Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1534779",
    "label": "1975/09/16 - President, Vice President and Jim Lynn",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534779"
}

{
    "id": "1534779",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534779",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1975/09/16 - President, Vice President and Jim Lynn",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534779",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Meetings Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "President (1974-1977 : Ford). Office of Science and Technology Policy. (5/11/1976 - 1/20/1977)",
        "Health",
        "Legislation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534779.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534779.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534779.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534779",
    "naId": 1534779,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-09-30",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-09-01",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534779.pdf",
    "mediaId": "93b0130aab1bbfa5",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 51, folder \"1975/09/16 - President, Vice\nPresident and Jim Lynn\" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential\nLibrary.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 51 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nMEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT\nVICE PRESIDENT AND MR. LYNN\nTuesday, September 16, 1975\n2:30 p.m.\nOval Office\nTHE VICE PRESIDENT\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 10, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nTHE VICE PRESIDENT har\nFROM:\nSUBJECT:\nPublic Forums on\nDomestic Policy\nAttached is the plan for conducting the Public\nForums on Domestic Policy, administered by the Domestic\nCouncil. The plan proposes:\nOne-day meetings in six cities with specific dates\nand locations listed. (Four. additional cities\noptional.)\nAt each Forum, a three-hour morning session would\nbe held with the Vice President chairing. Following\nthe morning session, the participants would divide\ninto four groups along the following major policy\nareas:\nSocial Programs\nJobs and the Economy\nResources and the Environment\nCommunity Development, Transportation,\nand Housing\nTestimony from solicited persons representing a\nbroad cross-section of opinion and interests.\nThe Forums be announced by the President and the\nVice President following a Domestic Council meeting\nduring the week of September 22.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 10, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nVICE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJAMES M. CANNON\nSUBJECT:\nPublic Forums on Domestic\nPolicy\nI.\nOBJECTIVES\nTo conduct a series of six or more meetings, geograph-\nically distributed, to:\nOutline what the nation is facing with regard\nto Domestic Programs;\nObtain public input in the development of\nPresidential options;\nAssist the President in formulating his legis-\nlative recommendations and initiatives to the\nCongress in the 1975 State of the Union message.\nII. FORUM FORMAT\nEach Forum will be a one-day meeting, consisting of\nthe following elements:\nA. A morning session of approximately three hours\nwould be chaired by the Vice President with\nCabinet members and other Federal officials\nparticipating. The Vice President would open\nwith introductions and brief remarks. The\nbalance of the morning would be divided into\ntime for a discussion of four major domestic\npolicy areas. Two or three witnesses would be\nasked to present five-minute testimony on issues\nrelating to social programs, the economy,\nresources, and subjects of interest to the area\nsuch as housing, transportation, etc. Following\nthe presentation of testimony for each segment,\nthe witnesses could be questioned by the Vice\nPresident and Federal officials. A portion of\nthe time could also be made available for public\nparticipation.\n- 2 -\nB. Following the morning session, four separate,\nsimultaneous meetings would be held to continue\nthe discussion of the four major policy areas.\nThese would involve:\n1. A Cabinet level official would serve as\nchairman and would be backed up by rep-\nsentatives from appropriate Federal\nagencies, including the Domestic Council.\n2. Selected individuals, representing a\ncross section of interests and opinion,\nwould present testimony on pre-determined\nsubjects. Each witness would be allowed\nup to five minutes for testimony, or to\nsummarize a more comprehensive statement.\n3. Total seating for each of the four meetings\nwill be approximately 125 persons. Fifty\nto seventy-five seats will be reserved for\nthe witnesses and support personnel; the\nremainder will be available to the general\npublic on a first-come, first-served basis.\n4. Vice President will rotate among the four\nmeetings, dividing his time equally.\n5. Opportunity for submission of written\nstatements from the public.\n6. An informal buffet luncheon for the Federal\nofficials, invited participants, and\nselected State and local officials, hosted\nby the Cabinet member who would be serving\nas chairman, could begin the afternoon\nsessions.\nIII. DATES AND LOCATIONS\nTuesday, October 21\nDenver, Colorado*\nTuesday, October 28\nKansas City, Mo. *\nTuesday, November 11\nAustin, Texas\nTuesday, November 18\nPhiladelphia, Pa. *\nMonday, December 1\nNashville, Tennessee\nTuesday, December 9\nLos Angeles or\nSacramento, California\n* Locations of Federal Regional Offices\n- 3 -\nPossible additional cities (dates not currently\navailable in Vice President's schedule):\nTampa/St. Petersburg, Florida\nSpringfield, Illinois\nHartford, Connecticut\nAlbuquerque, New Mexico\nNOTE:\nThe Vice President should not be scheduled to\nparticipate in any political activities in conjunction\nwith the Forums.\nIV. CONFERENCE ISSUES\nThe Forums will focus on four major domestic policy\nareas:\nSocial Programs (welfare, health, etc.)\nJobs and the Economy (manpower programs,\ninflation, etc.)\nResources and the Environment (raw materials,\nagriculture, etc.)\nCommunity Development, Transportation, and\nHousing\nThe issues could vary according to regional interests.\nUnder each general policy area specific issues will\nreceive focus through the scheduling of witnesses.\nFor example, welfare reform can be a discussion issue\nthrough scheduling witnesses concerned with that\nsubject for a block of time; the same with health\ncare, etc.\nV. PARTICIPANT SELECTION (WITNESSES)\nParticipants will be selected from recommendations\nreceived from: State and local officials; labor,\nbusiness, consumer groups and similar key constit-\nuencies; local Federal officials (Regional Offices) ;\nWhite House lists. Congressional recommendations,\nthough not solicited, will also be considered.\nA limited number of witnesses will come from State\nand local governments in the region covered by each\nForum.\nMembers of Congress from the region covered by the\nForum will be briefed on the purpose and plans of the\nForum by the Congressional Liaison office. Although\nnot specifically invited to the Forum, Members will\nbe welcome to attend, as observers, and will receive\nappropriate introductions.\n- 4 -\nVI. ANNOUNCEMENT STRATEGY\nA. During the week of September 22, the Congressional\nleadership should be briefed at a session with the\nPresident.\nB. During the same week, the President would call\na meeting of the Domestic Council, at which time\nhe describes the program. Immediately following\nthe meeting, the President and Vice President\nshould adjourn to the press room. The President\nwould announce his decision to direct that the\nhearings be held. The Vice President would brief\nthe press about the purpose and scope of the\nhearings.\nC. It is important that a distinction be made between\nthe Public Forums on Domestic Policy and the White\nHouse Conferences on Domestic and Economic Policy.\nIn order to avoid confusion, it is recommended\nthat the White House conferences be suspended\nduring the period when the Forums are scheduled.\nD. Cooperation from the departments and agencies\nrepresented on the Domestic Council to provide\npersonnel and financial resources for these\nForums is essential. It will be necessary to\nutilize Regional Office personnel in the cities\nwhere the Forums will be held.\nCV\ntreep for New\nSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY APPARATUS\nSummary\nHouse. Teague Mosher bill introduced on July 30\nwas scheduled for markup on September 8 but this\nhas been delayed until October 8 because of Teague's\nillness and press of other business. It's conceivable\nthat the Committee could take it up on September 24\nif we considered it important and the President or\nVice President wished to telephone Teague and Mosher\nto urge prompt action. Even if we do not want to\npress for earlier action, a call from the Vice\nPresident would be helpful to keep attention focused.\nI have reviewed the bill with Drs. Stever, Mark,\nRamo and Baker and staff of OMB, NSC and the Vice\nPresident's office and met with Phil Yeager for a\npreliminary staff level discussion of the bill. My\nassessment is that the Administration could live\nwith the bill as now written, if necessary, but\nthat we can and should work to get some changes\ndiscussed below.\nSenate. Staff of the three Committees with\njurisdiction (Commerce, Aeronautical and Space\nSciences, Labor & Welfare) are meeting but have not\nagreed on a course of action. Probably will not act\nuntil the House completes action. Commerce and Moss\nCommittee are likely to favor prompt action, largely\naccepting House bill. Kennedy may want to press for\nhearings and for expansion of the bill.\nDetails\nThe new Teague-Mosher bill (H.R. 9058) has three principal\ntitles:\nTitle I - declares a national policy on science\nand technology.\nTitle II - creates an Office of Science and Technology\npolicy as proposed by the President, with three\nexceptions.\n- 2 -\nThe Director would be subject to Senate\nconfirmation.\nThe President would have the discretion of\nappointing up to four assistant directors.\n(This is designed to allow this and succeeding\npresidents to structure the office as they\nprefer; e.g., Director and a deputy; a 3 or\n5-man council)\nThe functions of the office are spelled out\nin more detail.\nTitle III - calls for appointment by the President\nof a Committee of 5 to 12 members for a full survey\nof Federal science and technology policies, program\nand organization and submission of a report within\n15 months to the President and the Congress.\nAssessment\nTitle I:\n-\nIt is undesirable to have a science and technology\npolicy in law but, with a few changes it will be a\nrather harmless statement.\nThe House Committee will insist on having a\npolicy statement.\nTitle II. We should:\n-\nAccept the idea of Senate confirmation for the\nDirector.\n- Accept the idea of discretionary authority for\nappointing as many as four assistant directors\nat Level III.\n- Accept the idea of great specificity of functions\nbut seek wording changes to avoid too much\nspecificity (e.g., on role in budget formulation).\nTitle III.\n-\nAs a preferred option, we should favor deletion\nof the Survey Committee but recognize that the\nTeague Committee will insist on its retention.\n-\nAs a fall back position, seek changes which make\nthe Survey Committee less independent and duplica-\ntive; specifically:\nall the Director of OSTP to serve also as\nchairman of the Survey Committee.\nhave the Committee report to the President and\ngive him time to evaluate the report before\ntransmitting it with recommendations to the Congress.\nclarify its scope.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 15, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON\nSUBJECT:\nAdministration Position on Federal\nRole in Health Professions Education\nThis is to present for your decision the issue of the\nFederal role in the education of health professionals.\nThe position of the Administration needs to be decided\nbefore HEW testifies tomorrow before the Senate. Attached\nat Tab A is a memorandum from Jim Lynn and at Tab B a\nmemorandum from Secretary Mathews presenting the position\nof each.\nISSUE\nThe broad issue is how to approach the problems of geographic\nand specialty maldistribution of health professionals.\nThe issue focuses in particular on the question: Should the\nAdministration propose to continue Federal formula grant\nsupport (capitation) limited to medical and dental schools?\nA related matter is also brought to your attention: Should\nthe Administration propose a new student loan program for\nmedical and dental students? This issue is not pressing\nand can await, if you so decide, further development of the\nspecific proposals before a position is taken.\nBACKGROUND\nYour '76 budget proposes:\n-- an elimination of construction grants for medical\nschools\n--- a gradual four year phase-out of capitation grants\n-- an increase in special project grants\n-- an expansion of medical student scholarship assistance\ntied to repayment through Federal service\n- 2 -\nThese are proposals which have been advocated by the Admin-\nistration for the last three years. Congress has shown no\ninclination to accept this approach. On two previous occasions\nyou have decided to maintain this Administration stance.\nHEW argues that the only way the Administration can play a\nrole in shaping the legislation currently moving on the Hill\nis to recognize that some capitation program will evolve and\nto work toward developing a compromise measure.\nA. Capitation Issue\nShould the Administration proposed to continue capitation\ngrants but only for medical and dental schools?\n-- Administration would maintain position that capitation\nfor pharmacists, veterinarians, optometrists and\npodiatrists should be phased out.\nArguments for Capitation\n1. Capitation, as proposed by HEW, would be provided only\nto those medical and dental schools agreeing to the\nnational goals of:\n-- maintaining enrollment levels,\n-- increasing output of primary health care skills,\n-- improving a geographic distribution of graduates.\n2. Restricting capitation to medical and dental schools\nwould permit reductions in Federal funding while allowing\ntargeting on those schools whose training is the longest,\nmost expensive, and least responsive to normal market\nforces.\n3. Capitation would help assure that tuition charges do\nnot rise to levels that would discourage low and middle\nincome students from seeking medical and dental careers.\nArguments for Maintaining Opposition to any Capitation\n1. Health profession students should not be singled out\nfor capitation grant subsidies not available in other\nfields of higher education, especially in view of health\nprofessionals' substantially higher career income prospects.\n- 3 -\n2. Capitation subsidies, as formula allocations, do not\nfocus Federal assistance on program merit or financial\nneed.\n0. The proposed phase-out of capitation would only require\ntuition increases of $400 annually over the next four\nyears, if schools seek to replace the capitation re-\nduction with tuition increases.\n4. A limited Federal role is appropriate because -- while\nthere is consensus on the existence of maldistribution --\nthere is no agreement on its extent or on the ways to\naddress the problem.\nB. Student Assistance Issue\nShould the Administration propose a new loan program for\nmedical and dental students? Such a loan program would\nbe funded \"off-the-budget.\" Loan repayment would be\nmade over a 20-year period based upon professional\nincome.\nArguments for a New Loan Program\n1. Estimated total 4-year costs -- including living\nexpenses -- to medical and dental students are between\n$30,000 and $40,000. Medical and dental students need\nadditional sources of financing for these costs.\n2. The current Federal guaranteed student loan program\nis inadequate not simply because the loan guarantee\nlimit of $10,000 is too low, but also because banks\nare unwilling to consistently make individual loans\nto students of $30,000 to $40,000. Repayment pressures\nmay lead graduates into high paying specialties rather\nthan primary care.\nArguments Against a New Loan Program\n1. While an income-related loan program may be a good\nidea, the specifics of such a proposal should be\nfully worked out before the Administration makes a\ncommitment to it.\n- 4 -\n2. Congress and the Administration have generally opposed\noff-the-budget financing of Federal programs.\n3. No current evidence supports a conclusion that there\nis a significant number of medical or dental students\nor applicants foregoing an education because of inability\nto obtain financing.\n4. Federal scholarship student assistance should be tied\nto a service commitment. For other students who seek\nFederal support, but do not wish to commit themselves\nto meeting Federal objectives, assistance should be\nlimited to Federal loan guarantees.\n5. An income-related loan repayment program is a complex\nissue with implications for the Federal responsibility\nin higher education generally and therefore should not\nbe considered apart from other HEW higher education\nloan proposals.\nRECOMMENDATIONS\nOMB is arguing that capitation should continue to be phased\nout and that the needs of medical students should be considered\nas part of the overall Federal approach to higher education\nstudent loan programs.\nSecretary Mathews maintains that Congress will continue\ncapitation programs and therefore if we persist in our\ncurrent position, we will play no role in the eventual\noutcome which is likely to be an extension or expansion\nof the existing program.\nI believe that given the history of Congressional action on\nthe Administration's position we should seek the most\neffective use of capitation and therefore I recommend\nsupport of HEW's capitation proposal.\nAction on the student assistance recommendations should\nawait further development of specific elements of the\nvarious proposals.\n- 5 -\nDECISION\nCapitation Subsidies\nOption 1: Continue capitation for medical and dental\nschools that agree to participate in geographic\nand specialty distribution initiatives.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\n(Cannon, Mathews,\nBuchen)\nOption 2: Phase-out capitation subsidies over a 4-year\nperiod. Meet geographic and specialty mal-\ndistribution through special projects and\nscholarships.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\n(Lynn, Friedersdorf,\nGreenspan)\nStudent Assistance\nOption 1: Establish a new off-the-budget loan program\nfor medical and dental students.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\n(Mathews)\nOption 2:\nConsider a new income-related loan repayment program\nas part of a comprehensive review of Federal\neducation loan programs in the context of\ndeveloping the 1977 budget.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\n(Cannon, Lynn, Buchen,\nFriedersdorf, Greenspan)\nTHE VICE PRESIDENT\nWASHINGTON\nAGENDA FOR THE\nMEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT\nTuesday, September 16, 1975\n1. Impressions from the London trip\n2. Energy Independence Authority, and the Importance\nof its Relationship to\n-- jobs;\n-- stimulating the economy.\n3. CIA - Jim Connor's request to prepare a final TAB A\ndecision memo on Presidential actions\nrelating to the intelligence community;\n4. Office of Science and Technology Policy\nTAB B\n5. Domestic Council Hearings\n-- anticipating a major overhaul of\nsocial programs, that will enable\nthe nation to meet human needs on a\nbasis of fiscal integrity,\n-- while eliminating red-tape\nand bureaucratic repetition;\n- 2 -\n6. Bicentennial Speech Ideas\n-- idea for a series of Presidential\nTAB C\nBicentennial speeches on key subjects,\nthat could ultimately be published in\nbook form sometime next year;\n-- a sample speech -- on \"The Role of\nTAB D\nPhilanthropy in Our History\"\nU\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1975\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nJIM LYNN\nFROM:\nJIM CONNOR Jrl\nSUBJECT:\nAdministration Position on Federal Role\nin Health Professions Education\nThe President reviewed the recommendations submitted to him\nyesterday on the above subject and approved the following:\nCapitation Subsidies\nOption 1: Continue capitation for medical and dental\nschools that agree to participate in\ngeographic and specialty distribution\ninitiatives.\nStudent Assistance\nOption 2: Consider a new income-related loan repayment\nprogram as part of a comprehensive review of\nFederal education loan programs in the context\nof developing the 1977 budget.\nPlease follow-up with appropriate action.\ncc: Don Rumsfeld\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 16, 1975\nWEEKLY DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES REPORT\nFOR THE PRESIDENT\n1.\nDomestic Council Hearings\nWe are making arrangements for the Domestic Council\nhearings and believe it is time for you to make a\nformal announcement to the White House Press Corps.\nWe understand you plan to discuss the hearings at\ntomorrow's Cabinet meeting and express your desire\nto have members of the Cabinet participate personally\nin the hearings. We also think it would be appropriate\nif you would go down to the Press Briefing Room after\nthe Cabinet meeting to announce the hearings and ask\nthe Vice President to describe what they are designed\nto achieve.\n2.\nKey Facts on Domestic Issues\nWe have our staff at work developing draft positions,\nbased on your statements, on some 60 domestic issues,\nfrom busing to welfare reform. Once the drafts are\ncomplete, we will circulate them to your senior staff\nfor their review and then to you for your approval.\nThe purpose is to provide your senior staff and\nmembers of the Cabinet with a ready reference on your\npositions on issues for their review prior to their\npress conferences and public appearances. Once we\ncomplete this set of positions, we will continue to\nupdate them and to add new items as issues develop.\n3.\nOffice of Science and Technology\nThe Teague-Mosher Bill as introduced on July 30 will\nprobably be marked up October 8. We probably could\nlive with the bill as now drafted it necessary, but\nwe are working to get some changes. The Senate's\n2\nposture at this point is to wait until the House\ncompletes action before moving. Senators Moss and\nMagnuson say they want prompt action and will\nprobably accept most of the House bill. Kennedy\nmay press for public hearings and expansion of the\nHouse bill.\n4.\nDevelopment of State of the Union Options\nOur meetings with members of the Cabinet to solicit\ntheir ideas and views for next year are producing\nsome warmed-over ideas, but some new suggestions.\nWe met last week with the Attorney General and\nSecretary Mathews. We meet this week with Secretary\nHills and next week with Secretary Simon. That leaves\nfive to go--FEA, CEA, CEQ, VA, and ACTION.\n5.\nAuto Emissions\nBill Seidman and I met individually with representatives\nof the auto companies to get their views on suspending\ntighter controls. In brief:\na. An early decision by Congress is quite important\nto all four.\nb. A two-year suspension would be of marginal benefit\nto GM and Ford, because both have already made\nmajor investments in developing ways to reach\nthe standards for the 1977 and 1978 model years.\nBut American Motors is so hard pressed that any\nsuspension would help them.\nC. All made a good case that a three-year suspension\nis sound economically and environmentally.\nd. Several suggested a new approach: That Congress\nnot legislate arbitrary mandatory standards, but\ndirect that emission standards be set annually,\nfour or five years in advance, by a group of\ngovernment agencies that might include FEA, EPA,\nHEW and the National Science Foundation. Congress,\nunder their plan, would retain veto power over the\nresults.\n3\n6.\nBusing\nSenator Henry Bellmon has suggested to Dick Parsons\nand me that the Administration create a small\ninformation unit of Justice and HEW officials who\ncould, upon request, inform a school board or a\nFederal judge about ways other school districts have\nused to bring about an orderly desegregation of a\nschool system. Bellmon's idea came from the\nexperience of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, one of which\ndesegregated with few problems, the other with big\nproblems. Bellmon believes that many judges and\nschool officials are inexperienced and have no place\nto go to find out how other school districts made it\nwork.\nIf you feel Bellmon's idea could be helpful, I will\ntake it up with the Attorney General and Secretary\nMathews.\n7.\nSouthern Governors\nBoth Senator Mansfield and Al Ullman made a poor\nimpression on most of the 15 Southern governors.\nMansfield expressed great pessimism about the free\nenterprise system being able to meet problems, and\nUllman made a speech SO partisan as to be embarrasing\nto most of his fellow Democrats.\nSeveral Democratic governors mentioned to me later\nthat, with the present Congressional leadership, they\nhave little hope that Congress will do anything about\nenergy or the economy.\ntime\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nWMY\nSeptember 16, 1975\nWEEKLY DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES REPORT\nFOR THE PRESIDENT\n1.\nDomestic Council Hearings\nWe are making arrangements for the Domestic Council\nhearings and believe it is time for you to make a\nformal announcement to the White House Press Corps.\nWe understand you plan to discuss the hearings at\ntomorrow's Cabinet meeting and express your desire\nto have members of the Cabinet participate personally\nin the hearings. We also think it would be appropriate\nif you would go down to the Press Briefing Room after\nthe Cabinet meeting to announce the hearings and ask\nthe Vice President to describe what they are designed\nto achieve.\n2.\nKey Facts on Domestic Issues\nWe have our staff at work developing draft positions,\nbased on your statements, on some 60 domestic issues,\nfrom busing to welfare reform. Once the drafts are\ncomplete, we will circulate them to your senior staff\nfor their review and then to you for your approval.\nThe purpose is to provide your senior staff and\nmembers of the Cabinet with a ready reference on your\npositions on issues for their review prior to their\npress conferences and public appearances. Once we\ncomplete this set of positions, we will continue to\nupdate them and to add new items as issues develop.\n3.\nOffice of Science and Technology\nThe Teague-Mosher Bill as introduced on July 30 will\nprobably be marked up October 8. We probably could\nlive with the bill as now drafted it necessary, but\nwe are working to get some changes. The Senate's\n2\nposture at this point is to wait until the House\ncompletes action before moving. Senators Moss and\nMagnuson say they want prompt action and will\nprobably accept most of the House bill. Kennedy\nmay press for public hearings and expansion of the\nHouse bill.\n4.\nDevelopment of State of the Union Options\nOur meetings with members of the Cabinet to solicit\ntheir ideas and views for next year are producing\nsome warmed-over ideas, but some new suggestions.\nWe met last week with the Attorney General and\nSecretary Mathews. We meet this week with Secretary\nHills and next week with Secretary Simon. That leaves\nfive to go--FEA, CEA, CEQ, VA, and ACTION.\n5.\nAuto Emissions\nBill Seidman and I met individually with representatives\nof the auto companies to get their views on suspending\ntighter controls. In brief:\na. An early decision by Congress is quite important\nto all four.\nb. A two-year suspension would be of marginal benefit\nto GM and Ford, because both have already made\nmajor investments in developing ways to reach\nthe standards for the 1977 and 1978 model years.\nBut American Motors is so hard pressed that any\nsuspension would help them.\nC. All made a good case that a three-year suspension\nis sound economically and environmentally.\nd\ngood\nSeveral suggested a new approach: That Congress\nnot legislate arbitrary mandatory standards, but\ndirect that emission standards be set annually,\nfour or five years in advance, by a group of\ngovernment agencies that might include FEA, EPA,\nHEW and the National Science Foundation. Congress,\nunder their plan, would retain veto power over the\nresults.\nBy Fuding\nunput be an\n6.\nBusing\naffinvation cone coned put thing together\nSenator Henry Bellmon has suggested to Dick Parsons\nand me that the Administration create a small\ninformation unit of Justice and HEW officials who\nWatch\ncould, upon request, inform a school board or a\nFederal judge about ways other school districts have\nused to bring about an orderly desegregation of a\nschool system. Bellmon's idea came from the\nwr\nexperience of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, one of which\nGoldarni\ndesegregated with few problems, the other with big\nproblems. Bellmon believes that many judges and\nschool officials are inexperienced and have no place\nto go to find out how other school districts made it\nwork.\nidea\nIf you feel Bellmon's idea could be helpful, I will\ntake it up with the Attorney General and Secretary\nMathews.\n7.\nSouthern Governors\nBoth Senator Mansfield and Al Ullman made a poor\nimpression on most of the 15 Southern governors.\nMansfield expressed great pessimism about the free\nenterprise system being able to meet problems, and\nUllman made a speech SO partisan as to be embarrasing\nto most of his fellow Democrats.\nSeveral Democratic governors mentioned to me later\nthat, with the present Congressional leadership, they\nhave little hope that Congress will do anything about\nenergy or the economy.\nBui Taylor\nBoh Stranes\nK can Bo Callaway-\n[9/16/75]\na\nHeary 1 go Though\nstep m. ibp\nHow\n5 purk woll out\nfoor - strup\nstudent\nages\nfeual - has how\nin\nNP- Soulway.\nRep Ree - prittaing altemater up an\nWhat D Congun\ndoesnt do.\nGERALD FORD\n6 - Nota Dad isea\nGolburn\nnon of cant\nwe Sach Scole.\nAsh Coul + Un\nfood out if used\nIf not, why.\nCongreen wjut to Sun Juidelvies\nCamb. of Ballicor Each\n4\nSuch - law who effect\nOn I Beston\n,\nFORDO & LIBRARY\nCount oresnt To bollow\nScentehies congum Laid down\nFORD & BERRED LIBRARY"
}