Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "135838896",
    "label": "[JGR/Presidential Interviews and Questionnaires] (09/16/1984-09/25/1984)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135838896"
}

{
    "id": "135838896",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135838896",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[JGR/Presidential Interviews and Questionnaires] (09/16/1984-09/25/1984)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135838896",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-038-005-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-038-005-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-038-005-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135838896",
    "naId": 135838896,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-038-005-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "d0cefb275a357681",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: [JGR/Presidential Interviews\nand Questionnaires] (09/16/1984-09/25/1984)\nBox: 38\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 17, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS 826\nSUBJECT:\nAutomotive Age Questionnaire\n(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)\nRichard Darman has asked that comments on the above-\nreferenced candidate questionnaire be sent to Mike Baroody\nby noon today. The draft responses were prepared by Reagan-\nBush '84, in accordance with your memorandum on candidate\nquestionnaires of November 28, 1983.\nThe draft responses discuss continuing voluntary import\nrestrictions on Japanese automobiles (will depend on market\ndevelopments and progress of trade negotiations), domestic\ncontent legislation (oppose), and deregulation. In response\nto a question on anti-fleet subsidy legislation, the President\nsimply notes that the issue is before Congress, that no\nfinal version of a bill has emerged, and that he can neither\nsupport nor oppose any legislation at this time. \"Anti-fleet\nsubsidy legislation\" refers to several bills that would\nprohibit auto manufacturers from granting discounts to\nhigh-volume direct purchasers, such as Hertz or Avis. The\nbills are supported by automobile dealers, who contend\n(incorrectly) that they must pay inflated prices to finance\nthe discounts.\nAs noted, the draft response on anti-fleet subsidy legislation\nis non-commital. In fact, however, the Administration is\nclearly on record as opposing such legislation. For example,\non June 7, 1984, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for\nAntitrust Charles Rule noted the Administration's strong\nopposition to H.R. 1415 and H.R. 5305, the leading\nanti-fleet subsidy bills. The gist of the Administration\nview was that the volume discounts to large, non-dealer\npurchasers reflected the realities of the marketplace. I\nhave checked with OMB Legislative Reference and been assured\nthat the Administration position is unchanged.\nThe draft response prepared by Reagan-Bush '84 obviously\nplays to the readership of Automotive Age, primarily dealers\nwho would benefit from anti-fleet subsidy legislation. In\nlight of the Administration's unequivocal opposition to such\nlegislation, however, the response strikes me, to borrow\n- 2 -\nChurchill's euphemism, as terminologically inexact. The\nattached memorandum for Baroody suggests that the response\nbe changed to reflect the Administration's position.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 17, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nDIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nAutomotive Age Questionnaire\n(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the draft responses to the\nabove-referenced candidate questionnaire. The response to\nquestion six does not accurately represent the Administra-\ntion's position. The Administration is on record as being\nstrongly opposed to anti-fleet subsidy legislation. For\nexample, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust\nCharles Rule testified in opposition to H.R. 1415 and H.R.\n5305, the leading anti-fleet subsidy bills, on June 7, 1984.\nThe draft response has obviously been crafted with the\nreadership of Automotive Age -- primarily dealers who\nsupport anti-fleet subsidy legislation -- in mind, but I\nthink it is far too disingenuous in light of the Adminis-\ntration's announced position.\ncc: Richard G. Darman\nFFF:JGR:aea 9/17/84\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 17, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nDIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nAutomotive Age Questionnaire\n(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the draft responses to the\nabove-referenced candidate questionnaire. The response to\nquestion six does not accurately represent the Administra-\ntion's position. The Administration is on record as being\nstrongly opposed to anti-fleet subsidy legislation. For\nexample, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust\nCharles Rule testified in opposition to H.R. 1415 and H.R.\n5305, the leading anti-fleet subsidy bills, on June 7, 1984.\nThe draft response has obviously been crafted with the\nreadership of Automotive Age -- primarily dealers who\nsupport anti-fleet subsidy legislation -- in mind, but I\nthink it is far too disingenuous in light of the Adminis-\ntration's announced position.\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nFFF:JGR:aea 9/17/84\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nID #\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nO OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nRichard Darman\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Automative Age Questionnaire\n(Prepared by R-013.84)\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCutton\nORIGINATOR 84 09,14\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 18\nD 84,09,14\nSP4/09/17\nReferral Note:\nCMAT 17\nI 84,09,14\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\nI\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA . Appropriate Action\nI * Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC - Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB . Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD - Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\n12:00 NOON MONDAY 9/17\nDATE: 9/14/84\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:\nSUBJECT: AUTOMOTIVE AGE QUESTIONNAIRE\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nMURPHY\nMEESE\nOGLESBY\nBAKER\nROGERS\nDEAVER\nSPEAKES\nSTOCKMAN\nSVAHN\nDARMAN\nP\n185\nVERSTANDIG\nFIELDING\nWHITTLESEY\nFULLER\nBAROODY\nHERRINGTON\nTUTWILER\nHICKEY\nELLIOTT\nMcFARLANE\nMcMANUS\nREMARKS:\nPlease provide any edits/comments directly to Mike Baroody, with a\ncopy to my office, by 12:00 NOON Monday, 9/17. Thank you.\nRESPONSE:\nRichard G. Darman\n1984 SEP 14 AM 11: 27\nAssistant to the President\nExt. 2702\n1984 SEP 11 III 0 13\nREAGAN-BUSH'84\nThe President's Authorized Campaign Committee\n\"84 SEP 13 P5:00\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nMARGARET TUTWILER\nTHROUGH:\nED ROLLINS\nFROM:\nJIM LAKE\nDATE:\nSEPTEMBER 7, 1984\nRE:\nAUTOMOTIVE AGE QUESTIONNAIRE\nPer the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's\nNovember 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am\nenclosing draft responses to a set of questions from Automotive\nAge.\nPlease advise me at your earliest possible convenience\nof White House approval of the responses. We need the approval\nnotice by September 14 to meet our deadline.\n440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984\nPaid for by Reagan-Bush '84: Paul Laxalt, Chairman; Angela M. Buchanan Jackson, Treasurer\nAUTOMOTIVE AGE MAGAZINE\nANSWERS TO CANDIDATE QUESTIONS\nby President Reagan\n1.\n: a\nDo you favor continuing or ending the voluntary\nrestrictions on the number of Japanese cars imported\nby the United States? Why?\nA:\nThe purpose of the voluntary agreement with the\nJapanese limiting auto imports was to give U.S.\nindustry time to recover from the excessive tax and\nregulatory burdens placed on it by the previous\nAdministration which had hindered its ability to be\ncompetitive in the world market. Our decision on\nwhether to extend this temporary agreement will be\nbased on the strength of recovery of the U.S.\nautomobile industry, as well as the progress on\nremoving Japanese restrictions to free trade in other\nareas.\n2.\nQ:\nDo you favor or oppose domestic content legislation\nfor foreign cars sold in the United States? Why?\nA:\nI believe domestic content requirements represent a\ndefeatist approach that would insulate the U.S. from\nworld competition, and harm U.S. workers and\nconsumers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates\na loss of 66,000 American jobs due to retaliation by\nour trading partners as well as an increase of $333 in\ncost of the average car under such a plan. I favor a\nmore open trade policy - if trade laws are fair,\nAmericans can out-compete anybody.\n3.\nQ: What will you do to minimize the burden of government\nregulations on small business?\nA:\nMy Administration has addressed the critical issues\nsmall businessmen and women themselves put at the top\nof their list - the key recommendations of the 1980\nWhite House Conference on Small Business. A number of\nthese recommendations have been addressed through the\nwork of the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory\nRelief, chaired by Vice President Bush. The Task\nForce identified 119 regulations which were\nunnecessarily burdensome to small business, and\neliminated or modified 103. In addition, 300 million\nhours have been cut from the federally imposed\npaperwork burden on small businesses. Happily, small\nbusiness income rose 18 percent in 1983, and\nemployment in small business-dominated industries\nincreased at over twice the rate for large\nbusiness-dominated industries. We will certainly\ncontinue our efforts to reduce the burden of\ngovernment regulation on small businesses.\n4.\nQ: What will you do to address the burdens the Deficit\nReduction Act of 1984 places on dealers?\nA:\nThe purpose of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 was\nto jualize the tax burden shared by Americans by\neli nating unfair loopholes in the existing tax\ncode. In restricting the investment tax credits and\ndepreciation allowable on business automobiles, the\nfinal version was viewed by proponents and opponents\nalike as most consistent with the statute's original\npurpose of eliminating unfairness, while minimizing\npotential injury to the American automobile industry.\n5.\nQ: Would you outline your import/export policy?\nA:\nFor more than thirty years, the United States has been\nand remains, the leading proponent of an open\ninternational trading system. That's why, in the 1983\nWilliamsburg economic summit, we urged, and the other\nnations agreed, that all of us should work together to\nhalt protectionism and roll back trade barriers. I\nbelieve, quite simply, that given an open and fair\nworld trade system, American workers and businesses\nhave the talent, initiative and innovative ability to\nsucceed in the world marketplace. Accordingly, my\nfocus has been on encouraging modernization and\nincreasing overall efficiency as well as individual\nworker productivity through the reduction of tax\nrates, the reduction of the growth of government\nspending, the elimination of burdensome regulations\nand the stabilization of monetary policy. By getting\ngovernment out of the way of business, we stand the\nbest chance of recovering our share of the world\nmarket.\nQ\nDo you favor or oppose anti-fleet subsidy\nlegislation? Why?\nA:\nThe question of volume discounts for automobile\npurchases is presently being debated in Congress.\n?\nSince no final version has emerged, nor all the\nquestions debated, I am not in a position to endorse\nor oppose any legislation at this time.\n7. Q:\nHow much freedom should government agencies have to\nregulate automobile safety?\nA:\nThe basic philosophy of my Administration is that the\nstates are often better equipped to set highway safety\npriorities than are representatives of federal\nagencies in Washington. However, I can assure you\nthat my Administration will continue to be guided by\nthe principle that we must do as much as possible to\npromote highway safety.\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nROUTE SLIP\nTake necessary action\nTO\nJohn Roberts\nApproval or signature\nComment\nPrepare reply\nDiscuss with me\nFor your information\nSee remarks below\nFROM Branden Blum\nDATE 9/21/84\nREMARKS\nS. 2770, a bill to protect consumers\nand franchised automobile dealers from\nunfair price discrimination, and for\nother purposes\nPer your request, attached is a signed copy\nof the Commerce report opposing S. 2770.\nfile total ml Age\nOMB FORM 4\nRev Aug 70\nDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nGENERAL COUNSEL OF THE\nUNITED\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nAMERICA\nWashington, D.C. 20230\nSTATES\nof\nSEP 20 984\nHonorable Strom Thurmond\nChairman, Committee on the\nJudiciary\nUnited States Senate\nWashington, D.C. 20510\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nThis is in response to your request for the views of the\nDepartment of Commerce concerning S. 2770, a bill\n\"To protect consumers and franchised automobile dealers from\nunfair price discrimination in the sale by the manufacturer\nof new motor vehicles, and for other purposes.\"\nS. 2770 would prohibit automobile and truck manufacturers from\nselling or leasing any new vehicle, or offering to sell or lease\nany new vehicle, to any person (including an automobile dealer) at\na price that is higher than the lowest price for which any other\nnew vehicle of the same model is sold or offered during a particular\nsales period. The bill would provide exceptions for sales to\nvehicle manufacturers, employees of the manufacturer, agencies of\nthe United States or any state or local government, the American\nRed Cross, and sales under regional sales incentive programs. The\nprohibitions in the bill would be enforceable by private action.\nThe Department of Commerce opposes enactment of S. 2770. The\nlegislation would effectively prohibit marketing practices that\nvehicle manufacturers and their fleet customers have found highly\nefficient and mutually beneficial. By requiring that the \"lowest\nprice\" be the only selling price for a vehicle, S. 2770 would,\ndespite its avowed intention to protect consumers and dealers\nagainst \"unfair price competition,\" be anti-competitive.\nS. 2770 would eliminate or reduce competition in the fleet sales\nmarket by prohibiting large volume fleet purchase discounts.\nLarge volume fleet purchasers should be allowed to negotiate with\nmanufacturers for lower prices. Fleet sales are an important\nfactor in automobile and truck manufacturing. Companies can offer\ndiscounts on direct volume sales because such sales help reduce\nthe per vehicle cost of manufacturing and thereby increase overall\nprofits without raising prices to dealers. Fleet sales are often\nmade in advance of initial vehicle production and thereby encourage\nthe marketing of new products.\n-2-\nWe have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that\nthere is no objection to the submission of this letter to the\nCongress from the standpoint of the Administration's program.\nSincerely,\nthey 1/9/95 45\nIrving P. Margulies\nGeneral Counsel\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 18, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS 022\nSUBJECT:\nQuestionnaire: Landmarc\n(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)\nRichard Darman has asked that comments on the above-\nreferenced candidate article be sent directly to Mike\nBaroody by 2:00 p.m. September 21. The article, prepared by\nReagan-Bush '84, reviews Administration efforts concerning\ncoal. The article stresses the need to reduce excessive\nreliance on vulnerable oil by increased development of coal\nresources. It discusses the expansion of the coal leasing\nprogram, recognition of the States' role under the Mining\nControl and Reclamation Act of 1977, and the effort to\naddress the acid rain problem through more research rather\nthan immediate additional controls on sulfur dioxide emissions.\nI have reviewed the draft article and have no objections.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 18, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nDIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nQuestionnaire: Landmarc\n(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced candidate\nquestionnaire, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/18/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 18, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nDIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nQuestionnaire: Landmarc\n(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced candidate\nquestionnaire, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nFFF:JGR:aea 9/18/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no - OUTGOING\nJGR\nH . INTERNAL\nI - INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nRichard Darman\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Questionnaire : Landmarc\n(Prepared by R-B'84)\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCuttore\nORIGINATOR 84,09,18\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 18\nA 8409,18\n58409,21\nReferral Note:\n2:00\nCUAT 17\nI 89,09,18\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\nI\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA - Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA. Answered\nC Completed\nC * Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD * Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF + Furnish Fact Sheet\nX - Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference. ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\n9/18/84\nFriday 2:00 p.m. 9/21\nDATE:\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:\nQUESTIONNAIRE: LANDMARC\nSUBJECT:\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nMURPHY\nMEESE\nOGLESBY\nBAKER\nROGERS\nDEAVER\nSPEAKES\nSTOCKMAN\nSVAHN\nDARMAN\nP\nSS\nVERSTANDIG\nFIELDING\nWHITTLESEY\nFULLER\nBAROODY\nHERRINGTON\nTUTWILER\nHICKEY\nELLIOTT\nMcFARLANE\nMcMANUS\nREMARKS:\nPlease provide any comments/edits directly to Mike Baroody by 2:00 p.m.\nFriday, 9/21.\nThank you.\nRESPONSE:\nRichard G. Darman\n1904 SEP 18 Pll 2: 03\nAssistant to the President\nExt. 2702\nREAGAN-BUSH'84\nThe President's Authorized Campaign Committee\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nMARGARET TUTWILER\nTHROUGH:\nED ROLLINS\nFROM:\nJIM LAKE\nDATE:\nSEPTEMBER 17, 1984\nRE:\nLANDMARC\nPer the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's\nNovember 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am\nenclosing draft responses to a set of questions from LandMARC\nMagazine.\nPlease advise me at your earliest possible convenience\nof White House approval of the responses. We need the approval\nnotice by September 21 to meet our deadline.\n440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984\nPaid for by Reagan-Bush '84: Paul Laxalt, Chairman: Angela M. Buchanan Jackson, Treasurer\nCoal: America's Energy \"Ace In The Hole\"\nby Ronald Reagan\nWhen we came to Washington almost 4 years ago, we brought a\nmandate from the American people to change the course of America.\nAnd we have brought change, including a significant change in\nAmerica's energy posture. I still believe what I articulated in\n1980: \"Energy is the key to a successful America.\"\nIn the era of embargoes during the 1970s, I think it is fair\nto say that America's view of energy was primarily one of\npessimism.\nGovernmental policy appeared to be one of sharing the short-\nages, of trying to allocate the pain in an energy crisis and\nlearning to live with the damage that had been brought upon us.\nI believed then that America had a more optimistic energy\nfuture; that the energy situation, although serious, was not\nbeyond the power of Americans to cope with; that by increasing\nour production of energy in all forms and by using energy more\nwisely, we could greatly improve our energy outlook.\nThe energy policies of the 1970s were not working.\nRegulations were repressing and restricting American energy pro-\nduction areas -- especially coal.\nAt the beginning of my term, I said, \"If we are to meet the\nneed for new energy supplies, we must move rapidly to eliminate\nunnecessary barriers to efficient utilization of our abundant and\neconomical resources of coal.\nAnd we have made significant progress toward that goal:\n0 We have revitalized the federal coal leasing program, with\nfull recognition of our responsibilities to protect the\nenvironment;\n0 We have moved to implement fully the Surface Mining\nControl and Reclamation Act, permitting States to assume\nresponsibility for surface mine reclamation as envisioned\nby the law;\n0 We have designed our federal coal research programs to\nadvance new technological concepts that will allow coal to\nbe mined and burned more cleanly and efficiently; and,\n0 We have continually sought to improve opportunities for\ncoal to take its rightful place in this Nation's energy\nsupply system and in international markets.\nWe are proud of these accomplishments. But much more remains\nto be done, and I remain committed to the expanded production and\nuse of American coal.\nCoal is currently the chief hope of achieving our National\nEnergy Policy goal of an adequate supply of energy at reasonable\ncost. And, although we do not quantify \"adequate,\" we do qualify\nit to mean sufficient to:\n0 meet our Nation's short- and long-term needs; and,\n-2-\n0 avoid undue dependence on any single source of supply where\nan interruption of that supply would jeopardize our economy\nor strategic capabilities.\nOur two basic strategies for achieving the National Energy\nPolicy goal are:\n1) to minimize federal control and intervention in the energy\nmarket while maintaining public health and safety and\nenvironmental quality; and,\n2) to promote a balanced and mixed energy resource system.\nAs a Nation, we must reduce our reliance on oil -- par-\nticularly imported oil. Given the uncertainties of availability\nand cost, oil cannot be counted on as an economical and reliable\nsource of energy. Domestically, our estimates are that only 4\npercent of our known recoverable fossil fuel reserves are in the\nform of liquid hydrocarbons. Yet, in 1983, oil represented 43\npercent of our energy consumption. The U.S. still is a net\nimporter of almost 30 percent of its oil needs, and imports are\nrising. As a matter of economic health and national security, we\nmust reduce our reliance on imported oil and achieve a more\nbalanced and mixed energy resource base.\nWe have, in this country, a tremendous and diverse energy supply\nthat can increase our energy non-dependence and improve our\nenergy security. Much of our domestic energy supply occurs on or\nunder federally-held lands and waters. Our estimates are that\n35% of U.S. coal reserves are under public lands. With an\n-3-\naggressive federal leasing program, we could expand and diversify\nour current resource base.\nWhen we first came into office, we found that the government\nhad been acting as a monopolist, limiting the resources leased\nand in SO doing, driving up resource prices for consumers.\nWhen the government arbitrarily limits the amount of\nfederally controlled oil, gas or coal made available to the\nmarket, supplies are diminished and costs go up. Who ultimately\npays the higher prices? Corporations? Stockholders? Of course\nnot. In a free market system we pay, either as consumers or as\ntaxpayers. Citizens bear the burden of the higher costs.\nThis Administration has moved aggressively to reform the\nleasing programs of the Federal Government. We have moved to\nincrease the supply of domestic energy sources and to give\nindustry the opportunity to make its own business decisions. We\nhave reversed past Administrations' policies of foreclosing\naccess to domestic assets. In fact, in fiscal year 1983, 105.4\nmillion tons of federal coal were mined. This accounted for\napproximately 14 percent of the total U.S. production, up from\nabout 9 percent in 1980. As of September 30, 1983, there were\n632 federal coal leases in effect, containing 17.7 billion tons\nof recoverable reserves.\n-4-\nMy Administration is committed to an effective, predictable\nand stable coal leasing program which will serve the national\ninterest. We will manage the program to reduce environmental\nrisk, to allow industry to plan confidently, and to promote\npublic confidence.\nWe have also brought change to the federal surface mining\nreclamation program. In keeping with the spirit of the Surface\nMining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, my Administration has\nassigned the highest priority to the approval and administration\nof surface mining reclamation regulations by the States. Our\ncontinuing commitment to States' rights and State primacy will be\nadvanced in the future through federal grants and technical and\nmanagement assistance. We are committed to drawing upon the\ncreative energies of the American people, by providing a frame-\nwork within which environmentally sound technological improve-\nments in surface coal mining and reclamation can be tested and\nperfected.\nOur efforts to move the authority and responsibility for sur-\nface mining reclamation to the States have been successful.\nSince 1980, we have granted program primacy to 25 coal producing\nStates. And regulatory grants to States under the permanent\nprogram increased to nearly $31.5 million in 1983.\nWe also continue our surface mining oversight role and have\ntaken action to resolve problems in several States and to help\nthe States improve implementation of their programs.\n-5-\nThis Administration is committed to both environmental\nquality and development of our indigenous resources.\nBecause coal is America's most abundant fossil fuel --\naccounting for 85 percent or more of our recoverable fossil fuel\nreserves - - we must find ways to ensure that coal will provide\nmore than the 22 percent of our energy supply it now provides.\nThis is particularly true since, as the economy continues to\ngrow, electricity consumption is likely to at least match the\ngrowth rate of the gross national product.\nLast year, coal provided about 55 percent of America's\nelectricity. If that had been provided by oil-fired generation,\nwe would have had to import an additional 6 million barrels of\noil per day -- which would more than double our current imports.\nAt $30 per barrel, this would be $180 million per day in exported\ndollars and a more than $65 billion per year addition to our\nbalance of payments deficit.\nSome have expressed skepticism that U.S. electrical needs\nwill continue to grow, pointing to an actual decline in genera-\ntion from 1981 to 1982 for the first time in over 30 years.\nHowever, it now seems increasingly clear that the reduction was a\ntemporary phenomenon linked to the recession.\n-6-\nAs America's economic growth has improved -- and it has\nimproved significantly -- electric generation has surged along\nwith it. In 1983, our gross national product grew by 3.7 percent\nand electric generation grew by 3.1 percent. For the first half\nof this year, electric generation grew by 9.3 percent over the\nsame period in 1983. Our experience continues to be that\nelectric generation will grow about as fast as our economy. With\nour Nation's recent economic performance, I think few would doubt\nthat America can continue to achieve and advance. And, we will\nneed more electricity -- and therefore more coal -- to support\nthat progress.\nWe also believe that our domestic coal can and should compete\nmore effectively in the international market.\nWe recognize that foreign competition in the coal market is\ncoming directly from South African and Polish coal because the\nstrength of the dollar has made U.S. coals relatively expensive.\nOne way we believe your industry can better compete in this\natmosphere is through increased competition in the transportation\nsector and more reasonable transportation rates.\nMy Administration has also tried to redirect federal research\nprograms to help ensure that coal can better compete in inter-\nnational markets as well as help meet increasing domestic power\ndemands.\n-7-\nWe have a long-term commitment to the technological future of\nAmerica's coal industry. Our primary goal is to develop tech-\nnologies that will allow us to mine, burn and consume coal in an\nenvironmentally safe way.\nThe issue of acid rain concerns people in many areas of the\nUnited States and Canada.\nThis Administration is not prepared at this time to recommend\nadditional sulfur dioxide controls. We must have more scientific\ninformation before deciding to launch the country on an expensive\nand potentially inequitable control program.\nAlready, 50,000 megawatts of electricity generated from coal in\nthis country are scrubbed and this is expected to be true for\nabout 100,000 megawatts by the year 2000.\nSince passage of the Clean Air Act 13 years ago, American\nindustry has invested $150 billion for air pollution controls.\nSulfur dioxide emissions have decreased nationwide by 15 to\n20 percent within the last 20 years. This reduction is\nimpressive particularly when you consider that electrical genera-\ntion increased about 50 percent between 1970 and 1980, and coal-\nfired electricity generation increased by 65 percent.\nProjections are that around the year 2000 (even assuming a high\nGNP), sulfur dioxide emissions will begin a sustained drop again\nas newer, cleaner power plants replace older plants.\n-8-\nFor fiscal year 1985, we have proposed a research program\nthat doubles our current funding for acid-rain related research.\nAnd we will take additional action to restore our lakes and\ndevelop new technology to reduce pollution that causes acid rain.\nWe truly believe our approach is the appropriate, responsible\nand scientifically supportable way to deal with this problem.\nPromising things are happening in the research area:\n1. In coal combustion - where fluidized bed combustion is\ncapable of removing 90 percent of sulfur dioxide and\nholding nitrogen oxide release to well below current\nfederal standards. Technology is now commercially\navailable and economically competitive for mid-size\nindustrial boiler applications. At last count, at least\n70 fluidized bed systems -- including 30 or more that are\nburning coal -- were operating in this country and as\nmany more are on order.\n2. In coal preparation - where new opportunities are being\nfound to remove sulfur and mineral matter at or near the\nmine through fine grinding, then through physical or\nchemical cleaning. We have made substantial progress in\nunderstanding coal chemistry, and, if ongoing small-scale\ntests are successful, it is possible that several new\ncoal cleaning concepts will cross the commercial\nthreshold in the early 1990s.\n-9-\n3. In scrubbers - where opportunities exist to improve\ntoday's scrubbers, both for new powerplants and for\nretrofitting existing plants. The Department of Energy's\nresearch focus is to develop new scrubber systems that\nremove 90 percent of both sulfur dioxides and nitrogen\noxides, as well as more modest-performance lower-cost\nscrubbers that can be installed on existing powerplants.\nIf any or all of these initiatives succeed, in the early\n1990s America will be able to reduce powerplant emissions more\nefficiently, with less of a solid waste problem, and at a frac-\ntion of the cost that would be required today. And well before\nthen we should have much better research data showing the extent\nto which these emissions are causing unacceptable environmental\neffects.\nCoal can also return to markets now dominated by oil and gas.\nPromising technologies are rapidly advancing that can facilitate\nthis, including coal-water mixtures for industrial and utility\nuses, coal-fired gas turbines and diesel engines, and onsite and\nutility fuel cells.\nDevelopment of new technologies that permit expanded use of\ncoal also stimulates increased exports of all types of U.S.\ncoals. The United States has about 65 percent of the coal\nreserves held by the four principal coal-exporting countries (the\nothers being Australia, Poland and South Africa). Since we are a\ncountry with reserves sufficient to meet long-term world coal\ndemand, our influence in the world coal and energy markets should\nextend beyond the amount we export in a given year.\n-10-\nOne major issue confronting the future extent of our involve-\nment in coal R&D is how far along the technology development path\ndoes the government continue to participate. Our view is that\nthe government should work with the private sector to prove the\nfundamental technical concept --\nDoes the technology work?\nDoes it work well enough for the private sector to pursue it?\nHow we determine where the dividing line is between govern-\nment support and private initiative is an important issue -- one\nthat will become increasingly important as new technologies\nmature into more advanced, and expensive, stages of development.\nWe recently confronted this issue in a review of our national\nsynthetic fuels program.\nWhen Congress established the Synthetic Fuels Corporation in\n1980, oil prices were projected to reach $75 to $125 per barrel\nby 1990; America was dependent on imported oil for 18 percent of\nits energy supply; and the memories of shortages and gasoline\nlines lingered.\nIn the intervening years, our energy outlook has improved\ndramatically. Americans have learned to use energy more effi-\nciently. The price of imported crude oil has declined more than\n25 percent since 1981, and our imports are down 33 percent com-\npared to 1980 levels. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a\nnational stockpile of crude oil established after the 1973-74\n-11-\noil embargo, now holds approximately 430 million barrels, an\namount sufficient for this Nation to withstand a disruption of\noil imports for several months.\nAs a consequence of these changes, the presumptions that led\nto the creation of the large-scale synthetic fuels commer-\ncialization program in 1980 are today at variance with the reali-\nties of the marketplace. Current estimates are that a synthetic\nfuels plant constructed today would produce fuel at two to three\ntimes the current $29-per-barrel price of conventional oil.\nDeveloping a commercial synthetic fuels industry today at the\npace envisioned in 1980 would likely be accomplished at the\nexpense of substantial amounts of taxpayers' funds that would\nnot be offset by economic benefits.\nTherefore, we proposed preserving what we believe to be an\nappropriate national synthetic fuels program that involves both\nthe continuation of the Synthetic Fuels Corporation with at least\n$5 billion in available budget authority, along with continuing\nthe solid core program of research and development of new, more\nadvanced synthetic fuel technologies which is already underway at\nthe Department of Energy.\n-12-\nToday, oil continues to power much of our industrial\nestablishment. But within the last decade, we have gained a more\nacute recognition of the global importance of a balanced and\nmixed energy resource system -- one that recognizes all of our\nenergy sources. We have embarked upon a new energy path -- a\npath that leads toward greater reliance on those fuels we have in\nmost abundance and that reflects our confidence in the private\nsector's ability to make the best informed decisions about the\nproduction and use of specific fuels and technologies.\nCoal is one of those resources that makes us an energy rich\nNation today and could be our greatest energy insurance policy\nfor the future. We are committed to overcoming the barriers to\nexpanded use of American coal -- at home and abroad. This is the\npath to an energy secure future.\n-13-\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 25, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS DR\nSUBJECT:\nQuestionnaire: Independent Living Center\nStatement (Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)\nRichard Darman has asked that comments on the responses to\nthe above-referenced candidate questionnaire be sent\ndirectly to Mike Baroody by close of business September 27.\nThe responses, in the form of an article, were prepared by\nReagan-Bush '84. The article discusses Administration\nefforts to increase opportunities for disabled Americans.\nThe fifth paragraph may be somewhat controversial. It\nconfirms the Administration's commitment to ensure that\nhandicapped infants are not denied medical care solely\nbecause of their handicap. This, of course, refers to the\nso-called \"Baby Doe\" situations, which have been mired in\nlitigation. The statement in the article is general enough,\nhowever, to be legally unobjectionable.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 25, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nDIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nQuestionnaire: Independent Living Center\nStatement (Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced candidate\nquestionnaire, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/25/84\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 25, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nDIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nQuestionnaire: Independent Living Center\nStatement (Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced candidate\nquestionnaire, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nFFF: JGR:aea 9/25/84\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nO . OUTGOING\nJEIR\nH INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nRichard Darman\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Questionnaire ! Independent Living Center\nStatement (Prepared by R-B'84)\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nWHOU\nORIGINATOR 84,09,25\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n-\nCUAT 18\nD 84/09/25\n58409127\nReferral Note:\nCOB\nCUAT 17\nI 84,09,25\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\nI\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA . Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC - Comment/Recommendation\nR. - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB- - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE:\n9/25/84\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 9/27/84\nSUBJECT:\nQUESTIONNAIRE: INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER STATEMENT\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nMURPHY\nMEESE\nOGLESBY\nx\nBAKER\nROGERS\nDEAVER\nSPEAKES\nSTOCKMAN\nSVAHN\nDARMAN\nP\nSS\nVERSTANDIG\nFIELDING\nWHITTLESEY\nFULLER\nELLIOTT\nHERRINGTON\nBAROODY\nHICKEY\nMcFARLANE\nMcMANUS\nREMARKS:\nPlease provide any edits/comments directly to Mike Baroody by\nSeptember 27th, with an information copy to my office.\nThank you.\nRESPONSE:\nRichard G. Darman\n1984 SEP 25 AN 8: 16\nAssistant to the President\nExt. 2702\nREAGAN-BUSH'84\nThe President's Authorized Campaign Committee\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nMARGARET TUTWILER\nTHROUGH:\nED ROLLINS\nFROM:\nJIM LAKE\nDATE:\nSEPTEMBER 24, 1984\nRE:\nINDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER STATEMENT\nPer the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's\nNovember 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am\nenclosing our draft statement for the Independent Living Center.\nBefore making any revisions, please bear in mind that\nthe Independent Living Center has imposed a 500 word limit.\nPlease advise me at your earliest possible convenience\nof White House approval of the responses. We need the approval\nnotice by September 28 to meet our deadline.\n440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984\nPaid for by Reagan-Bush '84: Paul Laxalt, Chairman, Angela M. Buchanan Jackson, Treasurer\nTHE HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN\nPresident of the United States\nStatement for the Independent Living Center\nSeptember 24, 1984\nOne month before I opened the Olympic games in Los Angeles,\nI opened another important athletic event -- the 1984\nInternational Games for the Disabled. I told the athletes\nthere that disabled Americans are proving a disability doesn't\nhave to stand in the way of a full and active life. They are\nshowing all of us just how far men and women can go if only\nthey have the dedication and the will.\nTo encourage equal opportunity for disabled citizens, I\ndeclared 1983-1992 the Decade of Disabled Americans. My\nAdministration is working vigorously to remove all artificial\nbarriers to the education, employment and recreation of\ndisabled individuals.\nWe have strengthened private sector job initiatives, and\nestablished a program to assist special education students\nmaking the transition to full community integration. We\ndeveloped a national information and referral system to help\ndisabled Americans cut through the maze of public and private\nservices and gain timely access to job information and programs.\nWe believe in increasing the incentives for family-based\ncare of the disabled. So the tax credit for caring for\ndependents unable to care for themselves has been increased,\nand a deduction of up to $1,500 per year has been provided for\nadopting a child with special needs.\nAnd we deplore discrimination of all kinds, so we're\nfighting the insidious practice of denying basic medical care\n-- even food and water -- to disabled infants. There is no\nbasis, whether in law or medicine or ethics, for denying care\nto an infant just because of the child's handicap.\nAll our efforts have been bolstered by two major pieces of\nlegislation I signed, the Education of the Handicapped Act and\nthe Rehabilitation Amendments of 1984. These bills increase\nfunding for the P.L. 94-142 block grant program, for vocational\nrehabilitation programs, and for discretionary programs,\nincluding training for special education teachers. A new\nprovision in the Education of the Handicapped Act also creates\na program to educate parents to work more closely with their\ndisabled children's teachers.\nWhen my Administration took office, we set out to increase\nindependence and opportunity for disabled Americans. America's\ntradition of economic opportunity and freedom, sometimes taken\nfor granted, is particularly important to disabled citizens --\nand it is a tradition that must be protected for all Americans.\nIn the last four years we've made it possible for all\nAmericans, including the disabled, to reach as high as their\nGod-given talents will take them. Our's is a message of hope\nfor America. And for disabled Americans, it is a message of\nexpanding social, educational, and economic opportunity.\nThank you, and God bless you all.\nILC\nINDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, INC.\n3308 TULANE AVE. / SUITE 220 / NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119\n504 821-4981 TDD 504 821-4982\nSeptember 12, 1984\nPresident Ronald Reagan\nCampaign Headquarters\n440 First Street, N.W., Suite 400\nRec'd 9/19\nWashington, D.C. 20001\nDear President Reagan,\nIndependent Living Center, Inc. publishes a monthly newsletter \"INDEPENDENCE\".\nThe purpose of this newsletter is to inform people with disabilities about major\nissues that affect our community. We have enclosed a copy of last month's issue\nand also a copy of our agency's brochure.\nIn our opinion, service needs of the disabled is a major issue we are\napproaching in the 1984 Presidential Election. As one of the candidates for\nPresident of the United States, we invite you to submit an article on your position\nconcerning the five questions we have prepared for you. Please see the attached\nquestion sheet.\nAs stated above, we are inviting all of the registered candidates to submit\nposition statements on services and benefits for persons with disabilities.\nThese will be published in our October issue of \"INDEPENDENCE\" which is\nscheduled to be posted by early October. The deadline for submitting your\narticle is September 28, 1984.\nWe request you observe the following:\nStatements to be limited to 500 words.\nStatements received by this office no later than\nSeptember 28, 1984 will be published. Others\nreceived after this date will not appear in this\nPresidential Edition.\nWe look forward to hearing from you and hope you'll take the opportunity\nto reach our readers. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to\ncall. We wish you the best of luck in your campaign.\nSincerely,\nJan Joan B. Meunier B. . Meunier\nLou Sincerely, H dodd\nMs. Lou H. Dodd\nExecutive Director\nEditor\n\"INDEPENDENCE\"\nCOMMUNITY SERVICES. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES. SUPPORT SERVICES. FMPI OYMENT SERVICES\nILC\nINDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, INC.\n3308 TULANE AVE. / SUITE 220 / NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119\n504 821-4981\nTDD 504 821-4982\nQUESTIONS FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES\n(1) What is your position on maintaining, enforcing and strengthening\nthe present handicapped legislation (P.L. 95-602, P.L. 94-142,\nH.R. 5490, Civil Rights Act of 1983, etc.) which affects the lives\nof millions of Americans with disabilities in this country?\n(2) What is your position on increased funding for community base services\n(At Home Attendant Care, Independent Living Skills Training, Homemaker\nServices, etc.) through the Title XIX funding source?\n(3) While unemployment continues to be a major problem for persons with\ndisabilities (because they are often faced with discrimination and\nare denied employment because of their disability), how might you\naddress this issue on a national level in both the private and public\nsector?\n(4) Persons with disabilities often have great difficulty in obtaining\nappropriate and low cost housing. The Department of Housing and\nUrban Development (HUD) has a rent subsidy program. Currently,\navailability often requires years of waiting and most frequently,\nhousing for young, disabled persons is not available except in\ncomplexes primarily designated for the elderly. How can you\nincrease funding from HUD to obtain more non-elderly handicapped\nhousing in the nation?\n(5) Will you actively seek to appoint qualified persons with disabilities\nto positions of authority in your administration?\nCOMMUNITY SERVICES RESIDENTIAL SERVICES SUPPORT SERVICES EMPLOYMENT SERVICES"
}