Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "66328513",
    "label": "JWCicconi Memos to Mr. Baker, January 1984-June 1984 (3)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/66328513"
}

{
    "id": "66328513",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/66328513",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "JWCicconi Memos to Mr. Baker, January 1984-June 1984 (3)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/66328513",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of the Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)",
        "James Cicconi's Memorandums"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/cicconi/40-94-6914307-004-003-2016.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/cicconi/40-94-6914307-004-003-2016.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/cicconi/40-94-6914307-004-003-2016.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/66328513",
    "naId": 66328513,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1985-12-31",
        "year": 1985
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1981-01-01",
        "year": 1981
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/cicconi/40-94-6914307-004-003-2016.pdf",
    "mediaId": "3613d6b476fff689",
    "ocrText": "WITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection: Cicconi, James W.: Files\nArchivist: dlb/bcb\nFile Folder: JW Cicconi Memos to Mr.Baker, Jan-Jun 1984[3of 3]\nDate: 2/17/98\nOA\n10792\nBox\n4\nDOCUMENT\nSUBJECT/TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nNO. AND TYPE\n1. memo\nJ. Cicconi to James A. Baker III re President's\n5/8/84\nP5\nForeign Intelligence Advisory Board, 1p.\n2. memo\nCicconi to Baker re Cop-Killer Bullets, 2p.\n5/17/84\nD5\n3. memo\nCicconi to Baker re Raising the Drinking Age, 2p.\n6/12/84\nPS\n4. memo\nFrank J.Donatelli to J.Baker re Balanced Budget\n6/8/84\nP5\nAmmendment, 3p.\n5. memo\nLee L. Verstandig to J.Baker re Balanced Budget\n6/13/84\n.PS\nAmmendment in Michigan, 1p.\n6. memo\nMerrie Spaeth to Michael A.McManus Jr. re\n6/25/84\nPS\nQuestions for Upcoming Satellite Interviews, (p.1),\n1p.\n113/0/18/00\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP-1 National security classified information [(a)(1) of the PRA].\nF-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA].\nP-2 Relating to appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA].\nF-2 Release could disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the\nP-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA].\nFOIA].\nP-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information\nF.3 Release would violate a Federal statue [(b)(3) of the FOIA].\n[(a)(4) of the PRA].\nF-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information\nP-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President and his advisors, or\n[(b)(4) of the FOIA].\nbetween such advisors [(a)(5) of the PRA).\nF-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy ((b)(6) of the\nP-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(a)(6) of\nFOIA].\nthe PRA].\nF-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of\nthe FOIA].\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nF-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions\n[(b)(8) of the FOIA].\nF-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of\nthe FOIA].\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection: Cicconi, James W.: Files\nArchivist: dlb/bcb\nFile Folder: JW Cicconi Memos to Mr Baker, Jan-Jun 1984[3of3]\nDate: 2/17/98\nOA 10792\nDOCUMENT\nSUBJECT/TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nNO. AND TYPE\n1. memo\nJ.W. Cicconi to James A. Baker III re President's\n5/8/84\nP5\nForeign Intelligence Advisory Board, 1p.\n2. memo\nCicconi to Baker re Cop-Killer Bullets, 2p.\n5/17/84\nP5\n3. memo\nCicconi to Baker re Raising the Drinking Age, 2p.\n6/12/84\nP5\n4. memo\nFrank J.Donatelli to J.Baker re Balanced Budget\n6/8/84\nP5\nAmmendment, 3p.\n5. memo\nLee L. Verstandig to J.Baker re Balanced Budget\n6/13/84\nP5\nAmmendment in Michigan, 1p.\n6. memo\nMerrie Spaeth to Michael A.McManus Jr. re\n6/25/84\nP5\nQuestions for Upcoming Satellite Interviews, (p.1),\n1p.\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP.1 National security classified information [(a)(1) of the PRA].\nF-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA].\nP-2 Relating to appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRA].\nF-2 Release could disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the\nP-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA].\nFOIA].\nP-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information\nF-3 Release would violate a Federal statue [(b)(3) of the FOIA].\n[(a)(4) of the PRA].\nF-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information\nP-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President and his advisors, or\n[(b)(4) of the FOIA].\nbetween such advisors [(a)(5) of the PRA].\nF-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the\nP-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(a)(6) of\nFOIA].\nthe PRA].\nF-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes ((b)(7) of\nthe FOIA].\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nF-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions\n[(b)(8) of the FOIA].\nF-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of\nthe FOIA].\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 8, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nSUBJECT:\nPresident's Foreign Intelligence\nAdvisory Board\nAnne Armstrong called and wanted you to be aware of several\npoints regarding PFIAB:\n1. Anne argued that the membership of PFIAB, now at 21, is\nalready unwieldy, and she feels it would be unwise to expand\nit further. She is especially concerned about the potential\nAdministration turnover when we (hopefully) begin a new term,\nand the tendency of senior people to seek a PFIAB appointment\nas they leave full-time jobs.\n2. Anne said that, if new appointments to PFIAB are made\ndespite the above, she would urge we increase the number of\nDemocrats on PFIAB. The party balance on the Board has\napparently been upset as a result of expansion.\n3. Anne is concerned that some PFIAB members may be working\non the campaign in an official capacity without taking the\nleaves of absence that had been privately agreed on. This\nis apparently not a legal issue so much as an appearance\nproblem, and is perhaps one we might ask the Counsel's\nOffice to monitor.\n4. PFIAB's next meeting is July 11-12, and Anne wanted to\ninvite you to attend their lunch, or to drop-by at any point\nduring their meeting.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 15, 1984\nA much larger article was\nin saturiay's when. De x:\nTO: JAB III\nThe attached is from Sunday's\nSan Antonio paper. I am told\nthat Abrams' comments got wide\ncirculation in other Texas papers,\nalso.\nAs you know, Mondale and Hart have\nalready used Abrams' words against\nus while campaigning among Hispanics\nin California, and we can expect\nthey will be cited in the Fall.\nno\nhi ber\nTo the best of my knowledge, however,\nAbrams has yet to issue any sort\nmilling wid\nof apology for the implications\ncontained in his remark. Shouldn't\nsomeone talk to him about this?\n(I'll be happy to follow-up thru\nFuller if you concur.)\nThanks.\n5/15 Jc\nJC\nI've asked Fuller\nhis (ahams) musber in explanation\n7 what he mid Abm\nnurns, said Cot. Carlos Reynsido Lopez Nulla,\nwhen\nnational airport, 30 miles south of the capital,\ndirector of the National Police.\ntely dis-\nquality\nAtlanta\nSeveral\nHUD official says Hispanics\nwere to\ninvesti-\n'don't mind' crowded living\nisolated\ncts to be\nWASHINGTON (UPI) - A top federal\nthey prefer, some prefer, doubling up.\nis in the\nhousing official said many Hispanic families\n\"That is, as I found out, a characteristic of\nlive in crowded conditions because of \"cultur-\nHispanic communities, Irrelevant to their so-\nthe cya-\nal preference,\" the Washington Post reported\ncial (and) economic conditions. It's a cultural\nrea store\nyesterday.\npreference, I'm told.\"\ntampered\nUndersecretary Philip Abrams, the No. 2\nofficial at the Department of Housing and\nAbrams could not be reached for comment.\nas found\nUrban Development, was quoted as saying he\nRep. Robert Garcia, D-N.Y., chairman of\nhighway\ndoes not believe Hispanics might be living in\nthe congressional Hispanic Caucus, said, \"That\nMichigan\ncrowded homes because of poverty.\nis really a racist remark. These people have no\n\"I don't think so,\" Abrams said in a Post\nconcept of what is going on is America.\nInterview. \"I'm told that they don't mind and\nreally live in another world.\"\n1 GOP?\nBOY'S\nGraduation\nSuits\nES\nMOAMMAR KHADAFY\nmmit?\nNo. 1 terrorist\nPierreCardin\nPARIS NEW YORK\ncials still are optimistic.\nHafez el-Assad reportedly is\nPenner's hap\ndying from heart disease and\nbeen serving\nother ailments. His illness may\ngraduates over 10\nhave a positive effect, this official\nyears with exper-\nsaid, \"while he reevaluates his\nienred ronsul.'\nimage in the eyes of his maker.\"\ntants to help in\nSyria, which is Iran's sole sup-\nchoosing quality\nporter in the Arab world, was\ntailored suits.\nsaid to be reassessing its ties to\nIran, fearful that if Iran has to sue\nfor peace, Syria will be isolated.\nLibya. The fondest hope of all,\nof course, is for the demise of\nKhadafy, the man Reagan de-\nnounced as the world's No.1\nagitator of \"state-sponsored ter-\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 15, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nSUBJECT:\nSteel Industry Import Relief Request\nFor your information:\nAs you know, the U.S. steel industry is bringing a good deal of\npressure to bear in pursuit of their goal of limiting foreign\nsteel imports. I thought you should be aware of the timing of\ndifferent aspects of that effort.\nThe industry is taking a two-track approach, with the first\ninvolving an ITC petition by the United Steelworkers and Bethlehem\nSteel. Filed on January 24, it seeks five years of import quotas\non most categories of steel. If the ITC finds substantial injury,\na recommendation for relief will be forwarded to the President by\nJuly 24; his decision on a remedy, if any, must then be made by\nSeptember 24. (I have heard from good sources that Bethlehem\ncalculated its petition filing date for maximum political pressure\non the President at the time he will have to make a decision.)\nThe other track is congressional: the industry is pushing legis-\nlation that would limit steel imports to 15% of the U.S. market\nfor five years. The House Ways and Means Committee began hearings\nlast month, and on May 2, Baldrige, Brock, and McGrath all testified\nagainst the bill. We can probably expect an attempt at floor action\nbefore November.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 16, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nSUBJECT:\nDomestic Volunteer Service Act\nFor your information:\nIt has been recommended that the President sign the recently\npassed reauthorization of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act,\nunder which ACTION's volunteer programs operate (these in-\nclude VISTA, Foster Grandparents, etc.).\nThe appropriation levels in this bill are higher than our\nrequest in most areas, and Congress ignored our recommenda-\ntion to terminate VISTA. However, the bill passed 369-25\nin the House and by voice vote in the Senate, making a veto\nimpossible to sustain. OMB and ACTION have thus recommended\napproval.\nThe President must sign the bill by next Tuesday, May 22.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 17, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI this\nSUBJECT:\nCop-Killer Bullets\nBackground\nAs you know, Treasury and Justice have been meeting under the\nauspices of OMB in an attempt to agree on legislation that\nwould ban cop-killer bullets. Such a ban is being earnestly\nsought by DOJ and the law enforcement community, and has many\nsupporters on the Hill.\nAt this point, the only legislation being considered is the\nBiaggi bill, which we feel is overly broad and which is\nopposed vigorously by the N.R.A. The Senate Judiciary Com-\nmittee, has refused to support Biaggi, but has nevertheless\nexpressed interest in whether a more limited ban can be\ndrafted. This point was made clear in a recent hearing when\nSenator Thurmond agreed with a request by Senator Biden that\nthe Administration work out a proposal that would be more\nacceptable than Biaggi. (I received a follow-up call from\nThurmond's aide to underline that request.)\nAnalysis\nFrom a policy standpoint, there is little reason for not\nsupporting a limited ban on cop-killer (i.e. armor-piercing)\nbullets. Treasury has already secured some industry coopera-\ntion in a voluntary ban on such bullets, and it is a small\nstep to write that same narrow ban into law. Such a ban\nwould affect only one kind of ammunition: bullets designed\nto penetrate protective vests or armor. The purpose of such\nammunition, obviously, is to kill police or others wearing\nvests; in fact, some bullets are even advertised on the basis\nof their ability to penetrate protective vests.\nAnother factor is the political situation: we have already\nseen charges in print that the President is \"kowtowing\" to\nthe NRA by refusing to support a ban on cop-killer bullets.\nThis would, of course, be a tailor-made rebuttal for Mondale\nto use against charges that he is too tied to special inter-\nests. The issue might also be used to undermine our strong\nlaw enforcement stance. Thus, I would argue that it should be\nneutralized.\nStatus\nTreasury and Justice have now agreed on a proposal for a limited\nban on armor-piercing bullets. It will shortly be forwarded to\nDick Darman for circulation. The proposal is limited to the\nmost blatantly threatening bullets, and contains an exemption\nfor any ammunition with a legitimate sporting purpose. While\nthe NRA will probably oppose any ban, both Treasury and Justice\nfeel this proposal is limited, and thus defensible. We expect\nit would have the support of law enforcement groups, and we\nwould hope that legislators like Thurmond would also be able to\nback it. This proposal would insulate the President on an\nissue where he has already been attacked, and on which he would\notherwise be vulnerable in the Fall.\nI might add one other point: if we decide to support the pro-\nposal, we can do so in a variety of ways. For example, we need\nnot introduce legislation, but could instead convey our proposal\nin letter form or deliver it as testimony. The objective is not\nnecessarily to pass \"our\" bill SO much as to be able to state\naccurately that the President supports a ban on cop-killer\nbullets. The rest can be left to the Congress' deliberations.\nI can go over specific details of the proposal with you at the\npoint when a senior level White House decision is required.\nThanks.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 18, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nSUBJECT:\nMeeting with Charles Walker\nPer your request, I met with Charles Walker, who had Buck\nChapoton's job under President Ford. He had some thoughts\nregarding our tax reform/tax simplification study. Letters\nwe received from him are attached.\nIn short, Walker is concerned about the process we are\nusing. He feels that any report Treasury comes up with\nwill be picked apart quickly by Congress and the various\nspecial interests. He argues that the report should be an\ninitial step which sets forth a framework, and should not\ngo into excessive detail. Walker suggests that a bipar-\ntisan commission then be appointed to put Treasury's study\ninto the form of a specific legislative proposal. Only in\nthat way, Walker says, can we have a chance of success.\nWalker struck me as being sincere in his desire to help,\nand asked that I pass on his thoughts to you.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n5/14\nMDT:\nCHARLES WALKER (not the lobbyist\nas you & I discussed last week)\ncalled again today. He really\nwants to see JAB. I have told\nhim NO twice !! He wants 15\nminutes to discuss tax policy.\nI can easily say no again, but\nis this something that Jim\nCicconi could/would do? If\nnot important at all to JAB,\nthen I'll say flat out NO.\nPlease advise.\nKC\nVHB HEREES Cicconi SEELF CAN SEE\nrim JAB REALY\nis\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nPrevious editions usable\nTO:\nYOU WERE CALLED Kathy BY-\nOU WERE VISITED BY-\nCharles Walker\nOF (Organization)\n212/888- m 2421\nPLEASE PHONE\nFTS\nAUTOVON\n5-11 -3:55 pm\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nGot your message\nre Tussday of Wad.\nWalker will rearrange\nhis schadule if JAB\nRECEIVED\ncould BY sea him DATE either TIME\n63-110\nThursday or NSN 7540-00-634-4018 STANDARD Friday FORM 63 (Rev. 8-81)\nPrescribed by GSA\n# GPO : 1983 0 - 381-529 (205) FPMR (41 CFR) 101-116\nLAW OFFICES OF\nPAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER\nor COUNSEL\nLEE G. PAUL\nA PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS\nWASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE\nROBERT P. HASTINGS\nSIXTH FLOOR\nCHARLES M. WALKER\nFIFTH FLOOR\n1050 THOMAS JEFFERSON STREET, N.W.\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20007\nLOS ANGELES OFFICE\n1299 OCEAN AVENUE\nTELEPHONE (202) 333-8500\nTWENTY-SECOND FLOOR\n555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET\nSANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401\nATLANTA OFFICE\nLOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071\nELEVENTH FLOOR\nTELEPHONE (213) 489-4000\nTELEPHONE (213) 451-2438\n230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W.\nCABLE ADDRESS: PAULHAST\nATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303\nORANGE COUNTY OFFICE\nTELEPHONE (404) 588-9900\nSEVENTEENTH FLOOR\nTWX: 910-321-4065\n695 TOWN CENTER DRIVE\nCONNECTICUT OFFICE\nCOSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626\nSECOND FLOOR\nTELEPHONE (714) 641-1100\nMarch 14, 1984\nTHREE LANDMARK SOUARE\nSTAMFORD, CONNECTICUT 06901\nTELEPHONE (203) 357-0100\nJames A. Baker, III\nOUR FILE NO:\nChief of Staff and Assistant\nto the President\nThe White House\n1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Jim:\nSo as to refresh your memory and not to test it, let\nme say that during the last year and a half or so of the Ford\nadministration while you were Assistant Secretary of Commerce\nand I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy,\nwe both attended numerous meetings of the Economic Policy Board.\nIncidentally, based upon my acquaintance with you at the time,\nI was delighted to have learned of your work on behalf of\nPresident Ford's campaign for re-election. Then, of course,\nduring recent years, I have been admiring your role in the\nWhite House.\nAlthough after the Ford administration you remained\nactive in politics, I returned to my profession of practicing\ntax law. I am now retired (am of Counsel to my firm) and am\nable to devote time to one of my highest priorities--doing what\nI can to achieve a basic restructuring of our faltering tax\nsystem.\nAlthough it is politically naive to do so, I have\nbeen impelled to address a memorandum to the Executive Branch,\nTax Policymakers with a suggestion I hope they will find appeal-\ning and useful. A copy is enclosed. I do, not presume to know\nwho and how many policymakers there may be who would have an\ninterest in these suggestions. I am, therefore, sending the\nmemorandum only to you, to Mike Deaver and to Richard Darman.\nC\nJames A. Baker, III\nMarch 14, 1984\nPage Two\nI am in Washington frequently and would very much\nlike to visit with you about this subject. May I call you?\nSincerely,\nCharlie\nCharles M. Walker\nCMW:pd\nencl.\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nMichael K. Deaver\n:\nPAUL. HASTINGS. JANOFSKY & WALKER\nA PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nEXECUTIVE BRANCH\nDATE: March 14, 1984\nTAX POLICYMAKERS\nFILE NO:\nFROM:\nCharles M. Walker, Esq.\nCOPIES TO:\nSUBJECT:\nTax Policy for 1984-1985\nThe suggestion set forth below comes from my perspec-\ntive gained as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy\nunder President Ford (1975-77), a tax lawyer of some 45 years'\nexperience and a former Chairman (and other officeholder, council\nmember, committee officer) of the Section of Taxation of the\nAmerican Bar Association.\nIn his recent State of the Union Message, President\nReagan asked Treasury for a plan of action by next December \"to\nsimplify the entire tax code, so all taxpayers, big and small,\nare treated more fairly\nSuch a plan would result in that\n'underground economy' being brought into the sunlight of honest\ntax compliance, and it could make the tax base broader so per-\nsonal tax rates could come down, not go up.\"\nUnder date of January 17, 1977, the Treasury Department\npublished Blueprints for Basic Tax Reform--a study and publication\nthat received many hours of my own effort while Assistant Secre-\ntary. The forthcoming Treasury report doubtless will take Blue-\nprints into account. I know that Assistant Treasury Secretary\nJohn Chapoton is well aware of it.\nBlueprints did not produce any discernable explicit\nlegislative response to simplification, let alone to basic restruc-\nturing of the tax system. If the new report is to have better\nresults, something more is needed than thoughtful recommendations.\nA politically realistic approach to Congress must be devised.\nHere is the suggestion:\nHave the President, at some appropriate time (either\nduring his 1984 campaign or after his re-election):\n1.\nUrge upon Congress the critical need of a\nbasic restructuring of the tax system. The case for this can\nbe convincingly made but is beyond the scope of this memorandum.\n555 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071 695 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626\n1299 Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90401 230 Peachtree Street, Atlanta. GA 30303\n1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007\nFour Landmark Square, Stamford, CT 06901\nEXECUTIVE BRANCH\nTAX POLICYMAKERS\nMarch 14, 1984\nPage Two\n2. Acknowledge that decisions on the\nrestructuring:\na. must await the December, 1984 Treasury\nReport;\nb. must be made in a suitable delibera-\ntive atmosphere;\nC. Must afford opportunity to comment by\naffected taxpayers (individual and corporate) and others (such\nas charities);\n3. Recommend that during the deliberative pro-\ncess (likely to require two or three years) Congress refrain\nfrom enacting any tax legislation except as needed:\na. to increase revenue, and to do that\nmerely by raising rates across the board;\n(i) This would avoid the addition\nof further complexities of the law which, like the current legis-\nlation being reported out by the House Ways & Means Committee,\nwill bring the system ever nearer to collapse through non-compliance,\nunadministerability and inefficiency.\nb. to address major deficiencies in the\npresent law, for example, to revise the principles of taxation\nof life insurance companies, and to prevent glaring abuses in the\ntax shelter area, such as use of tax straddles by offshore com-\nmodity funds.\n4. State to Congress that during the delibera-\ntive period he will veto any tax measure not in harmony with\nparagraph 3.\n5. Appoint a commission to convene early in\n1985 to develop and recommend explicit legislation to accomplish\nthe basic restructuring. To assure that the commission's report\nand recommendations will receive congressional action, its\nmembership should include key members of Congress, as did the\nGreenspan Commission on Social Security.\nCharas h. Macher\nCharles M. Walker\nLAW OFFICES OF\nPAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER\nOF COUNSEL\nA PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS\nWASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE\nLEE G. PAUL\nROBERT P. HASTINGS\nSIXTH FLOOR\nCHARLES M. WALKER\nFIFTH FLOOR\n1050 THOMAS JEFFERSON STREET, N.W.\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20007\n1299 OCEAN AVENUE\nTELEPHONE (202) 333-8500\nLOS ANGELES OFFICE\nTWENTY-SECOND FLOOR\nSANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401\n555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET\nATLANTA OFFICE\nLOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071\nELEVENTH FLOOR\nTELEPHONE (213) 451-2438\nTELEPHONE (213) 489-4000\n230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W.\nATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303\nCABLE ADDRESS: PAULHAST\nTELEPHONE (404) 588-9900\nORANGE COUNTY OFFICE\nSEVENTEENTH FLOOR\nTWX: 910-321-4065\n695 TOWN CENTER DRIVE\nCONNECTICUT OFFICE\nSECOND FLOOR\nCOSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626\nTHREE LANDMARK SQUARE\nTELEPHONE (714) 641-1100\nMarch 14, 1984\nSTAMFORD, CONNECTICUT 06901\nTELEPHONE (203) 357-0100\nOUR FILE NO:\nRichard G. Darman\nAssistant to the President and\nDeputy to the Chief of Staff\nThe White House\n1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Darman:\nWhile you and I have not met, I would like to intro-\nduce myself initially at least by enclosing a copy of a letter\nof today's date I have written to Jim Baker. That will give\nyou some brief background information concerning me.\nBased upon what I read in the press, you are \"involved,\"\nshall we say, with at least that part of the President's recent\nState of the Union Message dealing with restructuring of the tax\nsystem. It is on the strength of that perceived involvement that\nI am writing to you to enclose a copy of a memorandum I have\nwritten on the subject.\nAs you can gather from my memorandum, I feel strongly\nabout the need to bring about a basic restructuring of the tax\nsystem. I have already devoted substantial effort to that end\nand am willing and able to continue the effort.\nI am in Washington frequently and would welcome the\nopportunity to visit with you.\nVery truly yours,\nCharces In macher\nCharles M. Walker\nCMW:pd\nencl.\nCC: James A. Baker, III\nMichael K. Deaver\nLAW OFFICES OF\nPAUL. HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER\nor COUNSEL\nA PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS\nWASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE\nLEE G. PAUL\nROBERT P. HASTINGS\nSIXTH FLOOR\nCHARLES M. WALKER\nFIFTH FLOOR\n1050 THOMAS JEFFERSON STREET, N.W.\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20007\n1299 OCEAN AVENUE\nTELEPHONE (202) 333-8500\nLOS ANGELES OFFICE\nTWENTY-SECOND FLOOR\nSANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401\n555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET\nATLANTA OFFICE\nLOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071\nELEVENTH FLOOR\nTELEPHONE (213) 451-2438\nTELEPHONE (213) 489-4000\n230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W.\nATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303\nCABLE ADDRESS: PAULHAST\nTELEPHONE (404) 588-9900\nORANGE COUNTY OFFICE\nSEVENTEENTH FLOOR\nTWX: 910-321-4065 910\nCONNECTICUT OFFICE\n695 TOWN CENTER DRIVE\nSECONO FLOOR\nCOSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626\nTHREE LANDMARK SOUARE\nTELEPHONE (714) 641-1100\nMarch 14, 1984\nSTAMFORD, CONNECTICUT 06901\nTELEPHONE (203) 357-0100\nOUR FILE NO:\nMichael K. Deaver\nAssistant to the President and\nDeputy Chief of Staff\nThe White House\n1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Deaver:\nWhen you were in Los Angeles February 17, I was\nscheduled to attend the dinner for you at the Century Plaza\nHotel as a guest of John Henry Dudley. Due to an emergency\nthat arose, I was unfortunately unable to attend.\nDuring the reception period, Mr. Dudley spoke to you\nof my interest in finding a way to basically restructure our\ntax system. I understand from him that you were receptive to\nthe idea of hearing from me on the subject.\nIt occurred to me that the most succinct way of pre-\nsenting my thoughts was to prepare a memorandum on the subject.\nI have done this. A copy is enclosed. Also enclosed is a\ncopy of letters I am writing to Jim Baker and to Richard Darman.\nAs mentioned in my letter to Jim I am in Washington frequently\nand would welcome a visit with you on this subject.\nSincerely,\nChams In. Walker\nCharles M. Walker\nCMW:pd\nencl.\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nJames A. Baker, III\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 18, 1984\nV\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nJ.\nSUBJECT:\nUnitary Tax\nFor your information:\nAs I understand it, the Unitary Tax group formed by Treasury\nwill issue its report by May 31. They will probably recom-\nmend that:\na) The federal government, including the IRS,\nwill assist states in making sure that corpora-\ntions are not cheating;\nb) the states, in turn, will work to stop the\ninternational application of the unitary tax\n(i.e. it should not be applied beyond the\n\"water's edge\") ; and\nc) there would be no federal law to require\nstates to abandon use of the unitary tax.\nThough its terms could change, the above represents a compro-\nmise which we hope will be accepted, especially by the 12 states\nnow applying a worldwide unitary tax.\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 21, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONL\nSUBJECT:\nAdvertisement Paid for by Donn Hopkins\nPer your request, I checked into the background of Mr. Donn Hopkins\nand the problem with USDA he cites in his full page ad in the\nFairbanks paper (attached).\nAccording to Senator Stevens' office, Donn Hopkins is something of\na gadfly in the Fairbanks area. He is a part-time developer and\nhas run for a number of local offices. Several years ago, Hopkins\nbegan an effort to develop a resort in the Tongas National Forest;\nhence the advertisement designed to get the President's attention.\nDoug Riggs, who is from Alaska, points out that it is not uncommon\nfor the state's many \"ultra-individualists,\" like Hopkins, to ex-\npress themselves through paid advertisements in the Alaska news-\npapers.\nSenator Stevens' office assisted Hopkins for over two years in his\nefforts to secure USDA/Forest Service approval for his resort plan.\nThe proposal, however, was repeatedly turned down by the Forest\nService. Among their reasons were opposition by the local com-\nmunity, a potentially detrimental impact on local fishing, and con-\ncern that Hopkins did not have the financial resources to do the\njob properly.\nThe Forest Service's determination was appealed up through the\nagency, and eventually reached the Secretary. On September 7, 1983,\nSecretary Block wrote Hopkins a letter (copy attached) in which he\ndeclined to review the Forest Service's decision, thus ending the\nmatter from USDA's standpoint. Senator Stevens' office has told us\nthat they are convinced Mr. Hopkins was dealt with fairly throughout\nthe department's consideration of his request.\nPlease let me know if you need any further information on this.\nItember 7 1983\nir. bohn hopkins\nF... Sex 89663\nCollege, Alaska 99708\nDear Mr. Hopkins:\nThis is in response to your May 31, 1983, correspondence regarding letters\nto you from Assistant Secretary John B. Crowell, Jr. dated December 6, 1982.\nand May U. 1983. The letters are, respectively, in response to your purported\nAntice of Appeal letter dated September 20, 1982, and your request for a stay\nof the January 20, 1983, decision by the Chief of the Forest Service, signed\nby Deputy Chief R. M. Housley. denying your application to build a resort\nat Bailey Bay Hot Springs on the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.\nYou contend the Assistant Secretary exceeded his authority by rendering\nthese decisions not in accordance with the appeal regulation 36 CFR 211.19.\n7 CFR 2.19 (d) (18) delegates from the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary\nfor Natural Resources and the authority to review decisions of\nthe Chief or the Forest Service pursuant to 36 CFR 211.19 (1) (1) (1v) and\n211.19 (1)(2). Therefore, in responding to your letters, the Assistant\nSecretary for Natural Resources and Environment acted within his authority\nas stated in the Code of Federal Regulations.\nThe January 20, 1983, Decision Notice denying your application for a lease\nwas an initial decision by the Chief. The Secretary, or his delegate,\nhas discretion under 36 CFR 211.19(j)(1)(1v) to review an initial decision\nby the Chief. I have decided not to review the Chief's decision of\nJanuary 20, 1983. The January 20, 1983, decision 1s therefore the final\nadministrative determination by the Department of Agriculture.\nSincerely,\nAUG 1988\nJ. Acting Hilmon, Deputy Chief\nJohn\nSecretar\nPHB\nSec. Cont. 02F93327\nCC: LA, Sec. Rec., R-6\nAsst. Sec Crowell\nFeuhter\nRobertson/Peterson\nHilmon/Housley\nexitialed\nHaug\nSvensen\nDraft\nFS:Rn:FFrieder:ob:6/15/83:447-7754\nFile Designation: 2720\nOdessa Disk #4\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 21, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI Jun\nSUBJECT:\nExecutive Order on Pay Adjustment\nFor your information:\nAn executive order has been forwarded to the President that\nwould implement the 4% federal pay raise provided for in\nthe Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act signed on April 18.\nAs you know, the President signed an order for a 3.5% pay\nraise last December. The reconciliation bill provided,\ninstead, for a 4% raise retroactive to January.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 22, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI in\nSUBJECT:\nAfrican Development Foundation\nFor your information:\nThe board of the African Development Foundation today voted\nto remove Dr. Connie Hilliard as president of this semi-\nautonomous agency, effective immediately. Hilliard is a\nblack woman and former Tower staffer who was recommended for\nthe job by the White House.\nAs mentioned to you yesterday, Senator Tower had weighed in\nto urge that we prevent Connie's removal. White House\nPersonnel and AID were already aware of the problem, and did\ntheir best to apprise the board of the Administration's\nfeelings. However, the board chose to ignore our suggestion\nthat any grievances be resolved quietly, and without recourse\nto an abrupt termination.\nI have informed Tower's office of the above, and assured\nthem that we would try to take care of Connie. (I was told\nthe Senator may call you on this.)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 22, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nSUBJECT:\nConversation with Anne Armstrong\nFor your information:\nAnne Armstrong called and wanted to convey that PFIAB has\nchosen Gary Schmitt as its new executive director. The\ncurrent executive director, Fred Demech, is leaving in\nAugust.\nSchmitt is described as a solid conservative who is com-\npletely in tune with the President's foreign policy. He\nformerly served on Moynihan's congressional staff. Anne\nsaid she had gotten very positive feedback on Schmitt\nfrom, among others, Goldwater, Wallop, the CIA, and the\nmilitary. She intends to inform Herrington of the Board's\nchoice shortly.\nBy the way, Anne is still anxious to either talk with you,\nor have an appointment to see you.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 23, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nSUBJECT:\nEdith Jones\nPer your request, Tex Lezar contacted Edith Jones to explore\nwith her the possibility of a judicial appointment other\nthan the 5th Circuit.\nEdith emphasized that her real desire is for the 5th Circuit\nappointment in Houston. She is not interested in a District\nCourt or Claims Court judgeship outside the Houston area,\nthough Tex had the impression she might be interested in a\nHouston district judgeship, or perhaps something major like\nthe D.C. Circuit.\nTex told Edith that she would be placed on the Justice\nDepartment's list with a very high priority recommendation\nin case a Houston district judgeship opens up. He promised\nshe would also be considered if a new vacancy occurs on the\n5th Circuit (we can argue that there is still a \"Houston\nvacancy\" on the 5th Circuit since Robert Hill is from Dallas).\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 25, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nSUBJECT:\nCabinet Meeting\nFor your information:\nAt today's Cabinet meeting, the President was briefed on\nfollow-up to the Grace Commission's report. In short, he\nwas told that approximately one-fourth of the recommenda-\ntions have been either implemented, or proposed in our\nFY85 budget. Of the remainder, most will require legis-\nlation and/or involve controversial policy changes. Ex-\namples of the \"controversial\" category include proposals\nto repeal wage protection laws ($8.0 B over 3 years),\nreform federal retirement ($30.0 B), and sell all federal\npower marketing administrations ($19.8 B).\nPlease let me know if you would like more details on this\nsubject.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 25, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nAm\nSUBJECT:\nRight-of-Way Cost Exemption for Rural\nElectric and Telephone Cooperatives (H.R. 2211)\nA bill is now before the President which would exempt REA-financed\nelectric and telephone cooperatives from paying for the use of\nrights-of-way across Federal lands. Such entities would only be\ncharged administrative costs. Under current law they are required\nto pay fair market value rental for such rights-of-way, with\nrental costs averaging below $1,000 per year.\nThe legislation is sponsored by such people as Seiberling,\nMarlenee, Lujan, and Oberstar in the House; Senate sponsors in-\nclude Laxalt, Hecht, Andrews, Pressler, Burdick, and Baucus. The\nbill was opposed by the Administration, but nevertheless passed\nboth the House and Senate on voice votes.\nUSDA has recommended a veto, arguing that a special exemption is\nunfair to other right-of-way holders, and that rental costs to\ncooperatives are negligible. Interior and OMB still object to the\nbill, but recommend approval on the basis that:\na) revenue loss from the exemption would amount to\nonly $4 million over four years;\nb) administrative costs can still be levied (thanks\nto an amendment); and\nc) the bill has overwhelming congressional support,\nmaking it difficult to sustain a veto.\nLast day for action on this bill is Monday, May 28.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 11, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nI tim\nSUBJECT:\nUpdate on Federal Employee Reduction\nAccording to current figures, non-defense federal government employ-\nment had been reduced by 72,300. Ralph Bledsoe of CCMA told me that,\nif traditional agency hiring patterns are followed, we may end up\n5,000 short of the President's promised reduction of 75,000 in FY84.\nJoe Wright and Don Devine are monitoring the situation, and will be\nworking to see that agency goals are met. However, OPM is already\nbroaching the idea of a hiring freeze--a move traditionally opposed\nby OMB on the basis that agencies generally \"over-hire\" before any\nfreeze can take effect.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 12, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nSUBJECT:\nRaising the Drinking Age\nRealizing that a decision may have already been made, I would\nnevertheless like to offer a few thoughts on proposed legis-\nlation that would, in effect, compel states to raise their\ndrinking age to 21. For the following reasons, I feel it would\nbe unwise to support this measure, or, at very least, would not\nhave the President \"out front\" on the issue:\n1. The measure involves using federal funds to coerce\nthe states into specific behavior. This is a blatant\nexample of federal intrusion into yet another area\ntraditionally left to the states. The Republican Party\nand this President are both on record as opposing such\ncoercive use of federal funds; our position on the 55\nmph speed limit is only one in a series of examples.\nFurther, a citation of previous measures imposed on the\nstates over our objection is no argument for accepting\nthis bill.\n2. This measure revokes a right now enjoyed by the 18\nto 21 year old age group. While it is arguable whether\nthe drinking age should have been lowered in the first\nplace, it is very difficult to revoke such a right once\nit is conferred. By doing so, we as a party risk alien-\nating a large segment of the young adult population.\n3. The argument for raising the drinking age is tenuous.\nEven if we accept that drunk-driving accidents might be\nreduced, there is no rationale other than tradition for\ndrawing the line at 21 - - why not raise it to 22, 23 or\nhigher? (And if tradition itself is an argument, state\ndecision-making in this area is an even longer-standing\ntradition.)\n4. This measure circumvents a widespread state reassess-\nment of drinking ages. A number of states, for example,\nhave viewed high school drinking by 18 year olds to be\nthe main problem, and have raised their drinking age to\n19. A federal measure using highway funds as leverage\nwill end this \"laboratory of democracy\" process which is\ntypical of our federal system.\n5. When the earlier report on this issue was released,\nthe Administration declined to support a federally-imposed\ndrinking age increase on the basis that such decisions\nshould be left to the states. This measure amounts to\nthe same thing, and our support at this stage would be\nviewed as a purely political action (and perhaps as a\nreversal).\nOn the whole, I feel Congressional support for this bill is typical\nof election year desires to sign on with the \"cause of the moment. \"\nIt is ill-considered, and its method is inconsistent with our\nphilosophy of the federal government's proper role. If we cannot\noppose it, I would prefer to see us acquiesce in the overwhelming\nwill of the Congress rather than try to lead this parade.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 13, 1984\nTO: JAB III\nAttached is a memo from Frank\nDonatelli re the balanced budget\namendment. I sent a copy to Lee\nVerstandig for his comments, which\nare also attached.\nJC\n(A \"final word\" note from\nDonatelli is at back of This.)\nNOTE\nTold FJD & LV that nothing\nwas to be done on This till\nour budget package has cleared\nthe Hill.\nwe\n0/18\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 8, 1984\nACTION MEMORANDUM FOR: JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nFrank J. Donatelli\nSUBJECT:\nBalanced Budget Amendment\nThis is to recommend the direct involvement of the President in\nsupport of the Balanced Budget Amendment by making a phone call\nto Michigan State Representatives who are now considering a\nResolution for a Constitutional Convention.\nI. SCENARIO\nAs you know thirty-three states have already called for a\nConstitutional Convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment; two\nmore are required. The Republican-controlled Michigan Senate has\nalready passed a resolution calling for a Constitutional\nConvention and it is currently in the Michigan House, in\nCommittee.\nSometime this week, the Committee should pass the Resolution and\nit will move to the full House for consideration. Here are two\npossible scenarios for a POTUS phone call:\na) contact the Committee on a speaker phone just before or\nafter passage of the resolution;\nb) phone a meeting of the State House Democratic and GOP\nleadership\nOf course, there are other scenarios which could be used. The\nactual call will depend upon the President's schedule, the\ntimetable of the Michigan House and thoughts Lee Verstandig and\nother relevant officers might have. This memo is simply to get\nthe concept approved so we can aim towards a phone call later in\nthe week.\nII. ARGUMENTS FOR\n1. The President Is For It\nThis is an issue the President has repeatedly stated he is\nin favor of.\n2. It's A Winner\nSimply put, the issue is a \"winner\" with the American\npeople. A May poll by Market Opinion Research showed an\nastounding 83% of the American people favor a balanced budget\namendment.\n2\n3. It Protects Us Where We Are Weak\nThe Democrats have been fairly successful in placing the\nblame for the deficits on the Administration. This has a number\nof serious implications for us this year. It is the one aspect\nof the economic record where we are on the defensive. It makes\nus appear hypocritical when we talk about federal spending. The\nPresident's direct involvement in the issue shows our concern\nabout the deficit is not just talk and when push comes to shove,\nthe Democrats will defend the deficits.\n4. Strategic Importance of Thirty-Fourth State\nThe political battle in Michigan is not just one in a series\nof battles for the balanced budget amendment. Because it would\nbe the 34th State, it assumes strategic importance. Although 35\nStates are required for a Constitutional Convention, the 34th\napproval makes a balanced budget a fait accompli. Three States\nhave balanced budget initiatives on the ballot this fall and it\nis all but certain one of them will pass. Thus, if Michigan\npasses the resolution now, it will be assumed the Constitutional\nConvention will be called come November. There will be pressure\non Congress to act before November to head off the Convention.\nThe balanced budget amendment will receive major media attention\nand the Democrats will be put on the defensive.\nIII. CONCERNS\n1. Bad Precedent\nSome have expressed concerns about the President's direct\ninvolvement in an issue in a State legislature, citing state\nsovereignty and \"opening the floodgates\" of requests for issue\ninvolvement.\nTo the State sovereignty/federalism argument, I would respond\nthis does not hold in the instance of a call to a Constitutional\nConvention. Rather than dealing with a State-specific issue a\nConstitutional Convention is indeed a federal issue. The\nPresident's interest is certainly legitimate in this instance.\nSecondly, the involvement would not be a heavy-handed\narm-twisting (a la cutting off state highway construction funds\nshould the states fail to pass the ERA), but would be the\nPresident expressing his views and soliciting support for them.\nTo the \"floodgates\" arguments, I point out this could be the\nPresident's only direct involvement in an issue before a state\nlegislature during this Administration. Thus, the only precedent\nwe will establish is one phone call per term, hardly an\nunmanageable goal.\n3\n2. Local Political Concern\nWe must be certain we do not needlessly give credibility to\nthe local Democratic State Representatives, nor that we do not\nneedlessly leave the local Republican leadership out in the cold.\nTo make sure that does not happen, we should be certain that\nIntergovernmental Affairs is involved with this project as soon\nas possible to work on the final scenario.\n3. Other States More Important\nMontana, Washington, and California are the three states\nlikely to have initiatives on the ballot this November and the\nodds on the initiative passing in at least one of these States\nis, as said before, all but certain. Thus, the argument goes, we\ncould come up with an event in one of the other States -- why\nMichigan?\nMy response would be Michigan is the best target precisely\nbecause the vote will take place before the November elections.\nThus, as we go into the election, the likelihood of a\nConstitutional Convention will be very high, and the President's\nbalanced budget work will be of strategic importance. If we\nwait until November for thirty-four states, it will not be until\nafter November that the issue would assume strategic importance.\n4. What If We Lose\nWhat if the President makes his phone call and the resolution\nis defeated, doesn't that make the President look bad?\nNo. The beauty of the situation is that a victory would bring us\nto thirty-four states and be viewed as significant, but a defeat\nwould just be another of the many defeats the balanced budget\namendment has suffered.\nMore importantly, the President wins by losing, for he shows it\nis the Democrats who are the obstructionists and opposed to doing\nanything about the deficits.\nIV. RECOMMENDATION\nThat I work with Intergovernmental Affairs to present you\nwith a specific phone call to be made by the President this week.\nApprove\nDisapprove\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 13, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nLEE L. VERSTANDIG he\nSUBJECT:\nBalanced Budget Amendment in Michigan\nFrank Donatelli and I have discussed the possibility of\nPresidential involvement in the campaign for ratification of the\nBalanced Budget Amendment in Michigan. I agree with Frank that\nPresidential involvement in this effort may well be desirable.\nThe key elements of that involvement: timing and and the nature\nof the involvement need to be determined.\nTiming\nI have met with Mike Busch, the House Minority Leader in Michigan\nto discuss his strategy for moving the Balanced Budget Amendment\nin Michigan. His strategy involves holding hearings on the\nsubject and trying to move the Balanced Budget Amendment out of\ncommittee when the Michigan House reconvenes in September. The\nvotes are very close in committee but if the votes are not there\nto pass the Balanced Budget Amendment out of Committee, Busch\nplans to move with a discharge petition to bring the issue before\nthe full House. This action will not occur until September. I\nthink it would be prudent for us to hold the President's\ninvolvement until later in the Summer when it can have a more\nimmediate impact on the House's action.\nForm of the President's Involvement\nI think a Presidential appearance in Michigan in September could\nwell be tied into the Balanced Budget debate. It would be very\nadvantageous to the Balanced Budget Amendment effort in Michigan\nfor the President to personally appear. If that is not possible,\nthen other types of involvement, possibly including telephone\ncalls could be considered at the appropriate time in September.\nFrank has made the point that Michigan is the best target for\nPresidential involvement because its action will occur before the\nNovember elections. I agree with that and think that of the\nStates considering the Balanced Budget Amendment at this time\n(Montana, Washington, California and Michigan), Michigan is the\none needing the most attention. I plan to work with Frank on how\nfast to accomplish our strategy.\nCC: Frank Donatelli\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 14, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A BAKER, III\nFROM:\nFrank J. Donatelli\nSUBJECT:\nBalanced Budget Amendment in Michigan\nI concur with Lee Verstandig's analysis as outlined in\nhis June 13 memorandum to you. Let's aim toward a major\non-site September event, such as an address to a joint\nsession of the Michigan House.\nCC: Verstandig\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 14, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nSUBJECT:\nToday's CCEA Meeting\nAt this morning's CCEA meeting, two subjects were discussed:\n1. GNP \"Flash\" Estimates: The Council had asked for a working\ngroup study on whether the release of GNP \"flash\" estimates\nshould be discontinued due to their unreliability. In today's\ndiscussion, CCEA agreed that we should continue to release this\ndata. All of the participants recognized problems with the\nfigure. However, they felt it was useful data, and argued that\nsince it is compiled anyway, the figure would inevitably leak\neven if it is not released. Further, with the recovery slowing,\ndiscontinuing the \"flash\" estimates would appear to be a politi-\ncally motivated action.\n2. REA Bailout Legislation: This bill, which involves forgive-\nness of around $8 B in REA loans, continues to move on the Hill.\nIt has already passed the House, and just recently passed the\nSenate Agriculture Committee by an overwhelming margin. At this\npoint, our only hope is to keep the bill from reaching the\nSenate floor. Garn and Proxmire have requested concurrent juris-\ndiction for the Banking Committee, where we might be able to\ndelay the bill indefinitely, but their request is stalled due to\nHuddleston's objections (as ranking Democrat on Agriculture, his\nconcurrence is needed; Helms has already agreed). However, it\nshould be pointed out that the measure could still be attached\nto another bill as a floor amendment. Secretary Regan wanted to\nbe certain you were aware of the immediacy of this issue, and the\ndifficulties it poses.\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 15, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nJim\nSUBJECT:\nCop-Killer Bullet Legislation\nOur legislation to ban cop-killer bullets, which was finally signed-\noff on last week, has been formally transmitted to the Hill by Justice\nand Treasury. Thurmond has agreed to be the prime Senate sponsor,\nwith Biden, D'Amato, and Moynihan as key co-sponsors. In the House,\nJack Brooks, Ham Fish, Dingell, and Conte are key sponsors. The\nNational Rifle Association has indicated it will not oppose the legis-\nlation, and we have secured strong support from police and law enforce-\nment organizations.\nIn short, it looks like we have achieved something very close to a con-\nsensus bill. Thurmond held a press briefing at noon today to explain\nthe legislation, and the press turnout was reportedly heavy. Even more\nencouraging, as of this afternoon, 75 senators have signed on as co-\nsponsors.\nSenator Thurmond feels he has a good chance of securing swift passage\nof our bill, and has set a hearing for next Thursday. On Wednesday,\nthe President will travel to Connecticut to speak to the Sheriffs'\nAssociation, and we plan to include mention of the bill in his remarks.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 19, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nare\nSUBJECT:\nMeeting with Teddy Gleason\nTeddy Gleason, President of the International Longshoremen's\nAssociation, has requested a meeting with you in order to dis-\ncuss several subjects of interest to his union. Doug Riggs\nstrongly recommends that such a meeting be scheduled, and I\nconcur.\nGleason will be in Washington June 27-29 when, among other\nthings, he will be addressing the Republican Platform Commit-\ntee. If you agree, we will set up a meeting for that period\nnext week.\nThanks.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJUne 26, 1984\nTO: JAB III\nThought you should be aware that\nMKD is apparently thinking of\ncancelling the satellite inter-\nview that Houston TV stations\nwere planning with the President.\nThe reason, of course, is that\nwe will not be going to Houston\nafter all.\nHowever, I think we'd be losing a\ngreat opportunity for uncontested\nmedia coverage in a critical state,\nand would urge that we go ahead.\nOutside of the politics of saturation\ncoverage in Houston, it should be\nremembered that the Houston TV\nstations will probably cover the\nPresident's visit to San Antonio\nas they did last year.\nThis local TV interview idea is an\nidea with great potential for the\nfall, and the Texas visit gives us\na chance to test it in a major urban\nmedia market-- Houston.\nJC\n6/22 ec.\nSulsa bad prickent\ndo y nor ging to the gAbas city\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 26, 1984\nMEMORANDUM TO\nMICHAEL A. MCMANUS JR.\nFROM\nMERRIE SPAETH\nSUBJECT\nWHETHER TO CANCEL HOUSTON SATELLITE\nINTERVIEWS FOR THURSDAY\nApproximately $1500 in planning costs and telephone rental costs\nhave been incurred so far (plus satellite time which would\nprobably have to be paid for). We could force the Houston\nstations to eat that or pay for it ourselves.\nBoth stations urgently plead with you to go ahead with the\ninterviews and will agree to the following conditions in order to\nmake the interviews worthwhile to us.\n1) no questions about space\n2) special packaging as a special feature interview with\npromotion. (Rationalizing that Texas is supposed to be one of\nthe most important states to us: KHOU offered to use the\ninterview when their brand new news format premieres in 10 days.\nThey have 2 new anchors and Dan Rather will originate the evening\nnews from KHOU that night. It's his old station. They estimate\nthat because of the new format, which will be heavily promoted\nthat night, and because of Dan Rather, they will double their\nnightly share.\nKTRK was doing some hasty thinking to offer an equivalent.\n(Recall that this was supposed to be a practice session so that\nwe could see what you and Mr. Deaver thought of the whole idea.\nGiven the technical complexities, that is still a critical\nelement preceeding Monday's interviews.)\nI promise that if we proceed with these as one of the\ncommunications elements, that we will add the additional\ncondition that if a city is removed from the travel plan, it\nloses its satellite interview claim.\nPlease advise.\nProceed\nCancel\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nMREFINGTON\nJune 25, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOF\nMICHAEL A. MCMANUS JR.\nFROM\nMERRIE SPAETH\nSUBJECT\nQUESTIONS FOF UPCOMING SATELLITE INTERVIEWS\nFOR HOUSTON\nAttached are the questions for the upooming interviews by\nsatellite with the President C: Thursday. KTRE and KHOU cover (as\nyou see' the Houston television market. Both plan IC promote the\ninterview heavily.\nFollowing, several cbservations from FY OVI days in local\ntelevision.\n1) The anchors, doing the interviews, want to be thought of as\nserious fournalists rather than actors chaired to desks. It is\ncritical to ther :0 be SEE: asking serious questions. The\nPresident's answer may be as short as a sentence or phrase\nreassuring the viewers that he is concerned and aware.\n2) These interviews vill be played and re-played because each\nnews show has E different producer. The news directors have\nreported that the producers are already fighting over who gets\nthe furst play.\n3 The Prerident could use the opportunity IC 1E. erthasize E\ntopic which be feels surongly about 1000 example, nobs -- Texas\nis booming) cr (b) be homey and personal with the interviewers. 7.\ncomment or compliment to ther c: tackling these important\nquestions would send then swooning. Chese are solid journalists,\nbut they are excited about interviewing the Fresident.\nHOUSTON questions and information about satellite interviews\nKTRK (ABC affiliate) - 713-663-4553 Jim Topping, News Director\ninterviewer: Sylvan Rodriguez ( 1 rated personality in am news)\nnews at: 7:00 am, 6 pm, 7 pm, 10 pm\n170,000 households (595,000 people) at 6 pr.\n275,000 households (962,000 people) at 10 pm\n1) During the Texas primary, Democrats in Texas implied that\nduring c 2nd term, you would be more hard-line in foreign policy\nbecause he would be free from the constraint of facing\nreelection; what will your attitude towards foreign policy be in\nyour second term ?\n2) Immigration is a hot issue in Texas. Will you sign the\nSimpson-Mazzoli bill if it reaches your desk ? Would anything\ncause you to veto it ? (Are you happy with it ?)\n3) Mexican-American relations is important down here. You have\nencouraged support of the Mexican economy. Will you continue to\nurge positive, overt actions to help then through their economic\ntroubles or will you wait for further developments ?\n4) Continuing the focus on latin American affairs, a recent\nSupreme Court Decision hold that our government can send back\nillegal aliens unless they car show a clear and specific danger\n(such as threats against their own family). The Court said that\njust \"I'm worried\" wasn't sufficient justification for asylum in\nthis country. We have a lot of illegals from El Salvador and\nHoncuras because of the fighting there. Will you continue tc\ntake E liberal view of what constitutes danger tc these people\nback home, or will you try to have them escorted back ?\n5) Is this Hispanic vote coing to be important in the coming\nPresidertial election ?\n6) As an oil rich area, WE follow what's happening in the\nStraits of Hormuz. If there is an interruption in the flow of\noil, what would our response be ?\n7) Houston is \"space center'. What are your OWL personal feelings\nI OV about the space platform : Will funding continue for the\nspace programs :\nKHOU (CBS affiliate) Ton Kuelbs, News Director 713-521-4383\ninterviewers: Chip Moody\nFelicia Seeter\n(Felicia will ask the 1st question. Then it will\nalternate back and forth.)\n:) How important is Texas IC the Presidential carpaign ? (WE\nunderstand that former Vice President Mondale is considering\nSenator Fentsen.)\n2) Immigration is = hot issue here. The New York Times estimates\nthere are 400, 000 illegal alcens in Houston. Part cí the\nSinpson-Mazoll: Bill vould authorize hiring EOC more inspectors\nfor INF. Is that enough ? Can WE really regain control c ≤ our\nborders I.OV :-\nHov will the huge task of identifying those qualify for amnesty\nactually work ?\n3, Hurrican Alacia hit US in August 1983. Although some\nbusinesses have received disaster funds, the city has not. What's\nthe hold HE and when car WE expect to receive funds ?\n4) Houster 'will be IC space what Detroit was tc automobiles\".\nAre you ES corritted as ever to the space programs -- the space\nstation. the Iuner Garding station ?\nE i We have E IS year cló drinking age. Your proposal for E 21\nyear old age is controversial here. Please explain why you\ndecided or that.\nKHOU has news at : E pr. (650,000 viewers)\n30 F. : million viewers)\nDOC: (360,000 viewers)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 28, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nSUBJECT:\nFederal Employee Reduction\nAt today's Cabinet meeting, the President heard a report on the\nstatus of efforts to reduce federal non-defense employment by\nhis stated goal of 75,000.\nEd Meese noted that what was a major effort in the early years\nis now \"falling apart,\" and said that we could finish the year\nshort of our goal by 3,000 to 5,000.\nIn order to meet the goal, each agency will be required to sub-\nmit monthly reports on their progress between now and October.\nThough some Cabinet members noted their difficulties, Don Devine\npointed out that the government will hire 100,000 people between\nnow and the end of the year; he stressed that if they just con-\ntrol that hiring, our goal will be met. The Cabinet will re-\nvisit the issue in one month.\nDuring the discussion, the Vice President questioned whether we\nmight file suit to challenge the constitutionality of employ-\nment \"floors\" enacted by Congress. Such provisions prevent re-\nductions even though we might conclude that fewer people are\nneeded to perform certain functions. His suggestion was not\nspecifically addressed, but the implication was that such a\nsuit might be helpful in other, similar areas and would also be\nwell-received by the public.\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 28, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III\nFROM:\nJAMES W. CICCONI\nJ\nIn\nSUBJECT:\nCuban-American Reaction to Jackson Trip\nPer the request made this morning, Cathi Villalpando checked\nwith several leaders of the Cuban-American community in\nsouth Florida for reaction to Jesse Jackson's trip. Jorge\nMas Canosa, head of the Cuban-American Foundation, said that\ntheir community appreciated Jackson's success in securing\nthe release of the 26 prisoners; however, there is also a\nwidespread realization that Castro was using Jackson for his\nown purposes.\nThe Cuban-American Foundation is paying travel expenses so\nthat the relatives of the released Cuban prisoners can meet\nthem on their arrival. Mas Canosa expressed confidence that\nfamilies would praise the Administration for its previous\nefforts, and for allowing the prisoners to enter the U.S.;\nhe said the family members would probably not praise Jesse\nJackson.\nWith regard to the 26 Cuban prisoners, Mas Canosa emphasized\nthat they are a good group--genuine patriots who have been\njailed for their criticism of Castro. He also mentioned\nthat one of the prisoners has reportedly refused to fly to\nthe U.S. on the same plane with Jackson. The Cuban-American\nFoundation has indicated willingness to pay flight expenses\nand provide employment assistance to any political prisoners\nreleased by Castro, including this group if necessary."
}