Cruz Bustamante

SACRAMENTO — On the day Cruz Bustamante became the first Latino Assembly speaker in California history, he responded with this characteristic burst of exuberance: “I guess it’s pretty obvious that I’m a very happy man.”

Moderate in both his politics and temperament, the Fresno assemblyman is a striking contrast to the last Democrat to hold the speaker’s job, the pyrotechnic Willie Brown. If Brown was the self-proclaimed “ayatollah of the Assembly,” Bustamante is more an acolyte, admittedly still learning as he goes along.

It has been a rough tutorial for Bustamante. The carping started soon after he assumed power and rose in vehemence as Sacramento slogged through the state’s second-longest budget stalemate ever. Bustamante is sensitive to his reputation for diffidence. “Critics call it wishy-washy,” he says. “I call it thoughtful.”

Avoiding extremes is a long-standing habit. Growing up in the Central Valley, Bustamante remembers feeling betwixt and between his Anglo pals in their surfer baggies and Latino chums in their black jeans and white T-shirts. So he declared his fashion independence by designing his own get-up--Army pants and desert boots.

Bustamante, 44, is the oldest of six children whose father worked three jobs in rural Dinuba to support the family. At age 19, Bustamante took his first trip away from home when he spent a summer as a congressional intern in Washington. His five brothers and sisters worked in the fields and mailed him a check each week.

Bustamante returned home to begin a succession of staff jobs for Central Valley lawmakers. He replaced his last boss, Assemblyman Bruce Bronzan, in a 1993 special election after Bronzan became associate dean of the UCSF Medical School.

Bustamante was elected Assembly speaker less than four years later, thanks to the purge resulting from term limits and a corresponding rise in Latino membership.

A lover of fine wines, he spent part of the Legislature’s abbreviated summer recess visiting the Napa Valley with his wife, Arcelia, and took a holiday (of sorts) with the youngest of his three children, touring Disneyland with 4-year-old Marisa.

****

Question: Grade yourself on your first year as speaker. What letter grade would you assign yourself?

Answer: I’d say a B-. I think I did pretty well. There’s always room for improvement. There were several things, looking back, I probably could have done better.

*

Q: What have you learned in the last nine or so months?

A: What I’ve learned is a little bit more about the tactics in the process of negotiations with the governor and the (Senate president) pro tem and the leadership of the other side of the aisle. . . . I felt I was sort of feeling my way through the first one. I probably will be more aggressive the second time through trying to put issues on the table and discuss them.

*

Q: When Gov. Wilson finally signed the state budget earlier this week, he vetoed $314 million, but promised to restore two-thirds of the cuts if lawmakers approve a student-testing plan to his liking. Now what?

A: The governor did make some cuts in the budget that appear to be highly partisan in nature and seem to focus on Democrats who are in marginal dis- tricts. . . . He makes something that we thought was bipartisan into something very partisan by using his blue pencil in a way that goes after members. I think it was unnecessary. I think he was ill-advised. It’s just going to make it more difficult for leadership to have people focus on the issue itself rather than what the governor did with his blue pencil.

*

Q: There’s a perception, to put it bluntly, that the Democrats in the Legislature got rolled by the governor. What’s your feeling?

A: Well, let me see. We got welfare reform, which I don’t think he was wedded to this year. We saved any kind of future funding losses from the education budget, which the Democrats held fast on. The Assembly did most of the work on the welfare-reform proposal. He didn’t get his tax cut. We got money for legal immigrants. We took care of student fees. We provided a safety net for children and seniors. We provided funds to protect the coast and we did that all in a situation in which we went from a “spend budget” to a “cut budget”. . . . I don’t think we got rolled.

*

Q: What’s your relationship like with Gov. Wilson? Do you like him? Do you trust him? Do you believe he’s someone who acts in good faith and whose word is good?

A: The governor doesn’t give his word often . . . so the question is to find a way for him to be forthcoming and clear and give his word. . . . We have a business relationship, I think a professional one, and obviously a political one. I’m trying to get to know the man more. I just haven’t been able to develop a personal relationship with him.

*

Q: What about (Senate President Pro Tem Bill) Lockyer? He’s had some things to say about you and your leadership of the Assembly that might be described as somewhat less than charitable or supportive.

A: I don’t know that I accept the premise. . . . I would say, first, that there is always competition between the Assembly and the Senate. . . . The Assembly is much more dynamic, there’s twice as many members with a lot less experience.

*

Q: Were there any moves on the budget on your part that were designed to send a message to Sen. Lockyer that the Assembly counts in this process, we matter?

A: We were equal partners in this process. . . . Nobody was pulling our weight, we were pulling our own. And we had to work overtime to get it done and to be credible. Could we have done better? Well, hell, you always think you can do better.

*

Q: It seems significant that the line-in-the-sand issue you chose to fight the budget battle over involved state benefits for legal migrants. How do you think this will play with the electorate at large? This is the state, after all, that voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 187.

A: There is a clear difference in most people’s mind between legal and illegal. . . . We, as Democrats, have always tried to be inclusive in our politics and, as a result, are always reaching out to many groups. . . . We’re going to continue to reach out to those immigrant groups who are here and are working and are legal and are attempting to become a part of this great state and this nation. As a result, on the political side, I think Democrats will be the beneficiaries for many years to come. . . . There are some people within my party who believe that the Republican Party is a dying party because they have no ability to reach out. They’ve left behind working people, they’ve left behind educators, they’ve left behind the immigrant population. . . . I also have to say this is a very personal issue for me. It’s about who I am and where I came from. This was about my grandparents. This was about many people within my community where I live and where I grew up. This is about people who come from all over the world and come here to work and are not on public assistance. People who pay their taxes . . . and like everyone else occasionally have a rough spot. . . . If we are unable to have compassion as Californians and as Americans for people who are working--and doing work that very few of us are willing to do--and we cannot give a helping hand to children and seniors, then I don’t know what we’ve come to.

*

Q: Next year, if the state’s good economic fortune continues, Gov. Wilson will surely come back again seeking a tax cut. What’s your priority going to be and where are the battle lines likely to be drawn?

A: I think the issue of education is not yet done. We have had two good years of education funding but are still well below average in per-pupil spending. . . . We should do something for local governments to assist them. . . . And then, if we have money left over and have paid all our bills, absolutely, we should look at a modest tax credit for the middle class. The problem with the governor’s proposal wasn’t that it was a middle-class tax cut and Democrats were opposed to it. On the contrary. . . . but we feel strongly that the first thing we need to do is put our state back on track now that we have a few extra dollars. . . . We also should provide for the kind of job creation that we all recognize is absolutely essential if welfare reform is going to work.

*

Q: Do you think Gov. Wilson is positioning himself to run for president again in 2000 and, if so, how is that affecting his relationship with Democrats in the Legislature?

A: The governor and I don’t have a close enough relationship that he trusts me to explain what he’s going to do with his future. . . . I think he’s trying to leave a legacy of some kind. . . . I think his legacy ought to be, we’re going to leave the state in better financial shape, and our children are going to have a better education than when we got here.

*

Q: Some of your fellow Democrats have criticized your legislation that removed any legal doubt over California’s ability to join the multi-state lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Some see you as having, in effect, let [Atty. Gen. Dan] Lungren off the hook and taken that potential issue away from Democrats in the governor’s race.

A: I don’t know what those people have been smoking. My bill basically highlighted the fact the attorney general was not going to do what we believed was already available under the law. . . . The attorney general said he needed some clarification. Well, if that was the case, it was our duty in the Legislature to, in fact, give him the clarification. I don’t think it took him off the hook. I think it put him on the hook.

*

Q: What’s happened in California to spawn this emerging generation of Latino political leadership, the Bustamantes and [Assembly Majority Leader Antonio] Villaraigosas?

A: It’s not something that’s just magically appeared. It’s been a long process with more and more people involved, trial and error, making mistakes and making adjustments. Also, part of it has to be attributed to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and other kinds of federal legislation that have promoted more activity and encouragement for more people to become more involved. To put it succinctly. . . . 30 years of hard work has led to this overnight success.

*

Q: Are you confident you have and will continue to have the 41 votes you need to remain speaker through the end of your current term next year?

A: I always hope so. I work on that assumption. Obviously, any time 41 members get together and decide they want a new leader, that’s the way the rules are. There’s no term for speaker. It is something that could be done at any time. You always have to prepare philosophically for that to take place. If it were to end for me soon, I would look back on this year and feel good about my efforts . . . about the integrity of the house. . . . And I would try to take it, not lying down, but philosophically.

*

Q: Are you picking up any rumblings to the effect that a move for a change of leadership is out there?

A: Since the first week that I became speaker, yes.

*

Q: And that has not abated?

A: It happens no matter who the speaker is. There are many people in the Assembly and they all have their ideas of how things should be done. . . . There were rumors I wouldn’t last the first week, the first month, the first budget. I hope that people recognize that I have tried sincerely to do a good job. I’ve worked very, very hard and I hope people recognize that hard work. And, hopefully, that will carry me as long as they continue to believe that.