Editing 79-11-B6 (section)

=== Transcript ===
Let me start this commentary by stating a personal position I take on freedom of speech
and press. I believe a free press is essential to liberty. I believe we all have the right
to express our opinions and beliefs so long as we don't incite riot, advocate violent
overthrow of the government or impose on the rights of others. By that latter phrase I mean
that freedom of speech shouldn't be taken to mean we have the right to shout our opinions
under someone's bedroom window at 3 a.m. or shout down a speaker who is expressing his.

But there is another qualifier on free speech -- call it a restriction if you will.
Does freedom of speech mean we must guarantee an audience to anyone who wants to express
an opinion? Personally I don't think so. Do you?

Now all of this brings me to the point of expressing opinions to elected officials.
We can and do write to our state legislators, our representatives and senators, to governors
and to the President of the United States. But should a very busy congressional committee
inviting testimony to aid it in recommending legislation have to listen to everyone who
wants to express an opinion if they have no expert knowledge of the topic in question?
For that matter, should the committee feel bound to invite testimony from special
interest groups which could do as the rest of us do and write the committee a letter? I
bring this up because a while back Ralph Nader appeared before a sub-committee of the House
Interior committee. If a John Doe citizen had written a letter to the committee advocating
the same action Nadar recommended I have a hunch his letter would have ended up in the
wastebasket and a secretary would have sent him routine form letter Number 11.

Nadar's pitch to the Congressmen was that Congress should scrap the 92 nuclear power
plants presently under construction and the 70 plants already in operation producing the
electricity we need. He waved off the billions of dollars this would cost as "a cheap
price to pay compared to alternative risks," and added that the whole process should only
take two to three years.

A man who is far better qualified to speak on this subject than Ralph Nader, Arthur
Spitzer, for whom the Chair of Energy and Management at Pepperdine University is named,
evaluated Ralph's testimony. He said: "It is easy for Ralphy Nader to preach that he
would rather live by candlelight instead of nuclear energy . Since he makes a living with
this kind of preaching and he knows it will never happen, he can easily preach this kind
of nonsense."

All of us are aware that there are risks and changes inherent in nuclear power and
we want the utmost in protective measures. We also look both ways before we cross a
street. In short common sense is called for.

To put things in focus, Dr. Alvin Weinberg of Oak Ridge brought a Geiger counter to
a committee room of the U.S. Senate . It registered higher radioactivity than escaped at
Three Mile Island. The radioactivity comes from the granite building stones -- just as
we get radioactivity from sunshine or burning coal.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">