Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box 7, folder "Commerce (2)" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 7 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 4, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP BUCHEN
JOHN O. MARSH
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JAMES M. CANNON
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
SUBJECT:
Arab Boycott
A attached. memora ndum for the President on the Arab Boycott issue is
I would appreciate your comments and recommendations on this
memorandum by 3:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 5, 1976.
FORD i LIBRARI
MEMORANDUM FOR:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
FROM:
JAMES CANNON
SUBJECT:
Arab Boycott
I support Option 1.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 5, 1976
Optm 1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
The attached memorandum deals with the general issue Jr
PAUL LEACH
Parl
SUBJECT:
ARAB BOYCOTT
or not to support any new proposed anti-Arab Boycott legislation.
The specific issue involves whether or not to support a
"compromise" on the "Stevenson Bill" which would have three
main effects:
1. It would require disclosure of boycott request compliance
reports submitted to the Commerce Department by U.S. firms,
on the grounds that the Export Administration Act declares
it to be the policy of the U.S. to oppose boycotts;
2. It would bar religious, racial, ethnic, or sex discrim-
ination by U.S. exporters;
3. It would prohibit refusals by U.S. firms to do business
with other firms pursuant to foreign boycott requests.
I am not particularly well-versed on this matter and the
decision memorandum is not fully illuminating. However, based
on what I know and can glean from this memorandum, I would
support Option 1, i.e., oppose any legislation.
GERALD R. FORD
CONFIDENTIAL
DECLASSIFIED
E.O. 12958, Sec. 3.5
THE WHITE HOUSE
NSC By WHEN Memo, 11/24/98, State Dept. Guidelines
WASHINGTON
,
NARA,
Date
5/15/00
FORD LIBRARY & CERALD
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
BRENT SCOWCROFT
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
SUBJECT:
Arab Boycott and Related Discrimination
The decisions announced in your statement of November 20, 1975
on the related issues of the Arab boycott and religious dis-
crimination have been implemented. The Federal Reserve Board
has issued a letter to member banks outlining their obligations
with respect to Arab boycott and discrimination measures. The
Justice Department has filed a civil anti-trust suit charging
the Bechtel Corporation with refusing to deal with any U.S.
sub-contractors on the Arab League boycott list and requiring
its sub-contractors, in turn, not to deal with U.S. firms on
the boycott list. The Department of Commerce has decided to
release publicly letters charging United States firms with a
violation of its regulations pertaining to the Arab boycott.
The Department of Commerce has also ceased circulating tender
offers requesting bids on projects from American firms if they
contain a request to comply with the boycott.
In addition, several state governments have adopted laws on
the boycott issue, some of which go well beyond the policy
guidelines approved by you. We have also engaged in extensive
discussions with Arab Governments and Israel on the entire
question, including numerous exchanges through diplomatic
channels and during Secretary Simon's March trip to the Middle
East. Secretary Simon in his discussions with both Arab and
Israeli leaders distinguished between the boycott and reli-
gious discrimination. He stated clearly that you desired an
end to the boycott and that you felt that the only effective,
peaceful way to end the boycott was to resolve the Arab-Israeli
conflict. He also stated that we would oppose legislation
directed to the boycott.
The cumulative effect of these actions has been mixed. The
Arab Governments, as well as American businesses, appear to
understand and accept the anti-discrimination aspect of our
policy. Saudi Arabia has taken steps to distinguish between
religious discrimination and its political attitude toward
Israel, and to ease somewhat the process of obtaining visas
for persons of the Jewish faith, even though some problems
CONF IDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
FORD
-2-
remain.
There have also been several specific indications of greater
flexibility in the application of boycott regulations and
some firms have been or soon will be removed from the list.
Yet, there has also been some disruption of United States
commercial dealings with the Arab world, primarily due to
reluctance by American firms to risk possible legal action.
Arab Governments, to varying degrees, have resented our boy-
cott related actions, although thus far they are generally
cooperating in quiet, gradual efforts to minimize difficul-
ties. Despite this quiet cooperation, high-level Arab leaders
(particularly in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) indicate they are
prepared to retaliate commercially against United States busi-
ness if we continue to apply what they view as unwarranted
public pressure.
This memorandum seeks your guidance on the Administration's
position on several pieces of pending legislation dealing with
various aspects of the boycott/discrimination issue, all of
which would, to various degrees, move the United States into
a considerably tougher anti-boycott position than embodied in
your November 20 statement. A summary of all the pending bills
is attached at Tab A.
Stevenson Bill
The bill requiring the urgent formulation of an Administration
position is an amendment to the Export Administration Act pro-
posed by Senators Stevenson and Williams and a similar bill
introduced in the House by Representative Koch.
The proposed legislation would have three main effects:
(1) It would require disclosure of boycott request compliance
reports submitted to the Commerce Department by U.S. firms, on
the grounds that the Export Administration Act declares it to
be the policy of the U.S. to oppose boycotts.
(2) It would bar religious, racial, ethnic, or sex discrim-
ination by U.S. exporters.
(3) It would prohibit refusals by U.S. firms to do business
with other firms pursuant to foreign boycott requests.
The provisions on disclosure of compliance with Arab boycott
requests could have some negative effect on consumer-oriented
businesses in this country, causing them either to avoid the
Arab market completely or to go to third country affiliates
in order to avoid a possible counterboycott.
CONF IDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
-3-
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
The provisions barring discrimination are identical for all
intents and purposes to the measures announced by you on
November 20.
The provisions of the bill which prohibit U.S. firms from
refusing to do business with other U.S. firms on the boycott
list are unclear as to their intent and effect. As presently
drafted these provisions are more far reaching than the Justice
Department conception of the applicability of our anti-trust
laws (as set forth in the Bechtel suit), and if enforced
strictly would deal a serious blow to United States business
with the Arab world. Even large multinational corporations
now heavily engaged in the Arab world would probably shift
procurement to third country affiliated or unrelated firms
in order to avoid possible problems. Many smaller companies
would probably terminate business with the Arab world.
Given the policy which we have followed since your November 20
statement, the Arabs will tend to view Administration accept-
ance of any additional legislation on the Arab boycott as a
shift in the Administration's position in response to the
Israeli lobby.
There has been considerable interagency review of how best to
deal with the Stevenson-Williams-Koch legislation. A Working
Group, chaired by the NSC staff discussed the issue at length
and prepared a paper which was discussed by the EPB Executive
Committee on April 30.
There is agreement that the Administration should seek to limit
additional anti-boycott legislation to the absolute minimum, in
accordance with your policy decision of last November which
remains the best approach under present circumstances. How-
ever, there is also agreement that it may be desirable to
accept a compromise with Congress in the form of a suitably
amended Stevenson-Williams-Koch bill if this will avoid pas-
sage of worse legislation and if the only other alternative is
a Presidential veto.
Options
Two options for dealing with the Stevenson-Williams-Koch bill
are presented for your consideration.
Option 1: Maintain the position outlined in your November 20
statement and strongly oppose all additional legis-
lation as unnecessary and counterproductive, but do
not indicate that you would necessarily veto any
additional legislation thus leaving open the possi-
bility of compromise later if sufficient opposition
to the legislation does not develop.
CONF IDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
FORD
-4-
RALD
Advantages:
This would be fully consistent with your statement of
November 20 and the position maintained by the Admin-
istration since then that no additional legislation is
needed.
If efforts to block new legislation succeeded, it would
retain Arab confidence of the Administration as well
as encouraging them to ease the practical application
of the boycott. It would avoid the serious danger of
an Arab backlash (similar to the Soviet backlash over
Jackson-Vanik) because they believed we were applying
excessive public pressure.
It would minimize the loss of business by U.S. firms
to other countries due to U.S. anti-boycott regulations.
If efforts to block new legislation failed, an oppor-
tunity would remain to choose between trying to obtain
an acceptable compromise or either vetoing or acquiescing
to unacceptable legislation.
Disadvantages:
This approach could produce a confrontation between the
Administration and Congress and Jewish groups given the
strong pressures which exist for some additional action.
It could also result in Congress pressing stronger legis-
lation and rejecting last-minute efforts at compromise,
than would have been the case were the Administration
to seek a compromise from the outset.
This approach could place the President in the position
of having either to acquiesce to the legislation or
veto the bill.
Option
2: Modify your opposition to any additional legislation
by beginning work immediately with key members of
Congress to reach agreement on an amended bill.
Two approaches to an amended bill have been considered. Both
approaches would accept the sections of the bill on anti-
discrimination and disclosure and seek clear agreement from
key Members of Congress and Jewish leaders that there will be
no additional legislative action.
CONF IDENTIAL
CONF IDENTIAL
SALD FORD
-5-
Approach
A: Attempt to delete the section of the bill on
refusal to deal in exchange for agreement to the
idea of public disclosure of boycott request compli-
ance reports, either by administrative action or
by enactment of that section of the bill.
A public statement by the Administration supporting
explicitly the efforts of the Justice Department
to apply the Sherman Act to refusal to deal cases
should be considered as a possible concession to
obtain deletion of that section from the bill.
Approach B: Attempt to amend the section of the bill on refusal
to deal by substituting language proposed by Jus-
tice which would substantially narrow its appli-
cation and bring it into line with Justice's pre-
sent concept of the applicability of the Sherman
Act to refusal to deal actions by U.S. firms pur-
suant to the Arab boycott.
Advantages:
Seeking a compromise from the outset through consulta-
tions with key Members of Congress and Jewish leaders
would avoid a confrontation with them and could ulti-
mately make an acceptable compromise easier to achieve.
Enactment of Stevenson's legislation should substantially
undercut the prospects for more harmful legislation.
The Administration could provide Congress with the
precise changes it would like in the bills before they
move SO far down the legislative path as to make changes
difficult.
Disadvantages:
This would appear as a retreat from the Administration
position held since November 20. Once the Administra-
tion signalled a willingness to compromise, Members of
Congress and others who support strong anti-boycott leg-
islation may assume that they are in a strong position
and do not need to accept a compromise.
Some legislation would result which, depending on its
nature, could create serious difficulties for U.S.
foreign policy and economic interests in the Arab world
and raise additional barriers to U.S. firms doing busi-
ness in Arab countries.
CONF IDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
FORD
-5-
Approach
A: Attempt to delete the section of the bill on
refusal to deal in exchange for agreement to the
idea of public disclosure of boycott request compli-
ance reports, either by administrative action or
by enactment of that section of the bill.
A public statement by the Administration supporting
explicitly the efforts of the Justice Department
to apply the Sherman Act to refusal to deal cases
should be considered as a possible concession to
obtain deletion of that section from the bill.
Approach B: Attempt to amend the section of the bill on refusal
to deal by substituting language proposed by Jus-
tice which would substantially narrow its appli-
cation and bring it into line with Justice's pre-
sent concept of the applicability of the Sherman
Act to refusal to deal actions by U.S. firms pur-
suant to the Arab boycott.
Advantages:
Seeking a compromise from the outset through consulta-
tions with key Members of Congress and Jewish leaders
would avoid a confrontation with them and could ulti-
mately make an acceptable compromise easier to achieve.
Enactment of Stevenson's legislation should substantially
undercut the prospects for more harmful legislation.
The Administration could provide Congress with the
precise changes it would like in the bills before they
move so far down the legislative path as to make changes
difficult.
Disadvantages:
This would appear as a retreat from the Administration
position held since November 20. Once the Administra-
tion signallled a willingness to compromise, Members of
Congress and others who support strong anti-boycott leg-
islation may assume that they are in a strong position
and do not need to accept a compromise.
Some legislation would result which, depending on its
nature, could create serious difficulties for U.S.
foreign policy and economic interests in the Arab world
and raise additional barriers to U.S. firms doing busi-
ness in Arab countries.
CONF IDENTIAL
CONF IDENTIAL
GERALD R. FORD CreRARY
- -6-
Decision
Option 1
Maintain the position outlined in your Novem-
ber 20 statement and strongly oppose all addi-
tional legislation as unnecessary and counter-
productive, but do not indicate that you would
necessarily veto any additional legislation
thus leaving open the possibility of compro-
mise later if sufficient opposition to the
legislation does not develop.
Supported by:
Option 2
Modify your opposition to any additional legis-
lation be beginning work immediately with key
members of Congress to reach agreement on an
amended bill.
Supported by:
CONF IDENTIAL
April 28, 1976
MAJOR ANTI-BOYCOTT LEGISLATION
SENATE BILLS
1. Stevenson-Williams Bill (S. 953)
Title I
Would require that U.S. firms report to the Department of
Commerce on whether they intend to comply and whether
they have complied with boycott requests which they receive.
Would require that boycott reports hereafter filed with the
Department of Commerce be made public, except that com-
mercial information regarding the value, kind, and quantity
of goods involved in any reported transaction may be kept
confidential.
Would prohibit U.S. firms from furnishing, pursuant to a
boycott request, any information regarding the race, religion,
or nationality of its employees, shareholders, officers, or
directors, or the employees, shareholders, officers, or
directors of any other U.S. company.
Would prohibit U.S. firms from refusing to do business with
other U.S. firms pursuant to a boycott request.
Maximum administrative penalties applicable under the Act
would be increased from $1,000 to $10,000. In addition,
would make it clear that export privileges may be suspended
for a violation of the anti-boycott provisions of the Act.
Would require public disclosure of Commerce Department
charging or warning letters against U.S. companies for
failing to comply with anti-boycott provisions of the Act.
Would require that the Commerce Department provide the
State Department with summaries of the information contained
in boycott reports for appropriate action by the State Department.
SENATE BILLS
2
Would require that the semi-annual reports to Congress under
the Export Administration Act include an accounting of what
action the Executive Branch has taken to effect the anti-boycott
policy of the Act.
Would clarify the Act to leave no doubt that it applies to banks,
other financial institutions, insurers, freight forwarders, and
shipping companies.
Title II
Would amend section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act to
expand the disclosure requirements imposed thereunder on
those who acquire the beneficial ownership of more than 5%
of any equity security by requiring disclosure of the following:
(a) The residence, nationality, and nature of the beneficial
ownership of the person acquiring the securities. (The
latter would include, for example, whether the beneficial
owner has the right to direct the voting of the securities,
the receipt of dividends, or the proceeds of sale);
(b) The background and nationality of each associate of the
purchaser who has a right to acquire additional shares
of the insurer.
Would impose new disclosure requirements as follows:
Every holder of record, of, and any other person having an
interest in, 2% or more of a class of any equity security,
would be required to file reports as prescribed by the SEC
at such time as the SEC may require. The SEC would have
authority to make such exceptions to the above as are not
inconsistent with the public interest or the protection of
investors.
The 2% threshhold is to be reduced to 1% on September 1, 1976
and to 1/2 of 1% on September 1, 1977. However, the SEC may
extend or shorten such periods if the SEC, after public comment,
concludes that such change is not inconsistent with the public
interest or the protection of investors.
FORD
SENATE BILLS
3
The bill was originally reported out of the Senate Banking and
Currency Committee on February 6, 1976. However, it was
decided to defer full Senate action until legislation to provide a
simple extension of the Export Administration Act was considered,
at which time the two pieces of legislation would be combined.
This did, in fact, occur at the subcommittee level on April 27
when the extension bill, S. 3084, was favorably reported to the
full Committee with the Stevenson-Williams bill incorporated in
it. Full Committee mark-up and final reporting of the legislation
is expected Thursday, April 29 or Friday, April 30.
2. Ribicoff Bill (S. 3138)
The bill would deny tax benefits on foreign source income to tax-
payers who participate in or cooperate with the boycott of Israel.
These benefits include the foreign tax credit and tax deferral, and
DISC. The denial would apply to that foreign source income derived
through direct or indirect dealings with boycotting countries.
The bill is pending before the full Senate Finance Committee where
no action is currently scheduled.
FORD
4
HOUSE BILLS
It is anticipated that those House bills pending before the International
Relations Subcommittee on International Trade and Commerce will be
considered as amendinents to legislation to extend the Export Administra-
tion Act scheduled to come before the full committee some time in June.
1. Bingham Bill (H. R. 4967)
FORD i LIBRARY ORRALD
The bill would prohibit US companies from answering or complying in
any way with boycott requests.
The bill is pending before the IRC Subcommittee on International Trade
and Commerce.
2. Drinan Bill (H. R. 5913, 5997, 6431, 6661 and others)
The bill would make it unlawful for any US exporter to engage in such
practices as:
furnishing information to a foreign agent concerning the race, religion
or national origin of its employees or the employees of firms with which
it does business;
-furnishing information on business dealings with a boycotted country
or firm; or refusing, because of dealings with a foreign agent, to do
business with a boycotted country or firm.
The bill would require the Secretary of Commerce to revoke the export
license of any exporter violating these provisions.
The legislation is pending before the IRC Subcommittee on International
Trade and Commerce.
3. Koch Bill (H. R. 11464)
This bill is almost identical to the Stevenson-Williams Bill and has been
dually referred to the House International Relations Committee and
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.
4. Holtzman Bill (H. R. 5246 and others) (almost 100 cosponsors)
The bill would prohibit any business enterprise from using economic
coercion to induce another not to do business with, employ or otherwise
discriminate against (on the basis of race, religion, etc. ) any US or
foreign person in respect to its activities in the United States. The bill
would also make it unlawful to yield to such coercion or take discrimina-
tory action to prevent the coercion from ever occurring.
The bill is pending before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Monopolies.
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
May 10, 1976
TO:
JIM CANNON
FROM: JOHN O, And
For Direct Reply
For Draft Response
X
For Your Information
Please Advise
Commerce
May 10, 1976
Dear Jake:
Thank you for your letter of May 6 and the attached
clipping from the May 3 issue of Transport Topics.
I fully understand how strongly you feel on the issue
of deregulation of the trucking industry.
I shall see to It that the comments contained in your letter
and the Transport Topics article are called to the attention
of the appropriate people here at the White House.
Thanks again for taking the time to give me the benefit
of your very strong views on this matter.
With warmest personal regards, I remain,
Sincerely,
GERALD RF FORD LIBRARY
John O. March, Jr.
Counsellor to the President
Mr. R. R. Smith
Chairman of the Board
Smith's Transfer Corporation
P. O. Box 1000
Staunton, Virginia 24401
JOM:RAR:cb
MAY 8 1976
SMITH'S TRANSFER CORPORATION
General Office: P.O. Box 1000 Staunton, Virginia 24401 Area Code 703 886-6231
HAULMARK OF SERVICE
R.R. SMITH
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
May 6, 1976
Mr. John O. Marsh, Jr.
Counsellor to the President
FORD i LIBRARY
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Jack:
Enclosed find comments which I clipped out of a
recent paper which are self-explanatory.
At a time when our President seems to be having
many problems which I happen to believe comes mainly
from poor advice-such as, his stand on deregulation
of the trucking industry which sounds good to the
average business man that is so fed up with govern-
ment regulations and red tape; yet to anyone, with
the exception of a few very large corporations, that
has anything to do with the shipping or receiving of
freight understands that deregulation is probably the
worst thing that could happen in the efficient opera-
tion of their business.
As to the people in our industry, we are solidly
against deregulation in any form and this position
will be registered at the convention and at the polls
in November. I happen to believe that the election,
Mr. John O. Marsh, Jr.
May 6, 1976
Page 2
whoever the opponent to the President, will be very
close come November. Our industry could well make the
difference in that outcome when you consider the truck-
ing industry and the shippers and receivers in this
country.
I personally would like to see the President
reelected. Isn't there something that you can do to
change his position on deregulation? If this is done,
I believe that we can get our industry solidly behind
the President.
Thanking you for your reaction and comments.
With kind personal regards,
Sincerely yours,
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
R.R. Jake Smith
Enclosure
ATA Urges Democrats to Back
ICC Regulation in Platform
KANSAS CITY - Earl N.
Hoekenga, a vice president at large
of American Trucking Associations,
has asked the Democratic party to
make deregulation a campaign issue
by endorsing economic regulation of
motor carrier freight transportation
in its 1976 platform.
The trucking industry's represen-
No. 2125
May 3, 1976
Guest Editorial
President Gerald Ford has been pi
registering surprise when the America
ing Associations reacted in vigorous opp
his proposal to deregulate the trucking
If true, the President's surprise she
been bewildering in itself, since more than
Reprinted from the
Mankato, Minn., Free Press
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
11,000 of the industry's 15,000 members have
gross annual incomes of less than $500,000.
In other words, the association is composed of
primarily small truckers, whose welfare - and
that of the relatively small communities they
serve - is directly threatened by removal of all
dependent on commercial freight transportation.
government controls.
Some 500 points in Minnesota today thereby
The trucking industry has been regulated
have been left with only truck freight service.
since 1935. It has grown from a hodge-podge of
How many would be shorn of that, if the trucking
local and long-distance carriers to a complex, in-
industry was deregulated, and the small trucker
tegrated network that surely ranks as one of the
driven out of business by the big? They would not
finest in the world.
even have a mechanism of protest.
Proponents of deregulation say that the pres-
Not all big-name shippers are in favor of de-
ent uniform rate structure is arbitrarily high,
regulation. Much of their business comes from
and that there would be immense annual savings
small firm "feeders," just as smaller airlines
by customers if truckers could come and go as
(with and without subsidies) pump passengers
they please, from one "territory" to another, and
and freight into the long-lines haulers.
charge whatever the traffic will bear.
Competition is well and good, and keen compe-
This is the way it was before 1935. But south-
tition exists even with regulation. But a kind of
ern Minnesotans with memories dating back that
ruthless contention that blocks off free-flowing
far will recall that trucking then was something
arteries to rural America, in the name of other-
of a monopoly, with preferential service given to
wise commendable cost-cutting, is a disservice of
high-volume shippers or those who happened to
quantum proportions.
be based in larger cities. It was not until regula-
Rep. Tom Hagedorn, R-Minn., says he is in
tion - the setting of rates, to allow the "little
favor of "reregulation" rather than deregulation.
guy" to compete, and power to license, so that a
The Minnesota Public Service Commission also
trucker could not unilaterally decide to pull out of
supports a degree of regulation. Others want
an otherwise unprofitable route - that smaller
changes within the Interstate Commerce Com-
communities finally received scheduled and de-
mission (ICC) itself - - a "scraping off of the bar-
pendable service we still have today.
nacles," as it were, including a reduction in the
It is easy to visualize Podunk Junction being
number of commissioners from 11 to 6 or so, and
bypassed by a trucker hell-bent to achieve
the forbidding of political appointments.
maximum load with the minimum number of
"Free entry, everybody gets in on their own fee
stops. We have only to look to the railroads,
schedule" has a compelling ring.
which even in the face of regulation continue to
But somebody always gets hurt in that kind of
tear up tracks or remove agents from many doz-
free-swinging enterprise, and usually it's the lit-
ens of cities, towns and villages that are still very
tle guys like us.
Page 12-May 3, 1976 TRANSPORT TOPICS
Commerce
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
(Shipping)
June 22, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK CHENEY
FROM
JIM CANNON
the
FORD i LIBRARY
SUBJECT:
The Administration's "Third-Flag" Bill
In late May the President decided to propose our own "third-
flag" legislation as an alternative to a Federal Maritime
Commission ("FMC") draft bill and another bill already under
discussion in the House (H.R. 7940). Each of the three bills
would give the FMC substantial new authority to deal with state-
controlled ocean shipping firms -- primarily Soviet-Flag ---
which are allegedly "unfairly" competing with other profit-
making shipping firms. The Administration bill, which would be
a watered down version of the FMC draft bill, is now being
drafted.
This decision was based on information contained in a decision
memorandum from OMB and staff comments collected by Jim Connor.
I would strongly recommend that the President reconsider this
decision for two reasons:
1. While OMB recommended against supporting any legislation,
the decision memorandum suggested that some kind of
Congressional action on a third-flag bill was likely and
that an Administration bill might be a preferäble alternative
to other bills. However, it would now appear that Congressior
action is unlikely this year. Representative Pete McCloskey,
the ranking Republican on the House Merchant Marine Sub-
committee, reports that no one has made a good case for a
bill and that he is determined to stop any bill. He argues
that the chance of any action this session "are slim" and
that the best Administration strategy is to "cool it"
and wait to help him resist a bill, if necessary.
2. The decision memorandum failed to emphasize sufficiently
that any increased economic regulatory authority for the
FMC would be wholly inconsistent with the President's
efforts to reduce economic regulation and to emphasize
increased competition as a preferable alternative.
If you agree with my recommendation that the President
reconsider this issue, we will be happy to work with OMB in
drafting the appropriate decision memorandum for the President.
CC: VPaul O'Neill
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 16, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN
SUBJECT:
Third Flag Legislation
On the basis of a conversation with Paul O'Neill regarding
our (Domestic Council) position on Third Flag legislation,
I have withdrawn our objection to proceeding with the
development of a draft administration bill.
As you know, we were concerned that the Administration
was going to take the initiative and submit its own Third
Flag bill. We were convinced that this was unnecessary
since Congress was unlikely to take any action this year.
We also believed that such an initiative would carry with
it problems regarding the President's position on regulatory
reform and related issues.
Paul O'Neill informed me that our current efforts are
geared to the preparation of a draft bill to have on
hand should we be asked for one. Currently, however,
there is no intention to submit or initiate such legislation.
CC: Paul O'Neill
This
Paul Leach
Km
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
file
-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP W. BUCHEN
JAMES M. CANNON
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JOHN O. MARSH
FROM:
WILLIAM BRENT SCOWCROFT F. GOROG outb
SUBJECT:
Escape Clause Case - Shrimp
A memorandum from Ambassador Dent on the shrimp escape
clause case is attached.
I would appreciate your comments and recommendations on this
memorandum no later than c.o.b. Thursday, June 24, 1976.
FORD i LIBRARY OERALD
Attachment concer with The
moninous
June
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 23, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL GOROG
THROUGH:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
PAUL LEACH Paul
SUBJECT:
Escape Clause
Case-Shrimp
I concur with the unanimous interagency recommendation
that the President accept the findings of the ITC and
direct the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor to give
expeditious consideration to petitions for adjustment
assistance from firms and workers in the industry and
communities in which they are located.
FORD LIBRARY & 9ERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
JMC
I sent this to Leach for
action, but he wants to know
what sort of action you want
him to take.
Shouldn't he just assess the
feasibility of Senator Long's
requests?
j orostaken By
events July
CC: Leach
Commerce
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 15, 1976
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
JIM CONNOR JEE
SUBJECT:
Letter from Senator Long
The attached memorandum from Max Friedersdorf was returned
in the President's outbox with the following notation addressed
to you:
"Check with Secretary Butz, Fred Dent
and Alan Greenspan."
Please follow-up with appropriate action.
cc: Dick Cheney
Max Friedersdorf
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
...
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 14, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF m.b.
SUBJECT:
Senator Russell Long (D-La.)
I have asked Jim Cannon and Jim Cavanaugh to assess the feasibility
of the requests by Russell Long contained in the attached letter from
the Senator.
If Long's proposals have merit and represent actions the Administration
could take, it might present an opportunity to approach Russell again on
the Jobs Bill veto.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Sinned Sicces Denate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
June 17, 1976
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
You are aware of my interest in domestic sugar
production because of the importance of the sugar industry
to my home state of Louisiana and due to my position as
Chairman of the Finance Committee which has jurisdiction
over sugar legislation.
Domestic sugar producers have been without a specific
sugar program since the expiration of the Sugar Act on
December 31, 1974. On March 11 of this year, Senators Inouye,
Curtis and Dole joined me in a letter to you expressing our
concern over anticipated developments in the international
sugar trade and their effect on domestic production. I
attach a copy of that letter for your easy reference.
Since that time, the price situation for our domestic
producers has deteriorated considerably to the point of
jeopardizing the continuation of the domestic industry. On
the day preceding our March letter, the domestic raw price
was 16.5 cents per pound. By June 3, less than three months
later, the price had declined to 13.85. I am concerned that
the price may decline even further.
Passage of sugar legislation during the remainder of
this year would be difficult, if not impossible, with the
many other legislative matters to be handled. However, there
are available to you options which could be used at your
discretion to prevent disastrous consequences to domestic
sugar production. There are actions which could be taken by
you under existing statutory authority.
1. Increase the present tariff level from 62.5 cents
per hundred pounds to as much as 1.875 cents per hundred pounds.
This could be accomplished simply by amending Executive Order
No. 4334 of November 16, 1974.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Page two
June 17 1976
2. Reduce the present foreign import quota of 7 million
tons to a more realistic level. Total imports of foreign
sugar in 1975 were only 3.9 million tons, and a restriction
for 1976 at about that same level might result in a more
reasonable price for sugar. Individual country quotas could
be established if you considered it advisable. This also
could be accomplished by amending Executive Order No. 4334 of
November 16, 1974.
3. Direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a
price support program for sugarcane and sugarbeets under
authority contained in Title III of the Agricultural Act of
1949. The level. of support could be established from zero to
90 percent of parity. The level of support should be a.
minimum of 70 percent of parity in order to be equitable with
levels established for producers of milk, grains, and other
essential commoditics. Seventy percent of parity would result
in a price for raw sugar of 18.5 cents per pound. The cost of
production currently ranges between 15.5 cents and 20 cents
per pound.
I would very much appreciate your advice as to what
steps the Administration might take to correct the dangerous
situation now facing our domestic sugar producers. Since this
matter is so vital to the 29: domestic sugar-producing states,
your early attention to the problem would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Finance Chairman Committee
FORD i LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 26, 1976
Paul-
1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ROGER PORTER Prablem
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Beef Mayaguez PAUL LEACH Imports Issue and the Jan
I understand from USDA that your office is now deeply
involved with the beef import question and the Mayeguez
Foreign-Trade Zone issue.
Since it doesn't seem to be an efficient use of our
time to have duplicate efforts in this regard, I am sending
you a letter which requires a draft response. This has
been held in abeyance pending resolution of the Mayeguez
question, but will certainly require some action within
the near future.
CC:
Charles Leppert
Jim Cannon
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Congress of the United States
House of Representatibes
Mashington, D.C. 20515
June 14, 1976
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
President of United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The distressed cattle industry, which is just
emerging from the "Beef Depression" of 1973-1975,
initiated by the price freeze of 1973 only to be hit
with serious drought conditions which imperil its re-
covery in 1976, has enough on its hands in coping with
acts of God without having to suffer further from the
burdens of man-made restraints.
Of particular concern is the competition from meat
imports, 95% of which are chilled and frozen beef. The
level of these imports is too high even under a program
of voluntary restraints as negotiated with the importing
countries. In addition to those imports which are legal
under the Meat Import Act of 1964, our cattlemen are now
faced with circumventions which permit additional beef to
flood the domestic market and add to the woes of our
livestock producers.
We have reference to the frozen beef from Australia
and New Zealand which is being shipped to the packing
plant in the free port of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. There
it is chopped up and processed into "stew beef" which
places it in the "prepared and preserved" category upon
which there is no limitation as far as import levels
are concerned. Unfortunately, this category is not
negotiable under the system of voluntary restraints, but
we believe there is ample opportunity under Sec. 2 (e) of
the Meat Import Act of 1964 to regulate the flow of all
meat and make sure it is allocated to the importing
country.
This type of circumvention is patently wrong,
Mr. President, and steps should be taken to either
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
June 14, 1976
Page two
stop these imports altogether or see that this
particular category is included with the other
categories the levels of which can be controlled
under the Meat Import Act.
We' respectfully call upon the Administration
to address itself to this problem immediately--
either to negotiate the voluntary restraints on meat
imports at a level which would make allowances
for the imports of "stew beef" and other "prepared
and preserved" meats, or take other administrative
action under the law to control the imports of this
kind.
This request comes to you from Representatives
of cattle-producing areas, and it is important to
note that the cattlemen, generally, have approved
the farm policies of this Administration as developed
and enunciated by Secretary Butz. Any measures of
relief from this unfair competition would reinforce
the belief of the cattlemen that you have an under-
standing of their problems.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Thank you for your prompt consideration of the
problem and for advising us what steps you plan to
take. Drought conditions are forcing many producers
to put their COWS on the market at already disastrous
prices in direct competition to this "stew beef".
Time is of the essence.
Sincerely,
X Lasta Diigin Smith
Chuck Grassley
Time Fee tearter
James Abdnn
X j-
John myers
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
June 14, 1976
Page John three
Thome
Den your
Guver
Varry Phirley n. Petize
Birl Vital
Stoyd Spence
health \ Steve Symms
Seith L.Seklius Larry Pressler
Garna 16. Shrin Rd Baum
get Robina Gene Fayer
Anghan agent China Wilson (Jax)
James Haley Waltr new, Smith
Ray which
Junes
Jine Johnson
Air
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
June 14, 1976
Page four
33
Delbert L. Latta
Virginia Smith
Charles E. Grassley
Tim Lee Carter
James Abdnor
John T. Myers
W. Henson Moore
John Y. McCollister
Joe Skubitz
Charles Thone
Del Clawson
Don Young
Tennyson Guyer
Teno Roncalio
BiLL
Larry Winn, Jr.
San Steiger
Barry M. Goldwater, Jr. Shirley N. Pettis
William M. Ketchum
Marilyn Lloyd
GCORGE O'Brien
Floyd Spence
Elford A. Cederber
Mark Andrews
Steven D. Symms
Keith G. Sebelius
Larry Pressler
Garner E. Shriver
Robert E. Bauman
J. Kenneth Robinson
Gene Taylor
Abraham Kazen, Jr.
Charles Wilson (Texas)
Ray Roberts
Neal Smith
James A. Haley
Walter B. Jones
James P. Johnson
Jim Wright
Gunn McKay
FORD LIBRARY & 9ERALD
name changes above per
Dan Harrant in Congresswoma
seen
June 21, 1976
Dear larv:
Thank you for letting ns know that you
concur in the June 14 letter to the
President from Mrs. Virginia Smith and
others regarding the impact of certain
meat imports on the domestic industry.
Please be assured that I shall make
certain your name is added to those
who have expressed their concern in
this matter. 1 know the views you
and your colleagues have expressed
will be fully reviewed.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
Charles Lappert, JI.
Deputy Assistant
to the President
FORD is LIBRARY 938870
The Honorable Marvin L. Each
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
bec: w/inc. to James Cannon for handling with the
June 14 letter to the President from Hrs. Virginia
Smith and 38 of her colleagues. A June 16
interim (copy attached) was sent to each of
those 39 cosigners, and the incoming sent to
you for DRAFT reply.
bee: w/inc. to Mr. Seidman - PYT
bee: w/inc. to Amb. Frederick Dent - FYI
CL:JUB:bmr
identical to each of the 20 additional cougness
June 16, 1975
Dear Virginia:
Thank you for the June 1: letter to tae
President in which you joined with 33
of your colleagues from cattle producing
ATAXA El publice the ispact on the domestic
industry of beat imports from Australia
and Hey gaaland which are cozing into
this country by way of the free port of
Hayaguez, Puerto Pico.
Please be assured I shall call your letter
immitately 19 the President's attention.
I know be will appreciate having your viewa
regarding this situation and will wish to
have the fully reviewed. You will hear
further as scon 23 possible.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
Charles Deppart, J=.
Deputy Assistant
to the President
the Honorable Virginia Smith
Jouse of Representatives
Wasnington, D.C. 20515
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
bee: w/incoming to James Cannon for DRAFT REPLY
bec: w/incoming to in. Seicman - FYI
bcc: w/incoming to Anio. Prederick Dent - FYI
CL:JEB:VO:ki
identical to each of the 39 coreines
June 13, 1976
20
man Marvin L. Esch
Jack Hightower
Tom Harkin
John B. Conlan
Paul Simon
NA.
W. R. Poage
Edward Hutchinson
Chairman,
Mr. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills
John Melcher
Bizz Harold T. Johnson
Bob Robert J. Lagomarsino
many Manuel Lujan, Jr.
Bill William L. Dickinson
Ted Risenhoover
Bo Ginn
Harold Runnels
Jim Santini
Tom Steed
Berkley Bedell
Mr. Chairran Olin Teague
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
June
Page
three 14, 1976 age Thom
Sen yourg
Janneson Gujer
July
Bir Kitch
Philey n. Petting
2tayd Spener
health Steve Symms
GERALD R. FORD
Leith G.Seklius Larry Pressler
Garner 7. Shriner Rd Baum
Few Fasher
James a 2 Haley Waltn nesl. Smith
Ray Volunts
China Wilson (Jex)
Jane Johnson
Additions
Way his
DumBer Dum M Fay cay
Diseh,ue
Veh When
Johns Dorlan
2
Edwars tuthinism
Aillure Mill
Lane
Job melcher
Robet r Faguress
manuel Cujar Ja
Ted Sisenhover
Bo Sinn
Happed
Norn Tom Stead Vead
Kenkey / Bedere 10gm
2:00
Tuesday Deadline
THE WHITE HOUSE
Commerce
WASHINGTON
July 27, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
PAUL LEACH
Paul
SUBJECT:
Administration's Position
on the "Bottlers' Bill"
The attached Paul O'Neill memo to the President asks for
a decision on whether or not to oppose this bill which
would provide an antitrust immunity to the soft drink
bottling industry.
Markup may be tomorrow, so resolution of this issue has
urgent priority.
This issue was discussed at the EPB meeting on Monday and
there was no objection to the Justice Department position:
That the Administration oppose this bill. This position
is consistent with past Justice Department opposition to
similar bills.
Since (1) the Administration has been consistently opposed
to specialized exemptions from the antitrust laws and (2)
some strange, normally pro-antitrust Senators (Cranston,
Humphrey and McGovern) are among the sponsors and thus
vulnerable to the charge of inconsistency, I would
recommend that you agree with the Justice recommendation
that we express strong Administration opposition.
FORD LIBRARY s GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: July 26, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
JACK MARSH
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
BOB HARTMANN
JIM CANNON
PHIL BUCHEN
DAVE GERGERN (For information)
BILL SEIDMAN
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1976
Time:
2:00 PM
SUBJECT:
OMB(O'Neill) Memo re Administration Position on S. 3421
(The Bottlers' Bill)
(Quick turn around requested because hearings may start Wednesday,
July 28)
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
8 Dept The pontaon
Justin
due
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
James E. Connor
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
file
Commerce
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 25, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Proposed Legislation Relating
to West Coast Shipping Strikes
and the Effect on Hawaii
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Congressman Spark Matsunaga has written (Tab A) to you
requesting clarification of your position on legislation
(H.R. 4526/S. 1566) to protect Hawaii from West Coast
shipping tie-ups. Congressman Matsunaga refers to a
July 10, 1976 article in "The Honolulu Advertiser" (Tab B)
in which you are reported to have expressed your support
for such legislation to Bill Paul, an uncommitted Hawaiian
delegate to the Republican National Convention. On
June 18, 1976 Jack Anderson reported on AM America that
you had advised three (not named) uncommitted Hawaiian
delegates you would support legislation to protect Hawaii
from shipping strikes.
H.R. 4526/S. 1566 would attempt to prevent certain inter-
ruptions in shipping between the West Coast and Hawaii,
and between the West Coast and the other U.S. Pacific
Islands caused by longshore and maritime strikes and
lockouts which imperil the "health or well-being" of those
living on these islands. This anti-strike provision
would be enforceable upon petition of the Governors of
Hawaii, Guam, America Samoa, and the High Commissioner
of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (or their
designated representatives) to a United States District
Court for an injunction or temporary restraining order.
An injunction under this bill could be granted for up to
120 days.
2
Although no formal position has been reported by the
Administration to the 94th Congress on legislation to
protect Hawaii from West Coast shipping tie-ups, a
position was taken during the 93rd Congress. The
Administration position was in opposition to the legis-
lation. I have attached (Tab C) a copy of a letter from
Bill Usery, then Director of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service, sent to the Senate Chairman of the
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare stating the
Administration's opposition to the proposed legislation.
Informal contacts through OMB with the concerned Depart-
ments indicate continued opposition to the legislation
with one exception (Interior).
Before responding to Congressman Matsunaga on your behalf,
I seek your direction as to the nature of the response
you would prefer.
Decision
#1. Respond to the Congressman saying that the Administration
has taken no position on H.R. 4526/S. 1566 in the
94th Congress and that the matter is under study.
Approve
Disapprove
#2. Respond to the Congressman saying that the Administration
opposed legislation similar to H.R. 4526/S. 1566 in the
93rd Congress and could be expected to do so again if
similar legislation were given active consideration by
the 94th Congress.
Approve
Disapprove
#3. Respond to the Congressman saying that you are in
sympathy with the intent of the legislation and have
directed the necessary Departments and Agencies to
review the legislation.
Approve
Disapprove
Attachments
Tab A Cong. Spark Matsunaga Letter
Tab B "The Honolulu Advertiser" Article
Tab C Copy of Bill Usery Letter
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
8-2
SPARK M. MATSUNAGA
DEPUTY MAJORITY WHIP
1ST DISTRICT, HAWAII
MEMBER:
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
COMMITTEE ON RULES
442 CANNON BUILDING
20513
Congress of the United States
STEERING
AND POLICY COMMITTEE
HONOLULU OFFICE:
house of Representatives
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE
218 FEDERAL BUILDING
OF SELECT
96813
COMMITTEE ON AGING
Washington, D.C. 20515
JAB A
July 27, 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am enclosing a copy of an article which
appeared in the July 10, 1976 issue of the Honolulu
ME
Advertiser. It reports that you have indicated your
we
support for legislation, introduced jointly in the
House and the Senate by me and my colleagues from
Hawaii, to protect Hawaii from West Coast shipping
tie-ups (H.R. 4526, S. 1126).
There is little you could do as President
with regard to Hawaii specifically which will be
more appreciated by Hawaii's 850,000 citizens than
actively supporting such legislation. It is
considered by a broad-based majority, including
Republicans and Democrats, businessmen and union
members, to be perhaps the most important proposal
considered by Congress since the debate over
Statehood for Hawaii. One recent poll indicated
that fully 83.9% of Hawaii's residents favor
enactment of such legislation.
You will recall that in the 93rd Congress
FORD i LIBRARY 077833
after a similar proposal sponsored by Hawaii's two
Senators passed the Senate, my bill, H.R. 7189, was
defeated in the House. The key to its defeat was
the joint opposition of organized labor and the
Administration.
It is my continued conviction that the bill
was defeated because of a widespread misunderstanding
that the bill was anti-labor. It is not. It seeks
only to assure the protection of Hawaii from the
severe consequences of a prolonged termination of
its "lifeline", shipping.
The President
July 27, 1976
Page Two
In this regard, you kindly provided Senator Hiram
L. Fong and me the opportunity to discuss the matter
with you during the flight back to Washington aboard
Air Force One last December 7. You indicated that you
would direct a review of the matter.
I was deeply gratified and encouraged to learn
that your further examination of the issue has led
you to support the proposed legislation. Because of
the gravity of the situation, however, I hope you
can understand my desire to obtain a clarification of
the position of your Administration with regard to
|the relevant bills.
I therefore most respectfully request that I
be provided with such a clarification. If I can be
of any assistance whatsoever, please contact me.
Your further attention to this issue of crucial
importance to Hawaii is deeply appreciated by all of
its people.
Aloha and best wishes.
Sincerely,
Spark Matsunaga
Member of Congress
TAB B
Honolulu Advertiser: July 10, 1976
Ford backs shipping strike bill
in call to Hawaii delegate Paul
By DOUGLAS WOO
tial rival. Rengan, 100, said he sup-
Congress, Paul met with Ford but
being subtly pressured for his vote
Advertiser Government Bureau
ported the shipping legislation, Paul
Ford declined to endorse the ship-
in exchange for Ford's support of
said.
ping legislation.
the shipping legislation.
President Ford told a member of
Pawani GOP National. Convention
Ilist Paul, who "leans toward"
Paul snid Ford apparently was not
"Absolutely not," Paul said. "And
that the white feilin
T16-7/73.2
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20427
June 3, 1974
TABC
/
Honorable Harrison A. Williams, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your request for the
views of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
on S. 1566, a bill which seeks to prevent West Coast
dock strikes from imperiling the health and safety of
the citizens of Hawaii and the United States Pacific
Islands.
The proposed legislation would prohibit
strikes or lockouts in the longshore or maritime in
dustries on the West Coast, which interferes with
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
shipping between the West Coast and Hawaii, Guam
and other Pacific Islands, for a period of one hun-
dred and sixty (160) days. The anti-strike provision
is enforceable upon petition by certain designated par-
ties to a United States District Court for an injunction
or temporary restraining order. This would be in addi-
tion to the injunctive relief available under Section 208
OF the LMRA, 1947.
The Service is, of course, greatly concerned
with the problem of work stoppages in the longshore and
maritime industries. Moreover, the rationale of protect-
ing the health and safety of the people of Hawaii and the
United States Pacific Islands is compelling. However, a
question arises as to whether this type of proposed legis-
lation promotes the resolution of labor disputes that
:fect the various forms of transportation throughout the
country; whether selectively postponing a work stoppage
- 2 -
aids in settling the dispute which caused the disruption.
In this regard, we agree with the recently published re-
port and recommendations of the National Commission for
Industrial Peace which stress the point that our national
labor policy relies on collective bargaining as the pri-
mary means of resolving labor disputes. The report also
notes that the parties have been successfully searching
for substitutes to economic strife and have placed in-
creasingly greater reliance upon mediation and fact-
finding as tools of voluntary dispute resolution.
Although we recognize the economic disruption
to Hawaii and other Pacific Islands, we question whether
providing for additional selective injunctive relief would
aid in encouraging labor and management to seek peaceful
means of resolving their differences in collective bargain-
ing instead of relying upon economic disruption. For that
reason, we do not believe enactment of this bill would be
desirable at the present time.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that
they have no objection to the submission of this report.
Sincerely,
W.J.Usery. for
National Director
FORD LIBRARY &
Re
THE WHITE HOUSE
exports.
WASHINGTON
commerce
September 23, 1976
976 SEP 24 AM 8 03
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
ALAN GREENSPAN
BRENT SCOWCROFT
BILL SEIDMAN
FRANK ZARB
FROM:
It appearsquite likely the Senate conferees
JACK House MARSH Jul and
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
on the Export Bill will agree to a very restrictive
boycott amendment.
If this does occur, we should begin efforts to study
the impact of such legislation, particularly in an
economic and energy perspective. These inputs will
be essential for the President when he addresses the
bill after it comes down from the Hill.
The nuclear amendment should also not be overlooked
and the information on its impact should be made
available to the President.
Dick Cheney
it
CC:
Jim Cavanaugh
Max Friedersdorf
Bill Gorog
Ronan M. Put
092401
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 23, 1976
976 SEP 24 AM 8 03
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
ALAN GREENSPAN
BRENT SCOWCROFT
BILL SEIDMAN
FRANK ZARB
FROM:
It appearsquite likely the House and Senate conferees
JACK July MARSH
on the Export Bill will agree to a very restrictive
boycott amendment.
If this does occur, we should begin efforts to study
the impact of such legislation, particularly in an
economic and energy perspective. These inputs will
be essential for the President when he addresses the
bill after it comes down from the Hill.
The nuclear amendment should also not be overlooked
and the information on its impact should be made
available to the President.
CC:
Dick Cheney
Jim Cavanaugh
Max Friedersdorf
Bill Gorog
petro
hyper of Ronan M.
FORD & LIBRARY 038870
092401
Commerce
October 13, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
JIM JIM CONNOR CANNON Art 2wsn
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Letter
to Karl Bakke
I would caution against this proposed letter since the
Bakke/Soviet agreement may not be something about which
the President should be unequivocally pleased. While
it is attractive to U.S. shipping companies, it will
probably cause less rate competition. This could be
detrimental to our exporters, importers and consumers.
In addition, I understand that the negotiations went on
without the necessary State Department involvement and
the "agreement" has been presented as a fait accompli
by the FMC.
However, if this letter is sent, I would propose the
changes suggested on the attached Scowcroft draft.
Also, whatever happens I would recommend that this be
run by Bill Seidman, Ed Schmults, CEA and OMB, since
this deals with a sensitive maritime policy issue.
Attachment
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your informative letters of July 19
and September 17 concerning the Memorandum Agreement
between the Federal Maritime Commission and the
Soviet Ministry of Merchant Marine, which you signed
last July. I am hopeful that your Agreement will lead
to a more stable ocean liner trade and will result in
healthier liner competition along with better service
and lower prices for our exporters, importers and
consumers.
Please continue to keep me informed of any further
significant developments.
Sincerely,
FORD i LIBRARY 93RALD
The Honorable
Karl E. Bakke
Chairman
Federal Maritime Commission
1100 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20373
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Handled by John Eden at Commerce.
Sheri 1/3/77
FORD in LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
,976 NOV 11 AM 9 36
Date:
November 10, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES CANNON
FROM:
WILLIAM W. NICHOLSON
SUBJECT:
Henry P. Read, Superintendent of
Schools, Patchogue-Medford Public
Schools, Patchogue, New York
The attached is for your appropriate handling.
FORD i LIBRARY 076839
Thank you.
1(1101
Abedicine
CC: Leach
Lissy
EDUCATION
PATCHOGUE-MEDFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
George A. Mason, Jr., Pres.
Robert J. Mayer, Vice Pres.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
Jerome Botwinick
241 South Ocean Avenue, Patchogue, N.Y. 11772
Arthur Fuccillo
Patricia A. McDonald
Claire Meyer
Alfred A. Volkmann
HENRY P. READ
Albert A. Benincasa, Clerk
Superintendent of Schools
(516) 654-4001
November 5, 1976
ACTION
T/D
SCHEDULE BD.
President Gerald R. Ford
DATE RECEIVED
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
NOV 14 1976
Washington, D.C.
MESSAGE
SPEAKERS BUREAU
Dear Mr. President:
OTHER Common
For more than a century public and private citizens have led developme fif ΓOCE
our community with a balance among private homes, retail businesses, and
light industry. The community is located in Suffolk County, Long Island, and
has evolved from suburban to become more urban in character. The transi-
tion was accomplished with acceptance and accommodation of new residents.
Suddenly, after many years of effective growth, we continue to face increas-
ing school enrollments, but we are frustrated by diminished employment
opportunities and a substantial increase in the number of persons requiring
public assistance. One effect of the change has been a lessening ability of
the citizens to maintain their schools at a level which will allow maximum
utilization by young students and adults.
The Patchogue-Medford School District has applied to the Department of
Commerce for $4, 972, 000 under the Local Public Works Development and
Investment Program. Application material was completed and submitted
under the prescribed deadline. All technical details were properly fulfilled.
However, we have concerns that the application format does not lend itself
to an accurate portrayal of the nature of our community. We may never be
given full opportunity to adequately describe the critical difference that fed-
eral funding could make to a community at the crossroads of positive prog-
ress or major deterioration.
Please grant us a few minutes of your time in order that we may share with
MEDFORD SCHOOLS HOOLS
9421
1976
FORD & LIBRARY
BICENTENNIAL
President Gerald R. Ford
November 5, 1976
Page 2
you the problems we face. A meeting would provide an opportunity for you
to understand that the spirit of this legislation will be well served in the
case of the Patchogue-Medford School District.
We will anticipate hearing from you to establish a convenient time to meet
with you or with one of your respected White House advisors to discuss our
proposal.
Sincerely yours
Read
Henry
Superintendent of Schools
HPR:sn
cc: Board of Education
FORD & LIBRARY
Commerce
Losers in the Trading Game rundated?
per cent and are currently trying to
demanding action now. But there can
By Michael Manley
wrestle our inflation rate back down
be no action if the world orders its
to 20 per cent a year!
trading patterns so as to insure that
KINGSTON, Jamaica - There is a
At the root of this inflation lies a
the two billion members of the Third
continuing and increasingly sighificant
deeper chronic problem that is disa-
World are bound to be losers and the
world dialogue about the relationship
bling for the Third World: the problem
metropolitan world's one billion mem-
between the richer and poorer nations.
of the terms of trade. This is not a
bers permanently occupy the winner's
The search for effective development
phrase dealing with some refinement
circle. It is against this background of
strategies; the desirability of aid pro-
of economic theory, but rather it de-
futility that systems of inadequate and
grams; the problem of the terms of
scribes the brutal ground rules of a
unrealistic aid are called increasingly
trade; the role of the Third World in
game in which we are cast as perma-
into question and that the Third World
international politics-these concerns
nent losers.
is turning its attention increasingly to
occupy more and more attention of the
Over the years, the prices received
what is now described as a new world
world's political leaders and analysts
for exported raw materials, on which
economic order.
of human affairs.
poor countries depend, have tended to
be unstable with little tendency to
We Jamaicans are part of the Third
What emerges from all this is that
rise, while prices of manufactured and
World, and I am a part of a team try-
world trade cannot and must not be
processed goods exported by the met-
ing to struggle with economic reality
left to the mercy of purely economic
ropolitan countries have tended to be
in an island that is as full of promise
forcès. Those who argue for free trade
stable with a steady tendency to in-
as it is beset by difficulties. We are
both in terms of the right of nations
trving to lay the foundations of a
to exchange goods without let or hin-
drance and of having prices determined
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 05fb49a378b76bf6
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 16986953
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "16986953",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16986953",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Commerce (2)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16986953",
"collections": [
"James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
"James Cannon's Issues Files"
],
"subjects": [
"International travel",
"Securities",
"Ships"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986953.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986953.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986953.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "16986953",
"label": "Commerce (2)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16986953"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "16986953",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16986953",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Commerce (2)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16986953",
"collections": [
"James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
"James Cannon's Issues Files"
],
"subjects": [
"International travel",
"Securities",
"Ships"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986953.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986953.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986953.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16986953",
"naId": 16986953,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1977-01-31",
"month": 1,
"year": 1977
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-02-01",
"month": 2,
"year": 1975
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986953.pdf",
"mediaId": "05fb49a378b76bf6",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 7, folder \"Commerce (2)\" of the James M.\nCannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\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 7 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 4, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP BUCHEN\nJOHN O. MARSH\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJAMES M. CANNON\nFROM:\nL. WILLIAM SEIDMAN\nSUBJECT:\nArab Boycott\nA attached. memora ndum for the President on the Arab Boycott issue is\nI would appreciate your comments and recommendations on this\nmemorandum by 3:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 5, 1976.\nFORD i LIBRARI\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nL. WILLIAM SEIDMAN\nFROM:\nJAMES CANNON\nSUBJECT:\nArab Boycott\nI support Option 1.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 5, 1976\nOptm 1\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nThe attached memorandum deals with the general issue Jr\nPAUL LEACH\nParl\nSUBJECT:\nARAB BOYCOTT\nor not to support any new proposed anti-Arab Boycott legislation.\nThe specific issue involves whether or not to support a\n\"compromise\" on the \"Stevenson Bill\" which would have three\nmain effects:\n1. It would require disclosure of boycott request compliance\nreports submitted to the Commerce Department by U.S. firms,\non the grounds that the Export Administration Act declares\nit to be the policy of the U.S. to oppose boycotts;\n2. It would bar religious, racial, ethnic, or sex discrim-\nination by U.S. exporters;\n3. It would prohibit refusals by U.S. firms to do business\nwith other firms pursuant to foreign boycott requests.\nI am not particularly well-versed on this matter and the\ndecision memorandum is not fully illuminating. However, based\non what I know and can glean from this memorandum, I would\nsupport Option 1, i.e., oppose any legislation.\nGERALD R. FORD\nCONFIDENTIAL\nDECLASSIFIED\nE.O. 12958, Sec. 3.5\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nNSC By WHEN Memo, 11/24/98, State Dept. Guidelines\nWASHINGTON\n,\nNARA,\nDate\n5/15/00\nFORD LIBRARY & CERALD\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nBRENT SCOWCROFT\nL. WILLIAM SEIDMAN\nSUBJECT:\nArab Boycott and Related Discrimination\nThe decisions announced in your statement of November 20, 1975\non the related issues of the Arab boycott and religious dis-\ncrimination have been implemented. The Federal Reserve Board\nhas issued a letter to member banks outlining their obligations\nwith respect to Arab boycott and discrimination measures. The\nJustice Department has filed a civil anti-trust suit charging\nthe Bechtel Corporation with refusing to deal with any U.S.\nsub-contractors on the Arab League boycott list and requiring\nits sub-contractors, in turn, not to deal with U.S. firms on\nthe boycott list. The Department of Commerce has decided to\nrelease publicly letters charging United States firms with a\nviolation of its regulations pertaining to the Arab boycott.\nThe Department of Commerce has also ceased circulating tender\noffers requesting bids on projects from American firms if they\ncontain a request to comply with the boycott.\nIn addition, several state governments have adopted laws on\nthe boycott issue, some of which go well beyond the policy\nguidelines approved by you. We have also engaged in extensive\ndiscussions with Arab Governments and Israel on the entire\nquestion, including numerous exchanges through diplomatic\nchannels and during Secretary Simon's March trip to the Middle\nEast. Secretary Simon in his discussions with both Arab and\nIsraeli leaders distinguished between the boycott and reli-\ngious discrimination. He stated clearly that you desired an\nend to the boycott and that you felt that the only effective,\npeaceful way to end the boycott was to resolve the Arab-Israeli\nconflict. He also stated that we would oppose legislation\ndirected to the boycott.\nThe cumulative effect of these actions has been mixed. The\nArab Governments, as well as American businesses, appear to\nunderstand and accept the anti-discrimination aspect of our\npolicy. Saudi Arabia has taken steps to distinguish between\nreligious discrimination and its political attitude toward\nIsrael, and to ease somewhat the process of obtaining visas\nfor persons of the Jewish faith, even though some problems\nCONF IDENTIAL\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFORD\n-2-\nremain.\nThere have also been several specific indications of greater\nflexibility in the application of boycott regulations and\nsome firms have been or soon will be removed from the list.\nYet, there has also been some disruption of United States\ncommercial dealings with the Arab world, primarily due to\nreluctance by American firms to risk possible legal action.\nArab Governments, to varying degrees, have resented our boy-\ncott related actions, although thus far they are generally\ncooperating in quiet, gradual efforts to minimize difficul-\nties. Despite this quiet cooperation, high-level Arab leaders\n(particularly in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) indicate they are\nprepared to retaliate commercially against United States busi-\nness if we continue to apply what they view as unwarranted\npublic pressure.\nThis memorandum seeks your guidance on the Administration's\nposition on several pieces of pending legislation dealing with\nvarious aspects of the boycott/discrimination issue, all of\nwhich would, to various degrees, move the United States into\na considerably tougher anti-boycott position than embodied in\nyour November 20 statement. A summary of all the pending bills\nis attached at Tab A.\nStevenson Bill\nThe bill requiring the urgent formulation of an Administration\nposition is an amendment to the Export Administration Act pro-\nposed by Senators Stevenson and Williams and a similar bill\nintroduced in the House by Representative Koch.\nThe proposed legislation would have three main effects:\n(1) It would require disclosure of boycott request compliance\nreports submitted to the Commerce Department by U.S. firms, on\nthe grounds that the Export Administration Act declares it to\nbe the policy of the U.S. to oppose boycotts.\n(2) It would bar religious, racial, ethnic, or sex discrim-\nination by U.S. exporters.\n(3) It would prohibit refusals by U.S. firms to do business\nwith other firms pursuant to foreign boycott requests.\nThe provisions on disclosure of compliance with Arab boycott\nrequests could have some negative effect on consumer-oriented\nbusinesses in this country, causing them either to avoid the\nArab market completely or to go to third country affiliates\nin order to avoid a possible counterboycott.\nCONF IDENTIAL\nCONFIDENTIAL\n-3-\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nThe provisions barring discrimination are identical for all\nintents and purposes to the measures announced by you on\nNovember 20.\nThe provisions of the bill which prohibit U.S. firms from\nrefusing to do business with other U.S. firms on the boycott\nlist are unclear as to their intent and effect. As presently\ndrafted these provisions are more far reaching than the Justice\nDepartment conception of the applicability of our anti-trust\nlaws (as set forth in the Bechtel suit), and if enforced\nstrictly would deal a serious blow to United States business\nwith the Arab world. Even large multinational corporations\nnow heavily engaged in the Arab world would probably shift\nprocurement to third country affiliated or unrelated firms\nin order to avoid possible problems. Many smaller companies\nwould probably terminate business with the Arab world.\nGiven the policy which we have followed since your November 20\nstatement, the Arabs will tend to view Administration accept-\nance of any additional legislation on the Arab boycott as a\nshift in the Administration's position in response to the\nIsraeli lobby.\nThere has been considerable interagency review of how best to\ndeal with the Stevenson-Williams-Koch legislation. A Working\nGroup, chaired by the NSC staff discussed the issue at length\nand prepared a paper which was discussed by the EPB Executive\nCommittee on April 30.\nThere is agreement that the Administration should seek to limit\nadditional anti-boycott legislation to the absolute minimum, in\naccordance with your policy decision of last November which\nremains the best approach under present circumstances. How-\never, there is also agreement that it may be desirable to\naccept a compromise with Congress in the form of a suitably\namended Stevenson-Williams-Koch bill if this will avoid pas-\nsage of worse legislation and if the only other alternative is\na Presidential veto.\nOptions\nTwo options for dealing with the Stevenson-Williams-Koch bill\nare presented for your consideration.\nOption 1: Maintain the position outlined in your November 20\nstatement and strongly oppose all additional legis-\nlation as unnecessary and counterproductive, but do\nnot indicate that you would necessarily veto any\nadditional legislation thus leaving open the possi-\nbility of compromise later if sufficient opposition\nto the legislation does not develop.\nCONF IDENTIAL\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFORD\n-4-\nRALD\nAdvantages:\nThis would be fully consistent with your statement of\nNovember 20 and the position maintained by the Admin-\nistration since then that no additional legislation is\nneeded.\nIf efforts to block new legislation succeeded, it would\nretain Arab confidence of the Administration as well\nas encouraging them to ease the practical application\nof the boycott. It would avoid the serious danger of\nan Arab backlash (similar to the Soviet backlash over\nJackson-Vanik) because they believed we were applying\nexcessive public pressure.\nIt would minimize the loss of business by U.S. firms\nto other countries due to U.S. anti-boycott regulations.\nIf efforts to block new legislation failed, an oppor-\ntunity would remain to choose between trying to obtain\nan acceptable compromise or either vetoing or acquiescing\nto unacceptable legislation.\nDisadvantages:\nThis approach could produce a confrontation between the\nAdministration and Congress and Jewish groups given the\nstrong pressures which exist for some additional action.\nIt could also result in Congress pressing stronger legis-\nlation and rejecting last-minute efforts at compromise,\nthan would have been the case were the Administration\nto seek a compromise from the outset.\nThis approach could place the President in the position\nof having either to acquiesce to the legislation or\nveto the bill.\nOption\n2: Modify your opposition to any additional legislation\nby beginning work immediately with key members of\nCongress to reach agreement on an amended bill.\nTwo approaches to an amended bill have been considered. Both\napproaches would accept the sections of the bill on anti-\ndiscrimination and disclosure and seek clear agreement from\nkey Members of Congress and Jewish leaders that there will be\nno additional legislative action.\nCONF IDENTIAL\nCONF IDENTIAL\nSALD FORD\n-5-\nApproach\nA: Attempt to delete the section of the bill on\nrefusal to deal in exchange for agreement to the\nidea of public disclosure of boycott request compli-\nance reports, either by administrative action or\nby enactment of that section of the bill.\nA public statement by the Administration supporting\nexplicitly the efforts of the Justice Department\nto apply the Sherman Act to refusal to deal cases\nshould be considered as a possible concession to\nobtain deletion of that section from the bill.\nApproach B: Attempt to amend the section of the bill on refusal\nto deal by substituting language proposed by Jus-\ntice which would substantially narrow its appli-\ncation and bring it into line with Justice's pre-\nsent concept of the applicability of the Sherman\nAct to refusal to deal actions by U.S. firms pur-\nsuant to the Arab boycott.\nAdvantages:\nSeeking a compromise from the outset through consulta-\ntions with key Members of Congress and Jewish leaders\nwould avoid a confrontation with them and could ulti-\nmately make an acceptable compromise easier to achieve.\nEnactment of Stevenson's legislation should substantially\nundercut the prospects for more harmful legislation.\nThe Administration could provide Congress with the\nprecise changes it would like in the bills before they\nmove SO far down the legislative path as to make changes\ndifficult.\nDisadvantages:\nThis would appear as a retreat from the Administration\nposition held since November 20. Once the Administra-\ntion signalled a willingness to compromise, Members of\nCongress and others who support strong anti-boycott leg-\nislation may assume that they are in a strong position\nand do not need to accept a compromise.\nSome legislation would result which, depending on its\nnature, could create serious difficulties for U.S.\nforeign policy and economic interests in the Arab world\nand raise additional barriers to U.S. firms doing busi-\nness in Arab countries.\nCONF IDENTIAL\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFORD\n-5-\nApproach\nA: Attempt to delete the section of the bill on\nrefusal to deal in exchange for agreement to the\nidea of public disclosure of boycott request compli-\nance reports, either by administrative action or\nby enactment of that section of the bill.\nA public statement by the Administration supporting\nexplicitly the efforts of the Justice Department\nto apply the Sherman Act to refusal to deal cases\nshould be considered as a possible concession to\nobtain deletion of that section from the bill.\nApproach B: Attempt to amend the section of the bill on refusal\nto deal by substituting language proposed by Jus-\ntice which would substantially narrow its appli-\ncation and bring it into line with Justice's pre-\nsent concept of the applicability of the Sherman\nAct to refusal to deal actions by U.S. firms pur-\nsuant to the Arab boycott.\nAdvantages:\nSeeking a compromise from the outset through consulta-\ntions with key Members of Congress and Jewish leaders\nwould avoid a confrontation with them and could ulti-\nmately make an acceptable compromise easier to achieve.\nEnactment of Stevenson's legislation should substantially\nundercut the prospects for more harmful legislation.\nThe Administration could provide Congress with the\nprecise changes it would like in the bills before they\nmove so far down the legislative path as to make changes\ndifficult.\nDisadvantages:\nThis would appear as a retreat from the Administration\nposition held since November 20. Once the Administra-\ntion signallled a willingness to compromise, Members of\nCongress and others who support strong anti-boycott leg-\nislation may assume that they are in a strong position\nand do not need to accept a compromise.\nSome legislation would result which, depending on its\nnature, could create serious difficulties for U.S.\nforeign policy and economic interests in the Arab world\nand raise additional barriers to U.S. firms doing busi-\nness in Arab countries.\nCONF IDENTIAL\nCONF IDENTIAL\nGERALD R. FORD CreRARY\n- -6-\nDecision\nOption 1\nMaintain the position outlined in your Novem-\nber 20 statement and strongly oppose all addi-\ntional legislation as unnecessary and counter-\nproductive, but do not indicate that you would\nnecessarily veto any additional legislation\nthus leaving open the possibility of compro-\nmise later if sufficient opposition to the\nlegislation does not develop.\nSupported by:\nOption 2\nModify your opposition to any additional legis-\nlation be beginning work immediately with key\nmembers of Congress to reach agreement on an\namended bill.\nSupported by:\nCONF IDENTIAL\nApril 28, 1976\nMAJOR ANTI-BOYCOTT LEGISLATION\nSENATE BILLS\n1. Stevenson-Williams Bill (S. 953)\nTitle I\nWould require that U.S. firms report to the Department of\nCommerce on whether they intend to comply and whether\nthey have complied with boycott requests which they receive.\nWould require that boycott reports hereafter filed with the\nDepartment of Commerce be made public, except that com-\nmercial information regarding the value, kind, and quantity\nof goods involved in any reported transaction may be kept\nconfidential.\nWould prohibit U.S. firms from furnishing, pursuant to a\nboycott request, any information regarding the race, religion,\nor nationality of its employees, shareholders, officers, or\ndirectors, or the employees, shareholders, officers, or\ndirectors of any other U.S. company.\nWould prohibit U.S. firms from refusing to do business with\nother U.S. firms pursuant to a boycott request.\nMaximum administrative penalties applicable under the Act\nwould be increased from $1,000 to $10,000. In addition,\nwould make it clear that export privileges may be suspended\nfor a violation of the anti-boycott provisions of the Act.\nWould require public disclosure of Commerce Department\ncharging or warning letters against U.S. companies for\nfailing to comply with anti-boycott provisions of the Act.\nWould require that the Commerce Department provide the\nState Department with summaries of the information contained\nin boycott reports for appropriate action by the State Department.\nSENATE BILLS\n2\nWould require that the semi-annual reports to Congress under\nthe Export Administration Act include an accounting of what\naction the Executive Branch has taken to effect the anti-boycott\npolicy of the Act.\nWould clarify the Act to leave no doubt that it applies to banks,\nother financial institutions, insurers, freight forwarders, and\nshipping companies.\nTitle II\nWould amend section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act to\nexpand the disclosure requirements imposed thereunder on\nthose who acquire the beneficial ownership of more than 5%\nof any equity security by requiring disclosure of the following:\n(a) The residence, nationality, and nature of the beneficial\nownership of the person acquiring the securities. (The\nlatter would include, for example, whether the beneficial\nowner has the right to direct the voting of the securities,\nthe receipt of dividends, or the proceeds of sale);\n(b) The background and nationality of each associate of the\npurchaser who has a right to acquire additional shares\nof the insurer.\nWould impose new disclosure requirements as follows:\nEvery holder of record, of, and any other person having an\ninterest in, 2% or more of a class of any equity security,\nwould be required to file reports as prescribed by the SEC\nat such time as the SEC may require. The SEC would have\nauthority to make such exceptions to the above as are not\ninconsistent with the public interest or the protection of\ninvestors.\nThe 2% threshhold is to be reduced to 1% on September 1, 1976\nand to 1/2 of 1% on September 1, 1977. However, the SEC may\nextend or shorten such periods if the SEC, after public comment,\nconcludes that such change is not inconsistent with the public\ninterest or the protection of investors.\nFORD\nSENATE BILLS\n3\nThe bill was originally reported out of the Senate Banking and\nCurrency Committee on February 6, 1976. However, it was\ndecided to defer full Senate action until legislation to provide a\nsimple extension of the Export Administration Act was considered,\nat which time the two pieces of legislation would be combined.\nThis did, in fact, occur at the subcommittee level on April 27\nwhen the extension bill, S. 3084, was favorably reported to the\nfull Committee with the Stevenson-Williams bill incorporated in\nit. Full Committee mark-up and final reporting of the legislation\nis expected Thursday, April 29 or Friday, April 30.\n2. Ribicoff Bill (S. 3138)\nThe bill would deny tax benefits on foreign source income to tax-\npayers who participate in or cooperate with the boycott of Israel.\nThese benefits include the foreign tax credit and tax deferral, and\nDISC. The denial would apply to that foreign source income derived\nthrough direct or indirect dealings with boycotting countries.\nThe bill is pending before the full Senate Finance Committee where\nno action is currently scheduled.\nFORD\n4\nHOUSE BILLS\nIt is anticipated that those House bills pending before the International\nRelations Subcommittee on International Trade and Commerce will be\nconsidered as amendinents to legislation to extend the Export Administra-\ntion Act scheduled to come before the full committee some time in June.\n1. Bingham Bill (H. R. 4967)\nFORD i LIBRARY ORRALD\nThe bill would prohibit US companies from answering or complying in\nany way with boycott requests.\nThe bill is pending before the IRC Subcommittee on International Trade\nand Commerce.\n2. Drinan Bill (H. R. 5913, 5997, 6431, 6661 and others)\nThe bill would make it unlawful for any US exporter to engage in such\npractices as:\nfurnishing information to a foreign agent concerning the race, religion\nor national origin of its employees or the employees of firms with which\nit does business;\n-furnishing information on business dealings with a boycotted country\nor firm; or refusing, because of dealings with a foreign agent, to do\nbusiness with a boycotted country or firm.\nThe bill would require the Secretary of Commerce to revoke the export\nlicense of any exporter violating these provisions.\nThe legislation is pending before the IRC Subcommittee on International\nTrade and Commerce.\n3. Koch Bill (H. R. 11464)\nThis bill is almost identical to the Stevenson-Williams Bill and has been\ndually referred to the House International Relations Committee and\nInterstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.\n4. Holtzman Bill (H. R. 5246 and others) (almost 100 cosponsors)\nThe bill would prohibit any business enterprise from using economic\ncoercion to induce another not to do business with, employ or otherwise\ndiscriminate against (on the basis of race, religion, etc. ) any US or\nforeign person in respect to its activities in the United States. The bill\nwould also make it unlawful to yield to such coercion or take discrimina-\ntory action to prevent the coercion from ever occurring.\nThe bill is pending before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Monopolies.\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nwashington\nMay 10, 1976\nTO:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM: JOHN O, And\nFor Direct Reply\nFor Draft Response\nX\nFor Your Information\nPlease Advise\nCommerce\nMay 10, 1976\nDear Jake:\nThank you for your letter of May 6 and the attached\nclipping from the May 3 issue of Transport Topics.\nI fully understand how strongly you feel on the issue\nof deregulation of the trucking industry.\nI shall see to It that the comments contained in your letter\nand the Transport Topics article are called to the attention\nof the appropriate people here at the White House.\nThanks again for taking the time to give me the benefit\nof your very strong views on this matter.\nWith warmest personal regards, I remain,\nSincerely,\nGERALD RF FORD LIBRARY\nJohn O. March, Jr.\nCounsellor to the President\nMr. R. R. Smith\nChairman of the Board\nSmith's Transfer Corporation\nP. O. Box 1000\nStaunton, Virginia 24401\nJOM:RAR:cb\nMAY 8 1976\nSMITH'S TRANSFER CORPORATION\nGeneral Office: P.O. Box 1000 Staunton, Virginia 24401 Area Code 703 886-6231\nHAULMARK OF SERVICE\nR.R. SMITH\nCHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD\nMay 6, 1976\nMr. John O. Marsh, Jr.\nCounsellor to the President\nFORD i LIBRARY\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C. 20500\nDear Jack:\nEnclosed find comments which I clipped out of a\nrecent paper which are self-explanatory.\nAt a time when our President seems to be having\nmany problems which I happen to believe comes mainly\nfrom poor advice-such as, his stand on deregulation\nof the trucking industry which sounds good to the\naverage business man that is so fed up with govern-\nment regulations and red tape; yet to anyone, with\nthe exception of a few very large corporations, that\nhas anything to do with the shipping or receiving of\nfreight understands that deregulation is probably the\nworst thing that could happen in the efficient opera-\ntion of their business.\nAs to the people in our industry, we are solidly\nagainst deregulation in any form and this position\nwill be registered at the convention and at the polls\nin November. I happen to believe that the election,\nMr. John O. Marsh, Jr.\nMay 6, 1976\nPage 2\nwhoever the opponent to the President, will be very\nclose come November. Our industry could well make the\ndifference in that outcome when you consider the truck-\ning industry and the shippers and receivers in this\ncountry.\nI personally would like to see the President\nreelected. Isn't there something that you can do to\nchange his position on deregulation? If this is done,\nI believe that we can get our industry solidly behind\nthe President.\nThanking you for your reaction and comments.\nWith kind personal regards,\nSincerely yours,\nFORD is LIBRARY DERALD\nR.R. Jake Smith\nEnclosure\nATA Urges Democrats to Back\nICC Regulation in Platform\nKANSAS CITY - Earl N.\nHoekenga, a vice president at large\nof American Trucking Associations,\nhas asked the Democratic party to\nmake deregulation a campaign issue\nby endorsing economic regulation of\nmotor carrier freight transportation\nin its 1976 platform.\nThe trucking industry's represen-\nNo. 2125\nMay 3, 1976\nGuest Editorial\nPresident Gerald Ford has been pi\nregistering surprise when the America\ning Associations reacted in vigorous opp\nhis proposal to deregulate the trucking\nIf true, the President's surprise she\nbeen bewildering in itself, since more than\nReprinted from the\nMankato, Minn., Free Press\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n11,000 of the industry's 15,000 members have\ngross annual incomes of less than $500,000.\nIn other words, the association is composed of\nprimarily small truckers, whose welfare - and\nthat of the relatively small communities they\nserve - is directly threatened by removal of all\ndependent on commercial freight transportation.\ngovernment controls.\nSome 500 points in Minnesota today thereby\nThe trucking industry has been regulated\nhave been left with only truck freight service.\nsince 1935. It has grown from a hodge-podge of\nHow many would be shorn of that, if the trucking\nlocal and long-distance carriers to a complex, in-\nindustry was deregulated, and the small trucker\ntegrated network that surely ranks as one of the\ndriven out of business by the big? They would not\nfinest in the world.\neven have a mechanism of protest.\nProponents of deregulation say that the pres-\nNot all big-name shippers are in favor of de-\nent uniform rate structure is arbitrarily high,\nregulation. Much of their business comes from\nand that there would be immense annual savings\nsmall firm \"feeders,\" just as smaller airlines\nby customers if truckers could come and go as\n(with and without subsidies) pump passengers\nthey please, from one \"territory\" to another, and\nand freight into the long-lines haulers.\ncharge whatever the traffic will bear.\nCompetition is well and good, and keen compe-\nThis is the way it was before 1935. But south-\ntition exists even with regulation. But a kind of\nern Minnesotans with memories dating back that\nruthless contention that blocks off free-flowing\nfar will recall that trucking then was something\narteries to rural America, in the name of other-\nof a monopoly, with preferential service given to\nwise commendable cost-cutting, is a disservice of\nhigh-volume shippers or those who happened to\nquantum proportions.\nbe based in larger cities. It was not until regula-\nRep. Tom Hagedorn, R-Minn., says he is in\ntion - the setting of rates, to allow the \"little\nfavor of \"reregulation\" rather than deregulation.\nguy\" to compete, and power to license, so that a\nThe Minnesota Public Service Commission also\ntrucker could not unilaterally decide to pull out of\nsupports a degree of regulation. Others want\nan otherwise unprofitable route - that smaller\nchanges within the Interstate Commerce Com-\ncommunities finally received scheduled and de-\nmission (ICC) itself - - a \"scraping off of the bar-\npendable service we still have today.\nnacles,\" as it were, including a reduction in the\nIt is easy to visualize Podunk Junction being\nnumber of commissioners from 11 to 6 or so, and\nbypassed by a trucker hell-bent to achieve\nthe forbidding of political appointments.\nmaximum load with the minimum number of\n\"Free entry, everybody gets in on their own fee\nstops. We have only to look to the railroads,\nschedule\" has a compelling ring.\nwhich even in the face of regulation continue to\nBut somebody always gets hurt in that kind of\ntear up tracks or remove agents from many doz-\nfree-swinging enterprise, and usually it's the lit-\nens of cities, towns and villages that are still very\ntle guys like us.\nPage 12-May 3, 1976 TRANSPORT TOPICS\nCommerce\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n(Shipping)\nJune 22, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nDICK CHENEY\nFROM\nJIM CANNON\nthe\nFORD i LIBRARY\nSUBJECT:\nThe Administration's \"Third-Flag\" Bill\nIn late May the President decided to propose our own \"third-\nflag\" legislation as an alternative to a Federal Maritime\nCommission (\"FMC\") draft bill and another bill already under\ndiscussion in the House (H.R. 7940). Each of the three bills\nwould give the FMC substantial new authority to deal with state-\ncontrolled ocean shipping firms -- primarily Soviet-Flag ---\nwhich are allegedly \"unfairly\" competing with other profit-\nmaking shipping firms. The Administration bill, which would be\na watered down version of the FMC draft bill, is now being\ndrafted.\nThis decision was based on information contained in a decision\nmemorandum from OMB and staff comments collected by Jim Connor.\nI would strongly recommend that the President reconsider this\ndecision for two reasons:\n1. While OMB recommended against supporting any legislation,\nthe decision memorandum suggested that some kind of\nCongressional action on a third-flag bill was likely and\nthat an Administration bill might be a preferäble alternative\nto other bills. However, it would now appear that Congressior\naction is unlikely this year. Representative Pete McCloskey,\nthe ranking Republican on the House Merchant Marine Sub-\ncommittee, reports that no one has made a good case for a\nbill and that he is determined to stop any bill. He argues\nthat the chance of any action this session \"are slim\" and\nthat the best Administration strategy is to \"cool it\"\nand wait to help him resist a bill, if necessary.\n2. The decision memorandum failed to emphasize sufficiently\nthat any increased economic regulatory authority for the\nFMC would be wholly inconsistent with the President's\nefforts to reduce economic regulation and to emphasize\nincreased competition as a preferable alternative.\nIf you agree with my recommendation that the President\nreconsider this issue, we will be happy to work with OMB in\ndrafting the appropriate decision memorandum for the President.\nCC: VPaul O'Neill\nfile\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 16, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nART QUERN\nSUBJECT:\nThird Flag Legislation\nOn the basis of a conversation with Paul O'Neill regarding\nour (Domestic Council) position on Third Flag legislation,\nI have withdrawn our objection to proceeding with the\ndevelopment of a draft administration bill.\nAs you know, we were concerned that the Administration\nwas going to take the initiative and submit its own Third\nFlag bill. We were convinced that this was unnecessary\nsince Congress was unlikely to take any action this year.\nWe also believed that such an initiative would carry with\nit problems regarding the President's position on regulatory\nreform and related issues.\nPaul O'Neill informed me that our current efforts are\ngeared to the preparation of a draft bill to have on\nhand should we be asked for one. Currently, however,\nthere is no intention to submit or initiate such legislation.\nCC: Paul O'Neill\nThis\nPaul Leach\nKm\nFORD LIBRARY is GERALD\nfile\n-\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 21, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP W. BUCHEN\nJAMES M. CANNON\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJOHN O. MARSH\nFROM:\nWILLIAM BRENT SCOWCROFT F. GOROG outb\nSUBJECT:\nEscape Clause Case - Shrimp\nA memorandum from Ambassador Dent on the shrimp escape\nclause case is attached.\nI would appreciate your comments and recommendations on this\nmemorandum no later than c.o.b. Thursday, June 24, 1976.\nFORD i LIBRARY OERALD\nAttachment concer with The\nmoninous\nJune\nfile\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 23, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBILL GOROG\nTHROUGH:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nPAUL LEACH Paul\nSUBJECT:\nEscape Clause\nCase-Shrimp\nI concur with the unanimous interagency recommendation\nthat the President accept the findings of the ITC and\ndirect the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor to give\nexpeditious consideration to petitions for adjustment\nassistance from firms and workers in the industry and\ncommunities in which they are located.\nFORD LIBRARY & 9ERALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJMC\nI sent this to Leach for\naction, but he wants to know\nwhat sort of action you want\nhim to take.\nShouldn't he just assess the\nfeasibility of Senator Long's\nrequests?\nj orostaken By\nevents July\nCC: Leach\nCommerce\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 15, 1976\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nJIM CONNOR JEE\nSUBJECT:\nLetter from Senator Long\nThe attached memorandum from Max Friedersdorf was returned\nin the President's outbox with the following notation addressed\nto you:\n\"Check with Secretary Butz, Fred Dent\nand Alan Greenspan.\"\nPlease follow-up with appropriate action.\ncc: Dick Cheney\nMax Friedersdorf\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\n...\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 14, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF m.b.\nSUBJECT:\nSenator Russell Long (D-La.)\nI have asked Jim Cannon and Jim Cavanaugh to assess the feasibility\nof the requests by Russell Long contained in the attached letter from\nthe Senator.\nIf Long's proposals have merit and represent actions the Administration\ncould take, it might present an opportunity to approach Russell again on\nthe Jobs Bill veto.\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nSinned Sicces Denate\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20510\nJune 17, 1976\nThe Honorable Gerald R. Ford\n1600 Pennsylvania Avenue\nWashington, D. C. 20500\nDear Mr. President:\nYou are aware of my interest in domestic sugar\nproduction because of the importance of the sugar industry\nto my home state of Louisiana and due to my position as\nChairman of the Finance Committee which has jurisdiction\nover sugar legislation.\nDomestic sugar producers have been without a specific\nsugar program since the expiration of the Sugar Act on\nDecember 31, 1974. On March 11 of this year, Senators Inouye,\nCurtis and Dole joined me in a letter to you expressing our\nconcern over anticipated developments in the international\nsugar trade and their effect on domestic production. I\nattach a copy of that letter for your easy reference.\nSince that time, the price situation for our domestic\nproducers has deteriorated considerably to the point of\njeopardizing the continuation of the domestic industry. On\nthe day preceding our March letter, the domestic raw price\nwas 16.5 cents per pound. By June 3, less than three months\nlater, the price had declined to 13.85. I am concerned that\nthe price may decline even further.\nPassage of sugar legislation during the remainder of\nthis year would be difficult, if not impossible, with the\nmany other legislative matters to be handled. However, there\nare available to you options which could be used at your\ndiscretion to prevent disastrous consequences to domestic\nsugar production. There are actions which could be taken by\nyou under existing statutory authority.\n1. Increase the present tariff level from 62.5 cents\nper hundred pounds to as much as 1.875 cents per hundred pounds.\nThis could be accomplished simply by amending Executive Order\nNo. 4334 of November 16, 1974.\nFORD & GERALD LIBRARY\nPage two\nJune 17 1976\n2. Reduce the present foreign import quota of 7 million\ntons to a more realistic level. Total imports of foreign\nsugar in 1975 were only 3.9 million tons, and a restriction\nfor 1976 at about that same level might result in a more\nreasonable price for sugar. Individual country quotas could\nbe established if you considered it advisable. This also\ncould be accomplished by amending Executive Order No. 4334 of\nNovember 16, 1974.\n3. Direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a\nprice support program for sugarcane and sugarbeets under\nauthority contained in Title III of the Agricultural Act of\n1949. The level. of support could be established from zero to\n90 percent of parity. The level of support should be a.\nminimum of 70 percent of parity in order to be equitable with\nlevels established for producers of milk, grains, and other\nessential commoditics. Seventy percent of parity would result\nin a price for raw sugar of 18.5 cents per pound. The cost of\nproduction currently ranges between 15.5 cents and 20 cents\nper pound.\nI would very much appreciate your advice as to what\nsteps the Administration might take to correct the dangerous\nsituation now facing our domestic sugar producers. Since this\nmatter is so vital to the 29: domestic sugar-producing states,\nyour early attention to the problem would be appreciated.\nSincerely,\nFinance Chairman Committee\nFORD i LIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 26, 1976\nPaul-\n1\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nROGER PORTER Prablem\nFROM:\nSUBJECT:\nBeef Mayaguez PAUL LEACH Imports Issue and the Jan\nI understand from USDA that your office is now deeply\ninvolved with the beef import question and the Mayeguez\nForeign-Trade Zone issue.\nSince it doesn't seem to be an efficient use of our\ntime to have duplicate efforts in this regard, I am sending\nyou a letter which requires a draft response. This has\nbeen held in abeyance pending resolution of the Mayeguez\nquestion, but will certainly require some action within\nthe near future.\nCC:\nCharles Leppert\nJim Cannon\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nCongress of the United States\nHouse of Representatibes\nMashington, D.C. 20515\nJune 14, 1976\nThe Honorable Gerald R. Ford\nPresident of United States\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. President:\nThe distressed cattle industry, which is just\nemerging from the \"Beef Depression\" of 1973-1975,\ninitiated by the price freeze of 1973 only to be hit\nwith serious drought conditions which imperil its re-\ncovery in 1976, has enough on its hands in coping with\nacts of God without having to suffer further from the\nburdens of man-made restraints.\nOf particular concern is the competition from meat\nimports, 95% of which are chilled and frozen beef. The\nlevel of these imports is too high even under a program\nof voluntary restraints as negotiated with the importing\ncountries. In addition to those imports which are legal\nunder the Meat Import Act of 1964, our cattlemen are now\nfaced with circumventions which permit additional beef to\nflood the domestic market and add to the woes of our\nlivestock producers.\nWe have reference to the frozen beef from Australia\nand New Zealand which is being shipped to the packing\nplant in the free port of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. There\nit is chopped up and processed into \"stew beef\" which\nplaces it in the \"prepared and preserved\" category upon\nwhich there is no limitation as far as import levels\nare concerned. Unfortunately, this category is not\nnegotiable under the system of voluntary restraints, but\nwe believe there is ample opportunity under Sec. 2 (e) of\nthe Meat Import Act of 1964 to regulate the flow of all\nmeat and make sure it is allocated to the importing\ncountry.\nThis type of circumvention is patently wrong,\nMr. President, and steps should be taken to either\nFORD LIBRARY is GERALD\nHonorable Gerald R. Ford\nJune 14, 1976\nPage two\nstop these imports altogether or see that this\nparticular category is included with the other\ncategories the levels of which can be controlled\nunder the Meat Import Act.\nWe' respectfully call upon the Administration\nto address itself to this problem immediately--\neither to negotiate the voluntary restraints on meat\nimports at a level which would make allowances\nfor the imports of \"stew beef\" and other \"prepared\nand preserved\" meats, or take other administrative\naction under the law to control the imports of this\nkind.\nThis request comes to you from Representatives\nof cattle-producing areas, and it is important to\nnote that the cattlemen, generally, have approved\nthe farm policies of this Administration as developed\nand enunciated by Secretary Butz. Any measures of\nrelief from this unfair competition would reinforce\nthe belief of the cattlemen that you have an under-\nstanding of their problems.\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nThank you for your prompt consideration of the\nproblem and for advising us what steps you plan to\ntake. Drought conditions are forcing many producers\nto put their COWS on the market at already disastrous\nprices in direct competition to this \"stew beef\".\nTime is of the essence.\nSincerely,\nX Lasta Diigin Smith\nChuck Grassley\nTime Fee tearter\nJames Abdnn\nX j-\nJohn myers\nHonorable Gerald R. Ford\nJune 14, 1976\nPage John three\nThome\nDen your\nGuver\nVarry Phirley n. Petize\nBirl Vital\nStoyd Spence\nhealth \\ Steve Symms\nSeith L.Seklius Larry Pressler\nGarna 16. Shrin Rd Baum\nget Robina Gene Fayer\nAnghan agent China Wilson (Jax)\nJames Haley Waltr new, Smith\nRay which\nJunes\nJine Johnson\nAir\nFORD LIBRARY is GERALD\nHonorable Gerald R. Ford\nJune 14, 1976\nPage four\n33\nDelbert L. Latta\nVirginia Smith\nCharles E. Grassley\nTim Lee Carter\nJames Abdnor\nJohn T. Myers\nW. Henson Moore\nJohn Y. McCollister\nJoe Skubitz\nCharles Thone\nDel Clawson\nDon Young\nTennyson Guyer\nTeno Roncalio\nBiLL\nLarry Winn, Jr.\nSan Steiger\nBarry M. Goldwater, Jr. Shirley N. Pettis\nWilliam M. Ketchum\nMarilyn Lloyd\nGCORGE O'Brien\nFloyd Spence\nElford A. Cederber\nMark Andrews\nSteven D. Symms\nKeith G. Sebelius\nLarry Pressler\nGarner E. Shriver\nRobert E. Bauman\nJ. Kenneth Robinson\nGene Taylor\nAbraham Kazen, Jr.\nCharles Wilson (Texas)\nRay Roberts\nNeal Smith\nJames A. Haley\nWalter B. Jones\nJames P. Johnson\nJim Wright\nGunn McKay\nFORD LIBRARY & 9ERALD\nname changes above per\nDan Harrant in Congresswoma\nseen\nJune 21, 1976\nDear larv:\nThank you for letting ns know that you\nconcur in the June 14 letter to the\nPresident from Mrs. Virginia Smith and\nothers regarding the impact of certain\nmeat imports on the domestic industry.\nPlease be assured that I shall make\ncertain your name is added to those\nwho have expressed their concern in\nthis matter. 1 know the views you\nand your colleagues have expressed\nwill be fully reviewed.\nWith kind regards,\nSincerely,\nCharles Lappert, JI.\nDeputy Assistant\nto the President\nFORD is LIBRARY 938870\nThe Honorable Marvin L. Each\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nbec: w/inc. to James Cannon for handling with the\nJune 14 letter to the President from Hrs. Virginia\nSmith and 38 of her colleagues. A June 16\ninterim (copy attached) was sent to each of\nthose 39 cosigners, and the incoming sent to\nyou for DRAFT reply.\nbee: w/inc. to Mr. Seidman - PYT\nbee: w/inc. to Amb. Frederick Dent - FYI\nCL:JUB:bmr\nidentical to each of the 20 additional cougness\nJune 16, 1975\nDear Virginia:\nThank you for the June 1: letter to tae\nPresident in which you joined with 33\nof your colleagues from cattle producing\nATAXA El publice the ispact on the domestic\nindustry of beat imports from Australia\nand Hey gaaland which are cozing into\nthis country by way of the free port of\nHayaguez, Puerto Pico.\nPlease be assured I shall call your letter\nimmitately 19 the President's attention.\nI know be will appreciate having your viewa\nregarding this situation and will wish to\nhave the fully reviewed. You will hear\nfurther as scon 23 possible.\nWith kind regards,\nSincerely,\nCharles Deppart, J=.\nDeputy Assistant\nto the President\nthe Honorable Virginia Smith\nJouse of Representatives\nWasnington, D.C. 20515\nGERALD R. LIBRARY FORD\nbee: w/incoming to James Cannon for DRAFT REPLY\nbec: w/incoming to in. Seicman - FYI\nbcc: w/incoming to Anio. Prederick Dent - FYI\nCL:JEB:VO:ki\nidentical to each of the 39 coreines\nJune 13, 1976\n20\nman Marvin L. Esch\nJack Hightower\nTom Harkin\nJohn B. Conlan\nPaul Simon\nNA.\nW. R. Poage\nEdward Hutchinson\nChairman,\nMr. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills\nJohn Melcher\nBizz Harold T. Johnson\nBob Robert J. Lagomarsino\nmany Manuel Lujan, Jr.\nBill William L. Dickinson\nTed Risenhoover\nBo Ginn\nHarold Runnels\nJim Santini\nTom Steed\nBerkley Bedell\nMr. Chairran Olin Teague\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nHonorable Gerald R. Ford\nJune\nPage\nthree 14, 1976 age Thom\nSen yourg\nJanneson Gujer\nJuly\nBir Kitch\nPhiley n. Petting\n2tayd Spener\nhealth Steve Symms\nGERALD R. FORD\nLeith G.Seklius Larry Pressler\nGarner 7. Shriner Rd Baum\nFew Fasher\nJames a 2 Haley Waltn nesl. Smith\nRay Volunts\nChina Wilson (Jex)\nJane Johnson\nAdditions\nWay his\nDumBer Dum M Fay cay\nDiseh,ue\nVeh When\nJohns Dorlan\n2\nEdwars tuthinism\nAillure Mill\nLane\nJob melcher\nRobet r Faguress\nmanuel Cujar Ja\nTed Sisenhover\nBo Sinn\nHapped\nNorn Tom Stead Vead\nKenkey / Bedere 10gm\n2:00\nTuesday Deadline\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nCommerce\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 27, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nPAUL LEACH\nPaul\nSUBJECT:\nAdministration's Position\non the \"Bottlers' Bill\"\nThe attached Paul O'Neill memo to the President asks for\na decision on whether or not to oppose this bill which\nwould provide an antitrust immunity to the soft drink\nbottling industry.\nMarkup may be tomorrow, so resolution of this issue has\nurgent priority.\nThis issue was discussed at the EPB meeting on Monday and\nthere was no objection to the Justice Department position:\nThat the Administration oppose this bill. This position\nis consistent with past Justice Department opposition to\nsimilar bills.\nSince (1) the Administration has been consistently opposed\nto specialized exemptions from the antitrust laws and (2)\nsome strange, normally pro-antitrust Senators (Cranston,\nHumphrey and McGovern) are among the sponsors and thus\nvulnerable to the charge of inconsistency, I would\nrecommend that you agree with the Justice recommendation\nthat we express strong Administration opposition.\nFORD LIBRARY s GERALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate: July 26, 1976\nTime:\nFOR ACTION:\nCC (for information):\nJACK MARSH\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nBOB HARTMANN\nJIM CANNON\nPHIL BUCHEN\nDAVE GERGERN (For information)\nBILL SEIDMAN\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1976\nTime:\n2:00 PM\nSUBJECT:\nOMB(O'Neill) Memo re Administration Position on S. 3421\n(The Bottlers' Bill)\n(Quick turn around requested because hearings may start Wednesday,\nJuly 28)\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nX For Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX For Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nFORD & LIBRARY CERALD\n8 Dept The pontaon\nJustin\ndue\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nJames E. Connor\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFor the President\nfile\nCommerce\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 25, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Legislation Relating\nto West Coast Shipping Strikes\nand the Effect on Hawaii\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nCongressman Spark Matsunaga has written (Tab A) to you\nrequesting clarification of your position on legislation\n(H.R. 4526/S. 1566) to protect Hawaii from West Coast\nshipping tie-ups. Congressman Matsunaga refers to a\nJuly 10, 1976 article in \"The Honolulu Advertiser\" (Tab B)\nin which you are reported to have expressed your support\nfor such legislation to Bill Paul, an uncommitted Hawaiian\ndelegate to the Republican National Convention. On\nJune 18, 1976 Jack Anderson reported on AM America that\nyou had advised three (not named) uncommitted Hawaiian\ndelegates you would support legislation to protect Hawaii\nfrom shipping strikes.\nH.R. 4526/S. 1566 would attempt to prevent certain inter-\nruptions in shipping between the West Coast and Hawaii,\nand between the West Coast and the other U.S. Pacific\nIslands caused by longshore and maritime strikes and\nlockouts which imperil the \"health or well-being\" of those\nliving on these islands. This anti-strike provision\nwould be enforceable upon petition of the Governors of\nHawaii, Guam, America Samoa, and the High Commissioner\nof the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (or their\ndesignated representatives) to a United States District\nCourt for an injunction or temporary restraining order.\nAn injunction under this bill could be granted for up to\n120 days.\n2\nAlthough no formal position has been reported by the\nAdministration to the 94th Congress on legislation to\nprotect Hawaii from West Coast shipping tie-ups, a\nposition was taken during the 93rd Congress. The\nAdministration position was in opposition to the legis-\nlation. I have attached (Tab C) a copy of a letter from\nBill Usery, then Director of the Federal Mediation and\nConciliation Service, sent to the Senate Chairman of the\nCommittee on Labor and Public Welfare stating the\nAdministration's opposition to the proposed legislation.\nInformal contacts through OMB with the concerned Depart-\nments indicate continued opposition to the legislation\nwith one exception (Interior).\nBefore responding to Congressman Matsunaga on your behalf,\nI seek your direction as to the nature of the response\nyou would prefer.\nDecision\n#1. Respond to the Congressman saying that the Administration\nhas taken no position on H.R. 4526/S. 1566 in the\n94th Congress and that the matter is under study.\nApprove\nDisapprove\n#2. Respond to the Congressman saying that the Administration\nopposed legislation similar to H.R. 4526/S. 1566 in the\n93rd Congress and could be expected to do so again if\nsimilar legislation were given active consideration by\nthe 94th Congress.\nApprove\nDisapprove\n#3. Respond to the Congressman saying that you are in\nsympathy with the intent of the legislation and have\ndirected the necessary Departments and Agencies to\nreview the legislation.\nApprove\nDisapprove\nAttachments\nTab A Cong. Spark Matsunaga Letter\nTab B \"The Honolulu Advertiser\" Article\nTab C Copy of Bill Usery Letter\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\n8-2\nSPARK M. MATSUNAGA\nDEPUTY MAJORITY WHIP\n1ST DISTRICT, HAWAII\nMEMBER:\nWASHINGTON OFFICE:\nCOMMITTEE ON RULES\n442 CANNON BUILDING\n20513\nCongress of the United States\nSTEERING\nAND POLICY COMMITTEE\nHONOLULU OFFICE:\nhouse of Representatives\nCHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE\n218 FEDERAL BUILDING\nOF SELECT\n96813\nCOMMITTEE ON AGING\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nJAB A\nJuly 27, 1976\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. President:\nI am enclosing a copy of an article which\nappeared in the July 10, 1976 issue of the Honolulu\nME\nAdvertiser. It reports that you have indicated your\nwe\nsupport for legislation, introduced jointly in the\nHouse and the Senate by me and my colleagues from\nHawaii, to protect Hawaii from West Coast shipping\ntie-ups (H.R. 4526, S. 1126).\nThere is little you could do as President\nwith regard to Hawaii specifically which will be\nmore appreciated by Hawaii's 850,000 citizens than\nactively supporting such legislation. It is\nconsidered by a broad-based majority, including\nRepublicans and Democrats, businessmen and union\nmembers, to be perhaps the most important proposal\nconsidered by Congress since the debate over\nStatehood for Hawaii. One recent poll indicated\nthat fully 83.9% of Hawaii's residents favor\nenactment of such legislation.\nYou will recall that in the 93rd Congress\nFORD i LIBRARY 077833\nafter a similar proposal sponsored by Hawaii's two\nSenators passed the Senate, my bill, H.R. 7189, was\ndefeated in the House. The key to its defeat was\nthe joint opposition of organized labor and the\nAdministration.\nIt is my continued conviction that the bill\nwas defeated because of a widespread misunderstanding\nthat the bill was anti-labor. It is not. It seeks\nonly to assure the protection of Hawaii from the\nsevere consequences of a prolonged termination of\nits \"lifeline\", shipping.\nThe President\nJuly 27, 1976\nPage Two\nIn this regard, you kindly provided Senator Hiram\nL. Fong and me the opportunity to discuss the matter\nwith you during the flight back to Washington aboard\nAir Force One last December 7. You indicated that you\nwould direct a review of the matter.\nI was deeply gratified and encouraged to learn\nthat your further examination of the issue has led\nyou to support the proposed legislation. Because of\nthe gravity of the situation, however, I hope you\ncan understand my desire to obtain a clarification of\nthe position of your Administration with regard to\n|the relevant bills.\nI therefore most respectfully request that I\nbe provided with such a clarification. If I can be\nof any assistance whatsoever, please contact me.\nYour further attention to this issue of crucial\nimportance to Hawaii is deeply appreciated by all of\nits people.\nAloha and best wishes.\nSincerely,\nSpark Matsunaga\nMember of Congress\nTAB B\nHonolulu Advertiser: July 10, 1976\nFord backs shipping strike bill\nin call to Hawaii delegate Paul\nBy DOUGLAS WOO\ntial rival. Rengan, 100, said he sup-\nCongress, Paul met with Ford but\nbeing subtly pressured for his vote\nAdvertiser Government Bureau\nported the shipping legislation, Paul\nFord declined to endorse the ship-\nin exchange for Ford's support of\nsaid.\nping legislation.\nthe shipping legislation.\nPresident Ford told a member of\nPawani GOP National. Convention\nIlist Paul, who \"leans toward\"\nPaul snid Ford apparently was not\n\"Absolutely not,\" Paul said. \"And\nthat the white feilin\nT16-7/73.2\nFEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE\nUNITED STATES GOVERNMENT\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20427\nJune 3, 1974\nTABC\n/\nHonorable Harrison A. Williams, Jr.\nChairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare\nUnited States Senate\nWashington, D.C. 20510\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nThis is in response to your request for the\nviews of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\non S. 1566, a bill which seeks to prevent West Coast\ndock strikes from imperiling the health and safety of\nthe citizens of Hawaii and the United States Pacific\nIslands.\nThe proposed legislation would prohibit\nstrikes or lockouts in the longshore or maritime in\ndustries on the West Coast, which interferes with\nFORD LIBRARY & GERALD\nshipping between the West Coast and Hawaii, Guam\nand other Pacific Islands, for a period of one hun-\ndred and sixty (160) days. The anti-strike provision\nis enforceable upon petition by certain designated par-\nties to a United States District Court for an injunction\nor temporary restraining order. This would be in addi-\ntion to the injunctive relief available under Section 208\nOF the LMRA, 1947.\nThe Service is, of course, greatly concerned\nwith the problem of work stoppages in the longshore and\nmaritime industries. Moreover, the rationale of protect-\ning the health and safety of the people of Hawaii and the\nUnited States Pacific Islands is compelling. However, a\nquestion arises as to whether this type of proposed legis-\nlation promotes the resolution of labor disputes that\n:fect the various forms of transportation throughout the\ncountry; whether selectively postponing a work stoppage\n- 2 -\naids in settling the dispute which caused the disruption.\nIn this regard, we agree with the recently published re-\nport and recommendations of the National Commission for\nIndustrial Peace which stress the point that our national\nlabor policy relies on collective bargaining as the pri-\nmary means of resolving labor disputes. The report also\nnotes that the parties have been successfully searching\nfor substitutes to economic strife and have placed in-\ncreasingly greater reliance upon mediation and fact-\nfinding as tools of voluntary dispute resolution.\nAlthough we recognize the economic disruption\nto Hawaii and other Pacific Islands, we question whether\nproviding for additional selective injunctive relief would\naid in encouraging labor and management to seek peaceful\nmeans of resolving their differences in collective bargain-\ning instead of relying upon economic disruption. For that\nreason, we do not believe enactment of this bill would be\ndesirable at the present time.\nThe Office of Management and Budget advises that\nthey have no objection to the submission of this report.\nSincerely,\nW.J.Usery. for\nNational Director\nFORD LIBRARY &\nRe\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nexports.\nWASHINGTON\ncommerce\nSeptember 23, 1976\n976 SEP 24 AM 8 03\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nALAN GREENSPAN\nBRENT SCOWCROFT\nBILL SEIDMAN\nFRANK ZARB\nFROM:\nIt appearsquite likely the Senate conferees\nJACK House MARSH Jul and\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\non the Export Bill will agree to a very restrictive\nboycott amendment.\nIf this does occur, we should begin efforts to study\nthe impact of such legislation, particularly in an\neconomic and energy perspective. These inputs will\nbe essential for the President when he addresses the\nbill after it comes down from the Hill.\nThe nuclear amendment should also not be overlooked\nand the information on its impact should be made\navailable to the President.\nDick Cheney\nit\nCC:\nJim Cavanaugh\nMax Friedersdorf\nBill Gorog\nRonan M. Put\n092401\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 23, 1976\n976 SEP 24 AM 8 03\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nALAN GREENSPAN\nBRENT SCOWCROFT\nBILL SEIDMAN\nFRANK ZARB\nFROM:\nIt appearsquite likely the House and Senate conferees\nJACK July MARSH\non the Export Bill will agree to a very restrictive\nboycott amendment.\nIf this does occur, we should begin efforts to study\nthe impact of such legislation, particularly in an\neconomic and energy perspective. These inputs will\nbe essential for the President when he addresses the\nbill after it comes down from the Hill.\nThe nuclear amendment should also not be overlooked\nand the information on its impact should be made\navailable to the President.\nCC:\nDick Cheney\nJim Cavanaugh\nMax Friedersdorf\nBill Gorog\npetro\nhyper of Ronan M.\nFORD & LIBRARY 038870\n092401\nCommerce\nOctober 13, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nFROM:\nJIM JIM CONNOR CANNON Art 2wsn\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Presidential Letter\nto Karl Bakke\nI would caution against this proposed letter since the\nBakke/Soviet agreement may not be something about which\nthe President should be unequivocally pleased. While\nit is attractive to U.S. shipping companies, it will\nprobably cause less rate competition. This could be\ndetrimental to our exporters, importers and consumers.\nIn addition, I understand that the negotiations went on\nwithout the necessary State Department involvement and\nthe \"agreement\" has been presented as a fait accompli\nby the FMC.\nHowever, if this letter is sent, I would propose the\nchanges suggested on the attached Scowcroft draft.\nAlso, whatever happens I would recommend that this be\nrun by Bill Seidman, Ed Schmults, CEA and OMB, since\nthis deals with a sensitive maritime policy issue.\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nThank you for your informative letters of July 19\nand September 17 concerning the Memorandum Agreement\nbetween the Federal Maritime Commission and the\nSoviet Ministry of Merchant Marine, which you signed\nlast July. I am hopeful that your Agreement will lead\nto a more stable ocean liner trade and will result in\nhealthier liner competition along with better service\nand lower prices for our exporters, importers and\nconsumers.\nPlease continue to keep me informed of any further\nsignificant developments.\nSincerely,\nFORD i LIBRARY 93RALD\nThe Honorable\nKarl E. Bakke\nChairman\nFederal Maritime Commission\n1100 L Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20373\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nHandled by John Eden at Commerce.\nSheri 1/3/77\nFORD in LIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n,976 NOV 11 AM 9 36\nDate:\nNovember 10, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJAMES CANNON\nFROM:\nWILLIAM W. NICHOLSON\nSUBJECT:\nHenry P. Read, Superintendent of\nSchools, Patchogue-Medford Public\nSchools, Patchogue, New York\nThe attached is for your appropriate handling.\nFORD i LIBRARY 076839\nThank you.\n1(1101\nAbedicine\nCC: Leach\nLissy\nEDUCATION\nPATCHOGUE-MEDFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS\nGeorge A. Mason, Jr., Pres.\nRobert J. Mayer, Vice Pres.\nADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES\nJerome Botwinick\n241 South Ocean Avenue, Patchogue, N.Y. 11772\nArthur Fuccillo\nPatricia A. McDonald\nClaire Meyer\nAlfred A. Volkmann\nHENRY P. READ\nAlbert A. Benincasa, Clerk\nSuperintendent of Schools\n(516) 654-4001\nNovember 5, 1976\nACTION\nT/D\nSCHEDULE BD.\nPresident Gerald R. Ford\nDATE RECEIVED\nThe White House\n1600 Pennsylvania Avenue\nNOV 14 1976\nWashington, D.C.\nMESSAGE\nSPEAKERS BUREAU\nDear Mr. President:\nOTHER Common\nFor more than a century public and private citizens have led developme fif ΓOCE\nour community with a balance among private homes, retail businesses, and\nlight industry. The community is located in Suffolk County, Long Island, and\nhas evolved from suburban to become more urban in character. The transi-\ntion was accomplished with acceptance and accommodation of new residents.\nSuddenly, after many years of effective growth, we continue to face increas-\ning school enrollments, but we are frustrated by diminished employment\nopportunities and a substantial increase in the number of persons requiring\npublic assistance. One effect of the change has been a lessening ability of\nthe citizens to maintain their schools at a level which will allow maximum\nutilization by young students and adults.\nThe Patchogue-Medford School District has applied to the Department of\nCommerce for $4, 972, 000 under the Local Public Works Development and\nInvestment Program. Application material was completed and submitted\nunder the prescribed deadline. All technical details were properly fulfilled.\nHowever, we have concerns that the application format does not lend itself\nto an accurate portrayal of the nature of our community. We may never be\ngiven full opportunity to adequately describe the critical difference that fed-\neral funding could make to a community at the crossroads of positive prog-\nress or major deterioration.\nPlease grant us a few minutes of your time in order that we may share with\nMEDFORD SCHOOLS HOOLS\n9421\n1976\nFORD & LIBRARY\nBICENTENNIAL\nPresident Gerald R. Ford\nNovember 5, 1976\nPage 2\nyou the problems we face. A meeting would provide an opportunity for you\nto understand that the spirit of this legislation will be well served in the\ncase of the Patchogue-Medford School District.\nWe will anticipate hearing from you to establish a convenient time to meet\nwith you or with one of your respected White House advisors to discuss our\nproposal.\nSincerely yours\nRead\nHenry\nSuperintendent of Schools\nHPR:sn\ncc: Board of Education\nFORD & LIBRARY\nCommerce\nLosers in the Trading Game rundated?\nper cent and are currently trying to\ndemanding action now. But there can\nBy Michael Manley\nwrestle our inflation rate back down\nbe no action if the world orders its\nto 20 per cent a year!\ntrading patterns so as to insure that\nKINGSTON, Jamaica - There is a\nAt the root of this inflation lies a\nthe two billion members of the Third\ncontinuing and increasingly sighificant\ndeeper chronic problem that is disa-\nWorld are bound to be losers and the\nworld dialogue about the relationship\nbling for the Third World: the problem\nmetropolitan world's one billion mem-\nbetween the richer and poorer nations.\nof the terms of trade. This is not a\nbers permanently occupy the winner's\nThe search for effective development\nphrase dealing with some refinement\ncircle. It is against this background of\nstrategies; the desirability of aid pro-\nof economic theory, but rather it de-\nfutility that systems of inadequate and\ngrams; the problem of the terms of\nscribes the brutal ground rules of a\nunrealistic aid are called increasingly\ntrade; the role of the Third World in\ngame in which we are cast as perma-\ninto question and that the Third World\ninternational politics-these concerns\nnent losers.\nis turning its attention increasingly to\noccupy more and more attention of the\nOver the years, the prices received\nwhat is now described as a new world\nworld's political leaders and analysts\nfor exported raw materials, on which\neconomic order.\nof human affairs.\npoor countries depend, have tended to\nbe unstable with little tendency to\nWe Jamaicans are part of the Third\nWhat emerges from all this is that\nrise, while prices of manufactured and\nWorld, and I am a part of a team try-\nworld trade cannot and must not be\nprocessed goods exported by the met-\ning to struggle with economic reality\nleft to the mercy of purely economic\nropolitan countries have tended to be\nin an island that is as full of promise\nforcès. Those who argue for free trade\nstable with a steady tendency to in-\nas it is beset by difficulties. We are\nboth in terms of the right of nations\ntrving to lay the foundations of a\nto exchange goods without let or hin-\ndrance and of having prices determined"
}