in place a year ago California would we would have had to tighten our belt for sure but we would have been able to adjust much more easy to the drought and so we've got a drought package of legislation does have to do with transferring federal water. Yes. What if the climate in fact that was my particular idea that the federal water project which heretofore has been limited to be able to be used for agricultural purposes only should be opened up should be able to use for urban or industrial or recreational or fish and wildlife. It's a it's an infrastructure system almost like a freeway system that moves water. Now why should it be used to move agriculture once we open that up. And in this legislation we also provided benefits for people tax incentives for people to be encouraged to have more water conservation. For example a farmer who's got an orange grove.

If you use a drip system to irrigate his grill they'll save up to 30 percent of the water and so we're providing low interest rate loans so that he might be able to do that and so the package that we put together the fact that we can do product now will happen is going to do an operation. Oh I think it will but that's just the drought. We still haven't addressed but we will address probably next month. The longer term issue of water in California and in that issue it's a very contentious issue as you know you know then you're pitting the older north versus the south of the agriculture people versus the urban exactly right. So how do we how do we attack that one. Well we try to if we sit down and reason together what we try to do just as I did when I was there I wanted to get something done with my colleagues down and come you know let's find accommodation here let's find a middle ground and that that that same philosophy can apply here and what exactly. Let's talk about transportation another enormous problem in California what about that. Well as I was saying earlier I was very proud of two major amendments that we were

able to get in the transportation bill one had to do with the North State. California giving a dollar and only getting 85 cents back we've changed is that now the other major amendment we got in was to provide more flexibility for states and local governments to determine how they'll spend the dollars. Heretofore the car with as it has said here's the money and here's how you'll spend it for transportation. What we said in the memo is 50 percent of the money that you're receiving you can spend it for mass transit. You can spend it for high occupancy vehicle lane. You can then if you want to build a new highway it's up to you to decide we trust you with the local level. And that's a breath of fresh air around here to trust somebody at the local level. What about the problem vegetation 20 percent of all of our young people in the United States don't even finish high school. Twenty percent almost 20 percent. At 30 that might concern you as well as California. What

about that Jim. As you may recall for eight years in the state senate I was a member of the Senate Education Committee vice chairman as a matter of fact I think probably for four years or so. An education has always been the number one issue with me I don't think there's anything more important. But I'm convinced of this. After that experience in the state legislature and coming back here Jim throwing more money at it is not going to work. What will work. We're going to have to do some very simple things but very difficult things. And one put the parent in charge. That's choice and school. If the parent is dissatisfied with little Johnny or little Mary said the quality of education permit the parent put him in charge let him pull him out of that school and put him in another. Also the local school board the local school district put them in charge by telling them federal government state government will

not mandate to you to come up with the curriculum at the local level that you think those kids need. Maybe it's mass science. Maybe it's vocational education and job training. Maybe it's cultural. But let them decide at the local level. I think parental involvement. In the prenup of the local school district let that energy work and I think we're going to turn it around. But talk about crime and sword in the other thing it was high on your agenda at least in the Senate. What about crime. And while I continue with the very high as they said we passed major kind of belief here for the first time we will have a death penalty that will work. What we did in that regard is in layman's language we put amendment in that said no matter how many times a person who's been convicted and standing on death row will appeal their conviction they get one time through the system just one time to make all the appeals they

want. One time through the system and that's it. And so we're going to get a real death penalty. I was able to get amendments in that crime bill more amendments than any member of the Senate. Those of course that sat on the Senate Judiciary Committee put the bill together the first place. When I was a kid go to prison. Which means if you use a good increase in crime you go to prison. I did that as a state senator when I was in the state legislature so now if we get this bill through it will become a federal law. As I said earlier a very important one that having to do with battered women syndrome. You know Jim today a woman will be taken into court and sometimes she can use battered women syndrome as a defense. Another courtroom she can't got to the minimum in the bill that killed the attorney general and the Department of Health and Human Services to work together to provide information to every courthouse in the land so that hopefully battered women syndrome which is the

vicious continual beating of a woman can be an appropriate defense for illegal aliens when they commit a crime. What about that. Well that was another moment that I got into the bill. I carried legislation as a state senator again that wanted to identify illegal aliens who had been convicted felon compared to convicted felons and those convicted felons where they served their time. My legislation said deport them. Send them back to their country of origin. And is that now a law that is not law that was not successful and very dead as a state senator. However I'm trying to do the same kinds of things here at the federal level in the United States Senate and I did get in there look into this crime bill that hopefully it will pass and then it will become law that says if you lose in the illegal alien the commission of the crime you could be fined up to $100000 would take $100000 and provide that money to the INS the INS then will

identify more of the illegal aliens who are convicted felons for deportation. You split with the Bush administration on extending jobless benefits for 20 weeks you voted in favor of a ministration with not in favor of that. Can you explain why you split with the administration on that. Well I split because California is suffering from the worst recession that I have seen in over 30 years that I've been privileged to live there for the first time. Unemployment rate is higher than the national average. And I like to see this thing turned around. I'd like to see us get over this credit crunch because I really think that's part of it. Tell me the other day when I was in California he said John what difference is it if the interest rate to zero if you can't get a loan. And I believe that there's been over regulation of the banks that we want to see them make bad loans no surgery. But there are many loans that could be made to

sound borrowers and get that economy rolled I think we're going to have to address this credit crunch and the debt extension the 20 week extension will help the 1 million people in California we're out of we're I think the new tellme help yes they do need some help on the other hand I am watching that bill very closely because it could. The Democrats are putting some amendments in that that could turn it into a budget buster and are not going to vote for any budget busters and the Bush administration wanted to drill and 87 track off San Luis Obispo County in Santa Barbara County I'm talking about offshore oil drilling. And you split with the administration on that one. In that you are opposed to any offshore oil drilling. And by the way that's a switcher Let's talk about this which your critics have said you switched your posture on that talk about the switch. Why did you switch. Well you recall they had that tragic disaster up in Alaska the Exxon Valdez spill and when that tragedy occurred I

backed off from my previous position said wait a minute you were that you then favored them. I said wait a minute this you don't have a lessee here. The message is that this valuable resource are our coastline is so valuable that you're going to have to have some trade off to one of the trade offs. What you feel like seeing jobs created in economic development. One trade off is oppose offshore drilling so at the time of that spill I decided that that would be my position. Since I've been back here I was successful in getting the women into the national energy strategy of the Bush administration which we passed out of the committee which I sit and remember very clearly said there shall be no drilling there shall be lowered exploration of oil off the coast of California until the next century. So you are sticking with that and that and that if you were talking to somebody who lived in

them and Sam was a bit bold or someone who lives in Santa Barbara you could say to them we're not going to have those 87 track develop. That's California first and that's what you're saying. But talk about environment the more one of the most vitriolic battle going on between the industry for example the lumber industry and the environmentalists over what should happen about the spotted owl and the environmental concerns that are out. How do you come down in that battle. Well the way I've been down on that one is the same with the Californian that Catcher in the Stevens kangaroo rat in the delta smelt them in to all of the species that are working their way or are on the endangered species list. And when I come down on our little GM is there's got to be a balance here. There's another endangered species called homo sapiens and I wonder just how how a war we will be able to continue to at not have a balance. I think there's room in our

California for the delta smelt as well as the homo sapiens. And so I'm looking for balance just as I have been working in successfully in the red gene issue in the Port of Oakland up in the Bay Area. The question there is saving the winter run of chinook salmon which is also on the endangered sea. Again that clash between the environmentalists and economy and the economy in this case the economy side of the equation was 100000 jobs four and a half billion dollars to that economy. Well I sat here in Washington D.C. and I got a hold of the Environmental Protection Agency. I'm in my office the Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Association they said look there's got to be a way you gentlemen get your head here there's got to be a way to protect the Chinook salmon and save a hundred thousand and they're doing it they're doing they are doing it and what about the lumber industry now what would you say to the guy that thought of a job in the lumber industry because he's worried about the clash over the spot about well

very quick what do you say when I'd say that that man's job is very important and that we need to find a way to accommodate the spotted owl. And at the same time preserve those jobs in the timber industry. It cannot be just one or the other. Another environmental question gets into your relationship with your Democratic colleague as the senator Senator Grantham has had some very strong ideas about preserving the southeastern part of the state the desert and would you call it a national preserve or a national park to preserve thousands hundreds of thousands of acres of California. Where do you stand on that. Well ations with Senator Graham is that I've been working very closely with Senator Kerry than to try to negotiate a desert protection plan is as we would call it. Creation of the national parks and setting aside do some land that we think should be preserved. And we've been working on that now for about six months. We've made some progress.

But Jim quite honestly we're still a ways away. Now we started off he was over here with wanting to set aside seven and a half million acres. To start I was over here wanting to set aside two and a half million acres. That's a law are always applied with the county. Yes. I can't share with you publicly right now but we have made some progress but we're still all ways away it's very very difficult. Are you dismayed or you have a lot of hope on solving it. I haven't lost hope but I lot is on that specific issue I'm not as optimistic as I was when I first went back you know we talk about the economy of California certain it's the central fact of life. I talk to a million 1.1 million people out of work in California and at the same time they count and the United States Senate voting itself with $23000 pay raises just recently. Let's talk

about that. Well how do you regard the disparity between those 1 million people out of work and the U.S. Senate raising its own pay $23000. And explain that it was just a lack of touch of reality of conduit. And again my experiences of being a small business with a local elected official in the state legislature before coming back here maybe it gives me a different feel. And I voted against that pay raise and in fact said that where when they give it to me I'm giving it back to the taxpayers because I just think it's unconscionable. With millions of people unemployed to grant yourself a 25 percent pay rate when you carry the balance your budget. Yes exactly and I mean if that becomes a criteria for running the board of directors of the Congress being our board of directors they haven't they haven't cut the mustard on that issue and the stockholders are going to get them. Well let's let's talk a bit about that. That you can view the whole

matter of the economics 1.3 trillion dollar budget. But in the norm it's an enormous national debt three point six trillion hard for a finite mind to even contemplate 3.6 million euro 3.6 trillion dollars national the interest on it. Three hundred forty five million billion a year. Billion. I keep on flipping from billion million to billion three hundred forty five billion a year to pay the interest on it. What about that. Well you're right in the matter of fact the interest of the debt that we will pay this year just the interest that we're paid him is greater than the entire budget. Personally the president by the name of John F. Kennedy. And that's how dramatic it is astonishing. I really think that the only way you control this desire to spin spin and spin and spin is to have a requirement. It says you must balance your budget. As long as

we here continue to spend more than we take in. We don't have the self-restraint in Congress to say no right now right now today on the Senate floor we will debating be debating it again I'm sure a peace dividend wanting to save some dollars which we all want to save by reducing the defense budget. But those that want to spend that they want to spend on all these programs. What I've talked about in the peace dividend is here when there is going to be a peace dividend there will be let's apply it to balance our budget. Let's apply it to reduce the deficit. You just can't just cut just as a businessman. I could not spare more that I took in just as a family you can't spend more than you take in or do that solo before you go bankrupt all the time where you're worrying and grappling with this agenda we've been talking about that you're looking over your shoulder because you have to mount a campaign 10 million to 15 million dollars

in 1902. What are your feelings about that. Of the tremendous pressure to mount a campaign at the same time you're trying to make and carry out this agenda for California. Well it's a big challenge. California 30 million people. It's a huge state gets bigger every time I go back to. And I go back a lot since January. I've been back to California every weekend but to. Be in. So that's part of the job. I think the campaign sure I would have campaigned hard I'm going to have to raise some unreasonable sums of money in order to do to wage an effective campaign but I really tell you that in my heart of hearts what if I do the job if I put California first. People take care of me that way they did when I was a mayor they took care of me as I took care of it when I was a state senator same thing. I believe that all of the things I want to ask a quick a quick question some of your critics have said you're

too. You're too moderate. You're not conservative enough. You want some kind of a bipolar fight between the conservative wing and the more moderate ring that didn't fight with Pete Wilson. And what about that both come to grips with that. Well you have people will say what they will of me I'm a problem solved. That's why I am the problem solver. You know when you're you know you've come out of local government you learn how to solve a little problem before you get to the big one and a problem solver on that note our time is almost up and I want to thank you Senator for your comments on current issues. This has been a special broadcast for public television with us Senator John Seymore Republican of California. I'm Jim Cooper. Thanks for being with us. Kiyoshi Ebe public affairs specials are made possible by Disneyland park

by the Peter and Mary Moody foundation. And by viewer support.