Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
135838900
label
[JGR/Presidential Interviews and Questionnaires] (10/21/1984-03/31/1985)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135838900
contentType
document
title
[JGR/Presidential Interviews and Questionnaires] (10/21/1984-03/31/1985)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135838900
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ec62812fbdec9866
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: [JGR/Presidential Interviews
and Questionnaires] (10/21/1984-03/31/1985)
Box: 38
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection.
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MARGARET D. TUTWILER
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL 8762 TO THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Candidate Questionnaire From
Legion of Estonian Liberation
The Legion of Estonian Liberation has prepared a letter to
the President that concludes with five questions addressed
to Mr. Reagan "as a candidate for President of the United
States." At Frank Fahrenkopf's urging, that letter, as well
as a separate letter to Mr. Fahrenkopf from Y. Anson of the
Legion, were referred to Linas Kojelis of the Office of
Public Liaison. Mr Kojelis has in turn referred the corres-
pondence to this office.
Both letters from the Legion are in the nature of candidate
questionnaires. They are accordingly referred to you for
appropriate transmittal to Reagan-Bush '84, pursuant to the
established procedures for handling such questionnaires. I
recognize that it may not be possible to prepare a timely
reply to the Legion, but the correspondents should be
advised in some fashion that their concerns have reached the
campaign.
Many thanks.
CC: Linas Kojelis
267402
ID #
CU
JV
WHITE HOUSE
F6017
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
y.anson
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Conserns Meagarding the Justice
Department's office of special Investigation
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
DD
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
Cultreland
ORIGINATOR 84,10,23
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT18
R DD,, 84110.23
58/11/103
Referral Note:
PL KOJE
S DD, 84,10,17 LK A84,10117
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C . Comment/Recommendation
R. . Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D - Draft Response
S . For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X * Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference. ext. 2590.
5/81
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 17, 1984
Dear Mr. Anson:
Paul Zumbakis recently forwarded to me a copy of your letters to
me and the President with your concerns regarding the Justice
Department's Office of Special Investigations. As the Presi-
dent's liaison with America's ethnic communities, and having
travelled in this capacity to many cities for meetings and
conferences on ethnic issues, I, too, know of the many concerns
of the East European-American communities regarding OSI. I have
brought these concerns to the attention of appropriate government
officials in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
I have forwarded your letters to the White House General Coun-
sel's office and have asked that they reply to the five specific
concerns outlined in your letter to the President.
Sincerely,
Lines Linas Kojelis Kojels
Associate Director
Office of Public Liaison
Mr. Y. Anson
Chairman
Legion of Estonian Liberation, Inc.
Estonian House
243 E. 34th St.
New York, NY 10016
bcc: John Roberts, GC
LEGION OF ESTONIAN LIBERATION, INC.
Eesti Vabadusvöitlejate Liit
Estonian House
243 East 34th Street
New York, N.Y. 10016
12 October 1984
267402 a
MR. Linas Kojelis
Associate Director, Office of Public Liason
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Kojelis:
While Mr. Fahrenkopf was visiting Connecticut, I had the honor to meet
him personally and to offer my remarks on a particular issue - some aspects
of the voter registration (and also voting).
My letter to Mr. Fahrenkopf and his reply are enclosed for your information.
He specifically suggested that contact be established with you directly.
Meanwhile, a member of our veterans organization had also prepared a
letter to the President, addressing the problem with a different point of
view; amplifying the background, giving reasons and also raising some
interesting questions and issues about the citizenship. This gentleman
is very active in the republican politics; and since I also happen to
be a republican town chairman in a small town, I decided to forward the
letter (to the President) to your attention.
Would you kindly consider pursuing the matter further. I would very much
appreciate a reply covering, in particular, the five questions at the
very end of this letter.
Respectfully yours,
Y. freend Anson, chrn
Republican
National
Committee
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Chairman
July 6, 1984
Ylo Anson
Boston Hill Road
Andover, CT 06232
Dear Mr. Anson:
Thank you for your letter of June 27 concerning voter registration
efforts in Connecticut.
Certainly, Euro-Ethnic-American greatly impact the political
decisions made in the Northeast. However, my responsibilities
as Chairman of the Republican National Committee preclude me
from interfering in alleged policies of the Administration.
May I suggest that you bring your concerns to the Mr. Linas
Kojelis who handles Ethnic concerns for the White House.
Again, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
Very truly yours,
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
FJF/mjh
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6700
27 June 1984
Mr. Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., chairman
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20003
Dear Mr. Fahrenkopf:
On June 7, I had the pleasure and honor to meet you personally
in Hartford, Connecticut.
During the conversation I mentioned two aspects of the "crash"
voter registration drive. One source is the disenchanted (mostly
relatively young) potential voter group; the other is in the area
of ethnic groups.
In the past the voter registration program has been sporadic.
The National Heritage Groups as Dart of your organization, has
made some efforts. The success has been variable from my Ders-
pective.
As I indicated to you, there is concern among the ethnic voters
and potential voters, especially with the Eastern European back-
groung or heritage. And that concern is over the Office of Spe-
cial Investigations (Dept. of Justice) and KGB (Soviet Police
apparatus) collaboration, This matter has been covered well by
various ethnic newspapers in the States and also in Canada. The
basis is a special documented report (140 Dages) compiled by an
attorney in Chicago, Mr. Paul Zumbakis. I have also read this
report and I must agree with its contents.
The collaboration issue is on many minds; I have personally
noticed that in Cleveland, Ohio (in May) and in Buffalo, NY
(also in May), and in New Jersey-New York area as well.
Unless something meaningful will happen about the OSI activities
(apparently overstepping their mandate), the ethnic voter regis-
tration drive will be only partially successful, Further, the
potential voters may see something more likeable with the other
party and their candidates. Is this what we want?
About a year ago I addressed some remarks to Mr. R. Richards,
then our national chairman; he forwarded my communication to the
Heritage Groups, where the issue never was addressed properly,
Respectfully,
Y, Anson
Boston Hill Road
Andover, CT. 06232
LEGION OF ESTONIAN LIBERATION, CONNECTICUT POST INC
Eesti Vöitlejote Uhing Connecticutis
200 Maple Street
Manchester Connecticut 06040
12 October 1984
The President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Between June 17 - 20, 1940, the Soviet Union forcibly subjugated the
Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. This initial takeover was
abetted by small groups of local communists. As a result, the legitimate
governments of these nations were toppled and replaced by regimes loyal to
and subservient to the Soviet Union. By available evidence, it has been
estimated that some 200,000 Baltic people were either murdered, forcibly
removed or sent to Siberian labor camps within the one year following.
By nations, the human losses were as follows: Estonia -60,000 persons;
Latvia - 65,000 persons; Lithuania - 75,000 persons.
Upon the forced withdrawal of the Soviet forces in the summer of 1941,
local organs of Baltic self-government - administrative, police and defense
- quickly reappeared. In reality, the nations of Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania were in a state of war with the Soviet Union between the years
of 1941 to 1945. Many desperate battles were fought on a number of fronts.
At the same time, the Baltic home front was being secured by local police
and defense units. Simultaneously, the shifting tide of battle between
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union effectively turned the Baltic area into
a smoldering battleground between those two superpowers. Added to this
conventional warfare was the constant threat of communist-inspired guer-
rillas and saboteurs directed at the Baltic area. In response to this mur-
derous threat, the local police and defense units were ordered to take
appropriate counter-measures, consistent with the legal systems of those
nations.
At the time of the second Soviet conquest in the fall of 1944, some
300,000 Baltic citizens managed to escape to a number of western antions,
principally Sweden and Germany, and later, to the United States, Australia,
Canada and elsewhere. Having settled in these lands, the Baltic refugees
there quicky organized informational services to enlighten the world's
peoples to the reality and incredible brutality of the Soviet threat to
all mankind. Governments-in-exile and other organizations were formed -
all of them avowedly anti-communist. Naturally these groups became and still
very much are thorns in the sides of Muscovite overlords. Consequently,
they have stopped at absolutely nothing to try to smear and to try to
discredit these anti-communist forces in the outside world.
- 2 -
And, tragically, it appears that the Soviets may realize their goal.
This is due, in large measure, to a law passed by the 95th Congress in
1978, whereby entry visas and rights to American citizenship are denied
to any person who "collaborated" with the German authorities between the
years 1933 to 1945 and/or "persecuted" people for racial, religious or
nationality reasons. As a follow-up, a year later, the Office of Special
Investigations (0.S.I.) was set up as an off-shoot of the Justice Depart-
ment. Their mission: to weed out Americans of Eastern European heritage,
deprive them of American citizenship, and to deport them to the U.S.S.R
or Isreal. Since then, the O.S.I. has engaged in intensive investigations
regarding many former Eastern Europeans who allegedly aided or abetted the
German occupation forces during those years, especially in the persecution
of Jews. The charge has been levelled against these individuals that they
had not disclosed their World War Two-era activities to the U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization afficials upon their entry into this country. Based
largely on the testimony and "evidence" provided by the Soviet Communist
authorities, a number of American citizens have already been deprived of
their citizenship and face deportation.
One of the great human tragedies of the whole thing is that patriotic
Americans whose only crime was to oppose the onslaught of the Soviet tyranny
in their earlier homelands, are now being harassed in American courts, with
the primary "evidence" being provided by a ruthless totalitarian power -
the Soviet Union. Yet, it is obviously true that these persecuted Americans
had to and did adhere to the legitimate national defense policies and laws
of their homelands vis-a-vis the Soviet invaders. What laws, then, have
been violated? Obvoiusly - none!
By the law of all civilized nations - and this is steeped in the ancient
Roman legal code - ex post facto provisions are not admissible in court. So,
too, is it in the American legal system. With all Americans, that is, except
those who most bitterly resisted Soviet tyranny. What a colossal miscarriage
of justice is now taking place in the Land of the Free. Patriotic Americans
are being prosecuted under laws that did not exist at the time, with the
evidence provided by their hated foe - Communist Russia. Is it really pos-
sible that this could be occurring in America in 1984 ?
In summation: The right of self-defense against foreign invasion is
guaranteed by international law to all nations, to all peoples. Between the
years of 1940 to 1945, the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian peoples among
others waged a desperate fight for national self-presrvation against Soviet
attack. In doing so, they followed the established law of their nations.
Justice cries out here - wherein lies their crime ? The answer appears
ridiculously self-evident. There is none.
Therefore:
(a) In that the U.S. Justice Department has revoked the citizenship of a
number of Americans based on highly-questionable "evidence" supplied
by Soviet sources, and
(b) In that most of the accused are aged, are little-versed in American
jurisprudence, and of limited financial means for meaningful self-
defense, and
(c) In that illegal ex post facto provisions to the law have been used
against these individuals for crimes that were allegedly committed
over forty years ago, and
- 3 -
(d) In that is virtually impossible for these accused to provide
authentic witnesses or evidence on their own behalf after all these
years, and
(e) In that the charges are being made in American courts by prosecutors
who are not cognizant of/do not recognize the Roman Law upon which
the Esonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian legal codes were based -
as a candidate for President of the United States, you are respectfully
being asked to respond to the following :
(1) Do you consider the methods, tactics and mode of operations being
used by the Office of Special Investigations to be within the spirit
of the American law ?
(2) Do you consider O.S.I. collaboration with the Soviet K.G.B. in these
cases to be appropriate ?
(3) Are the present activities of the O.S.I. serving American national
or humanitarian interests ?
(4) What do you propose to do to protect the rights of these Americans
whose liberties are being trampled on by the O.S.I. in full cooperat-
ion with the Soviet Secret Police ? Will you help to protect their
rights or will they be turned over to the jurisdiction of a totali-
tarian state ?
(5) Did the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians have a legitimate right
to defend their homelands against Soviet invasion as the laws of
these nations had spelled out ? Were they first supposed to acquaint
themselves with the intricasies of the American legal system before
they manned their defensive positions against the Soviets from 1941
to 1945 ? Can these Americans now be prosecuted through laws which
were written many years after the fact, forty years removed in time,
dealing with confusing events in a war-torn part of the world,
thousands of miles away ?
We respectfully request your thoughts and answers to the above issues.
Sincerely,
Enn Koiva
Eduard Raig
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 31, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 825R
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire: Knight-Ridder Newspapers
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the responses to the
above-referenced candidate questionnaire, and finds no
objection to them from a legal perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 * OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
JGR
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
Name of Correspondent:
Richard / Darman
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Questionnaire knight -Ridder.
Newspapers (Prepared by R/B '84)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
Cutton
ORIGINATOR 84,10,31
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
R 84,10,31
584111101
Referral Note:
noon
CUAT 17
I 84,110,31
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C * Comment/Recommendation
R * Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D - Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 10/31/84
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: NOON TOMORROW, 11/1
SUBJECT: QUESTIONNAIRE: KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MURPHY
MEESE
OGLESBY
BAKER
ROGERS
DEAVER
>
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
DARMAN
P
SS
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FULLER
ELLIOTT
HERRINGTON
BAROODY
HICKEY
McFARLANE
McMANUS
REMARKS:
Please provide any edits/comments directly to Mike Baroody, with a copy
to my office, by Noon tomorrow, 11/1. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
1984 OCT 31 AM II: 19
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
REAGAN-BUSH'84
The President's Authorized Campaign Committee
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MARGARET TUTWILER
THROUGH:
ED ROLLINS
FROM:
JIM LAKE
DATE:
OCTOBER 30, 1984
RE:
KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS QUESTIONNAIRE
Per the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's
November 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am
enclosing draft responses to a set of questions from
Knight-Ridder.
Please advise me at your earliest possible convenience
of White House approval of the responses. We need the approval
notice by November 1 to meet our deadline.
440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984
Paid for by Reagan Bush 84: Paul Laxalt. Chairman: Angela M. Buchanan Jackson Treasurer
KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON BUREAU
1319 F Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington. DC 20004
(202) 637-3600
Oct. 29, 1984
John:
Here are the six questions we would like you
to answer. As I mentioned on the telephone,
the same questions are being posed to both
candidates, and the responses can be kept
relatively brief, 150 to 200 words each.
Thanks for expediting this on short notice
so we can have them back by Thursday. If
there is anything I can do to help speed
things up, let me know.
Imagine, only eight days and counting.
Sincerely,
Owen Owen Ullmann
John Buckley
Reacan- Bush Campaign
440 1st St. N.W.
4th floor 388-1970
KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON BUREAU
1319 F Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 637-3600
LEADERSHIP. The president has been described as sometimes being
3503
ill-informed on important issues, and many have expressed concern
that he may lack the physical and mental capacity to complete a
second term. Mr. Mondale has been criticized as being too pessi-
mistic, too beholden to special interest groups, too close to being
a wimp. Could you justify why the American people should entrust
you to be their leader for the next four years?
TERRORISM. Secretary Schultz indicated in a recent speech that the
American public must support the government in taking action against
international terrorists. Do you feel that it's time to get tough--to
take the best intelligence available and then use military force, if
possible, for acts of reprisal against, or prevention of, terrorism?
If that time hasn't arrived, what will you do to more effectively
combat terrorism as a political weapon?
TAXES. What specific assurances can you offer the American people
that your tax policies are fair and in the best interests of the
nation at large, given the strong desire to continue economic
recovery and at the same time reduce the federal deficit? Do you
favor major reforms of the income tax system or would you rather
see another tax, such as a national sales or value added tax?
INDUSTRY. For the past several years, under both Republican and
Democratic administrations, America's industrial power has been
deteriorating as more and more foreign goods are being used in the
United States. Is this a danger not just to jobs but to the basic
security of the nation? Aside from promises that you can make this
situation better, what specific actions will you take to bolster
basic industry?
SOCIAL SECURITY. Both candidates have promised not to touch Social
Security benefits--either now or for future recipients. Can this
position be maintained since Social Security is certain to consume
an increasingly large share of the federal budget and national wealth?
What will you do to ensure that Social Security will be healthy in
the next century?
DEFENSE. President Reagan says a space-based missile defense, which
some people have called "Star Wars, could end the peril of nuclear
war. Mr. Mondale says it would simply extend the arms race into a
new arena, at great cost and without making the world safer. Which
is right, and why?
RESPONSE BY THE HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO A QUESTIONNAIRE BY
KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
October 30, 1984
LEADERSHIP
Q: The President has been described as sometimes being
ill-informed on important issues, and many have expressed
concern that he may lack the physical and mental capacity
to complete a second term. Mr. Mondale has been criticized
as being too pessimistic, too beholden to special interest
groups, too close to being a wimp. Could you justify why
the American people should entrust you to be their leader
for the next four years?
A: Those statements you cite arise from a different view of
this job. I don't believe a President should get so bogged
down in details that he is reviewing the schedule for the
White House tennis courts. We saw that kind of government
under our predecessors. They said to the American people.
"trust me," and now my opponent admits they let the people
down. But my opponent is saying "trust me" again.
In 1980. I said that my view of government places trust not
in one person or one party, but where it belongs: in the
people. But the responsibility to live up to that trust is
also where it belongs: in their elected leaders. Unlike
my opponent, we have lived up to that trust. Through our
faith in the people. we have kept our promise to reduce
inflation and interest rates, to put Americans back to
work, and to rebuild America's defenses. We haven't solved
all our problems yet. But unlike my opponent, who would go
back to depending on bigger government financed by higher
taxes, we plan to meet the challenges still facing us by
counting on the people to keep America growing and going.
TERRORISM
Q. Secretary Schultz indicated in a recent speech that the
American public must support the government in taking
action against international terrorists. Do you feel it's
time to get tough -- to take the best intelligence
available and then use military force, if possible, for
acts of reprisal against, or prevention of, terrorism? If
that time hasn't arrived, what will you do to more
effectively combat terrorism as a political weapon?
A. Secretary Schultz's speech, while an important statement,
presented little new in terms of U.S. policy. From the
start of our Administration, we placed great emphasis on
improving our ability to defend ourselves against
terrorism. Last year, we began implementing a three-part
plan: legislation to make prosecution of terrorists
easier, increased cooperation with fellow democracies, and
improved security at U.S. installations. And of course, we
have worked to rebuild our intelligence capabilities to
anticipate terrorist activities better. While the
particular response to any terrorist threat depends on the
situation involved -- including the ability to determine
the specific identity of the responsible parties, and the
effectiveness of the response in deterring future activity
-- those considering terrorists acts can be assured of two
things: first, every means at our disposal will be used to
counter the scourge of terrorism wherever it threatens U.S.
citizens, and second, the threat of terrorism will not
deter the United States from carrying out its
responsibilities, diplomatic or otherwise, nor from
protecting and defending U.S. interests around the globe.
TAXES
Q. What specific assurances can you offer the American people
that your tax policies are fair and in the best interests
of the nation at large, given the strong desire to continue
economic recovery and at the same time reduce the Federal
deficit? Do you favor major reforms of the income tax
system or would you rather see another tax, such a national
sales or value-added tax?
A. I get a little tired of hearing from my opponents about
fairness in taxation. It seems their idea of fairness is
to raise everyone's taxes. Our idea of fairness is to
reduce everyone's taxes. To keep his promises, my opponent
would be required to raise taxes at least $1,800 for the
average American family. He said a few weeks ago that he
would totally repeal our indexing reform, which keeps
inflation from pushing working families into higher
brackets. The Treasury Department revealed recently that
indexing will save the typical family of four $84 in taxes
next year -- and nearly $700 a year by 1989. A family
earning $10,000 could pay $231 more a year in income taxes
by 1989 if indexing is repealed. That's not my idea of
fairness and compassion.
We intend to go on from our 1981 reforms to make the entire
tax code simpler and fairer for all taxpayers. Such a plan
could help bring the underground economy into the sunlight
of honest tax compliance and broaden the tax base, so
personal rates could go down, not up.
INDUSTRY
Q. For the past several years, under both Republican and
Democratic Administrations, America's industrial power has
been deteriorating as more and more foreign goods are being
used in the United States. Is this a danger not just to
jobs but to the basic security of the nation? Aside from
promises that you can make this situation better, what
specific actions will you take to bolster industry?
A. Dr. Charles Schultze, the Carter-Mondale Chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisors, recently debunked this
"de-industrialization" notion. Over the last decade, he
said, America produced more jobs than any other industrial
nation, our manufacturing production grew faster than any
country except Japan, and exports of American manufactured
goods doubled.
In 1980, American industry did face high inflation and
interest, overtaxation and overregulation. We've lowered
inflation and interest rates, instituted pro-growth tax
incentives, reduced regulation, enforced trade laws and
provided relief in a few instances, as in the auto and
steel industries, where it's been warranted. Now we're
seeing productivity rising, the highest levels of business
investment in decades, and a record number of business
incorporations. If we keep inflation and interest rates
down and keep these pro-growth incentives in place (instead
of boosting the tax and regulatory burden on businesses, as
my opponent proposes), and if Americans work together to
improve quality, become more productive, hold down costs,
and invest in tomorrow and tomorrow's technology, then we
can out-compete, out-perform, and out-sell anybody.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Q. Both candidates have promised not to touch Social Security
benefits -- either now or for future recipients. Can this
position be maintained since Social Security is certain to
consume an increasingly large share of the federal budget
and national wealth? What will you do to ensure that
Social Security will be healthy in the next century?
A. When we came to office, Social Security was headed for
bankruptcy, even though the Carter-Mondale Administration
had enacted benefit cuts and the biggest tax increase in
history just a few years before. We ignored the attacks
from those who would have turned the system into a
political football, and worked with our opposition to find
a long-term solution -- not just another quick-fix. Under
this solution, benefits have continued to rise, and they
will rise another 3.5 percent in January.
Because of the work we've done, the Social Security
Trustees have reported that the system will be safe well
into the next century. In fact, one of the trustees called
that report "an understatement." That's why I can make the
pledge that I will never stand for a reduction of Social
Security benefits, for the people now getting them or for
those who will receive them in the future.
By the way, I believe my opponent's attacks on this issue
are becoming increasingly irresponsible. He's trying to
scare senior citizens depending on Social Security. He
ought to be ashamed of himself and it ought to stop now.
DEFENSE
Q. President Reagan says a space-based missile defense, which
some people have called "Star Wars," could end the peril of
nuclear war. Mr. Mondale says it would simply extend the
arms race into a new arena, at great cost and without
making the world safer. Which is right, and why?
A. I have asked the Department of Defense to begin research on
a Strategic Defense Initiative, investigating the
possibility of a weapon to defend us from incoming nuclear
missiles. The goal of such a search is not to expand the
nuclear arms race, but to end it for all time by making
these horrible weapons obsolete. We would not turn nuclear
war over to computers, as my opponent -- who seems confused
about the issue -- has charged. Instead we would regain
control over our own destinies rather than counting on the
threat of total annihilation that is the basis of his
policy.
When we began this effort, there was no guarantee of
success. There remains no guarantee of success today. But
neither was there a guarantee of success when President
John Kennedy accepted the challenge of putting a man on the
moon. Just as that attempt proved worthwhile in its
expansion of man's horizons, wouldn't it be worthwhile if
we could develop such a defensive weapon and free mankind
from the threat of nuclear weapons once and for all?
Wouldn't it be more humanitarian to destroy missiles
instead of slaughtering millions of innocent people?
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 27, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DDR
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Final Version of Questions and Answers
for National Wildlife Magazine
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced questions
and answers, and finds no objection to them from a legal
perspective.
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
David Chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Final version an Q/A for national
wildlife magazine
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUITOLL
ORIGINATOR 85/02/27
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
R 85,02,27
5 85,02,27
Referral Note:
/
/
/ /
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R . Direct Reply w/Copy
B . Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X * Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
2/27/85
c.o.b. TODAY
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
SUBJECT:
FINAL VERSION OF Q&A FOR NATIONAL WILDLIFE MAGAZINE
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MURPHY
MEESE
OGLESBY
REGAN
ROGERS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
CHEW
P
SS
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FULLER
KINGON
BUCHANAN
TUTTLE
HICKEY
ROLLINS
McFARLANE
FRIEDERSDORF
McMANUS
BAROODY
REMARKS:
Attached is the cleared version of the Q&A for National Wildlife Magazine,
which we plan to send to the magazine. Please let me know by c.o.b. today
if you have any problems.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
1985 FED 27 All 9: 11
Ext. 2702
February 26, 1985
Questions & Answers for National Wildlife Magazine
by President Ronald Reagan
10: You've often spoken eloquently of the "shining city on a
hill" when talking about the future you see for America.
Isn't clean air and water, better stewardship of the land,
a sane energy policy, and safeguarding our precious
wildlife resources an essential part of the picture?
A: Absolutely. America's tremendous economic recovery has
been achieved while preserving the wildlife, scenic
grandeur and other environmental treasures we Americans
hold dear.
In fact, these values have been enhanced through such
initiatives as the billion dollar park restoration and
improvement program, the great surge in private sector
contributions of time, land, money and equipment to the
parks and wildlife refuge systems, several exciting
fishery restoration projects, and the Chesapeake Bay
recovery effort -- just to name a few.
During my second Administration, we're going to continue
to be good stewards of all these priceless resources.
2Q: Of all the major environmental problems facing us in this
country today, which do you consider the most pressing?
And how will your Administration address the issue?
A: Well, there are several -- and we are addressing each of
them. Certainly we are going to keep working on identify-
ing and cleaning up toxic waste sites. Of equal importance
is implementing the recently-enacted changes to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates
currently operating toxic waste disposal sites. A strong
RCRA program is insurance against the mistakes that led to
the need for the Superfund.
We also must continue our aggressive effort to identify
the factors that contribute to acid deposition so that we
can determine whether our existing air pollution controls
are sufficient.
-2-
3Q: Of the thousands of toxic dumps listed by the EPA as
dangerous, only a handful are being cleaned up, in spite
of Superfund. Both Bill Ruckelshaus, former EPA Admini-
strator, and Lee Thomas, your present Administrator, feel
much more money is going to be needed. Will you support a
$10 billion fund in order to get the job done faster and
help people feel safer?
A: First of all, it's not true that only a handful of the
toxic dumps are being cleaned up. Work has been done at
hundreds of sites, including emergency cleanup and engineer-
ing studies. Keep in mind that each site is different,
and with groundwater or deep soil contamination, you can't
just bring in a bulldozer and be done with it. Some sites
will take years to clean up.
When we took office the Superfund had just been authorized.
We had to start from scratch on a problem that had been
ignored for decades. Our cleanup record is a good one,
and we'll keep moving ahead on this.
In my last two State of the Union Addresses, I committed
our Administration to support Superfund reauthorization.
On February 22, I sent to the Congress proposed legislation
to keep that commitment. The bill would more than triple
the size of the Superfund program -- from $1.6 billion to
$5.3 billion over the next five years. The EPA has
estimated that it cannot prudently spend more than
$1 billion per year, so our proposal sets the best funding
level for getting the job done.
In addition to the expansion of Superfund, we have asked
for increased enforcement authority to make responsible
parties either do the cleanup or pay for it. We also want
a larger role for affected citizens and the States, and
expanded authority to respond to emergencies.
There's no doubt we have to move forward aggressively
to eliminate the dangers caused by years of past waste
disposal practices. It takes time, but we're getting it
done.
I have instructed EPA Administrator Lee Thomas to make
reauthorization of the Superfund his highest priority.
-3-
4Q: Many of your Administration's environmental policies seem
directed toward changing the role of the Federal government
in protecting the environment. What do you believe is the
appropriate role of the government in environmental
protection?
A: I believe one of the most important responsibilities of
government is protection of the environment -- air, water,
wildlife, parks and so forth. But let's remember that in
our country there are several levels of government. What
we have tried to do is restore the partnership of the
Federal government with the states in protecting the
environment.
Some of these protections require Federal leadership
because, if a problem is not dealt with adequately in one
state, the problem "flows," so-to-speak, into neighboring
states.
But there are many environmental and resource protection
measures that are better and more effectively handled by
states or localities.
We have been trying to restore the principle that the
Federal government should take the lead in environmental
protection and managing natural resources where the
national interest is involved, and that the states and
localities should shoulder the responsibilities where
they can and should be doing the job.
That Federalist principle is a sound one and a very
American one. Overly restrictive, overly costly and
inappropriate Federal regulations too often have done
more harm than good.
5Q: If states are given the responsibility for setting
environmental standards, isn't there a possibility that
many will enter into competition for new or relocated
industry by reducing stringent environmental controls?
A: That is a legitimate concern in some cases. We support
and are enforcing the laws that require states to establish
and police environmental standards.
For example, surface mining regulation is one instance
where Congress says the states must meet certain standards,
and the Federal government must intervene if they don't.
We have intervened -- we've taken over two state programs
-- when they failed to live up to the standards established
under the Federal strip mining law.
-4-
But we think in most instances the states should enforce
environmental protection programs, and should have reason-
able flexibility to tailor regulations to adjust to the
situations within each individual state.
6Q: The Endangered Species Act requires that the habitat
needs of certain troubled species take precedence over
Federal authorized development. Do you believe that water
development projects, as one example, should be modified
or even cancelled when necessary to protect the habitat of
an endangered species?
A: As you know, the Endangered Species Act provides for
Federal activities to be carried out so that endangered
species are not jeopardized. Under the conditions you
state in your question -- where it is the only alternative
to protect an endangered species -- modification of the
project or, if necessary, cancellation may be appropriate.
As you also know, the Act as amended does provide for
Congressional consideration of waivers in cases of unresolv-
able conflict. This provision has been little used. When
it has, satisfactory alternatives have usually been found
to protect endangered species and let the project go
through. We believe that sound planning and active public
involvement can minimize conflicts and, in most cases,
resolve them.
70: When you go to Canada next week to meet with Prime Minister
Mulroney, the number one topic may be acid rain. What
will you say when he asks what Uncle Sam is going to do?
A: Acid rain is a serious environmental concern and one that
my Administration has taken significant measures to
address.
What many people do not realize is that the United States
leads the world in air pollution control. Since 1973, the
U.S. has reduced sulphur dioxide by 26%. New automobiles
are equiped with pollution controls that almost eliminate
emissions of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide. As a
people, we have spent over $150 billion in higher fuel
costs and electric power rates to achieve these
reductions.
This year, I have asked Congress for a 33% increase in
funds, $88 million, to conduct research on the causes of
acid rain and ways which its damage may be corrected.
-5-
Independent of acid rain controls, the EPA has proposed
new regulations which will reduce the suspected pollut-
ants. These include new controls for tall stacks at
utility plants and reductions in lead added to gasoline.
Uncle Sam has been doing his part to make our common
environment better.
8Q: Mr. President, your ranch and your visits there provide
for you a respite from the tough job in the White House.
Our readers would be interested in how you manage your
ranch and what you enjoy most about the land and wildlife.
Do you attempt or manage the land for any particular type
of wildlife, such as songbirds or deer?
A: I'm not at the ranch as much as I'd like -- and never for
more than a few days at a time. So I'm not able to run
cattle there or actively manage it at all, any more. But
Nancy and I maintain the ranch as open land and we enjoy
seeing the hawks, the blacktailed deer, the raccoons and
possums, and the other animals that live there.
I think it's important for us to keep open lands in the
United States. There's something about the wide open
spaces that gives you a real feeling of freedom, and I
think the pioneers who settled the West felt that. That's
one of the things I enjoy most about the ranch. It brings
me back to a sense of history, of remembering where we
came from, how our country grew, and what kind of people
made it. The open lands, the wild lands, are an important
part of our heritage, and I think every American should
have the opportunity to experience that.
9Q: About 50 years ago, another President convened a White
House conference to address fish and wildlife protection
issues. Out of that grew the National Wildlife Federation.
Now half a century later, how do you feel about the
possibility of calling another White House conference to
address conservation and environmental issues?
A: Well, a lot of good came out of that first North American
Wildlife Conference called by President Roosevelt in 1936.
Not only did it foster the birth of the General Wildlife
Federation, which later became the National Wildlife
Federation, but it set in motion the annual series of
North American conferences as a way for professionals
in the fields of fish and wildlife and natural resource
management to meet and discuss current issues and directions.
-6-
Regarding the origins of Presidential involvement in the
progress of natural resource management in this country,
I think you can look back even further, when another
Roosevelt, Theodore, established the tradition of involve-
ment with the natural resources community. I'd like to
help carry on that tradition.
10Q: The present problems of the deficit have focused increasing
attention upon wasteful programs and government subsidies.
In light of this, should the Federal government continue
to hold sales of public timber that lose money and charge
ranchers less than the market rate for grazing livestock
on public lands?
A: First, let me answer your question about grazing fees.
This is a topic that Congress will be addressing soon. As
you know, Congress established a formula for determining
fair market value for grazing livestock on public lands
and directed that the formula be used and studied on a
7-year trial basis. We are nearing the end of that test
period and will be making recommendations to the Congress
in the near future. I'm not ready yet to say what our
recommendations will be, but, I think it is important that
the public receive a reasonable return for use of the
public resources.
With regard to public timber sales, this is an important
revenue source and is the economic livelihood of many of
our small towns and communities. Our budget for this year
proposes that we change the calculation of receipt sharing
to reflect the annual costs of sales, which will probably
discourage sales that lose money. There are many things
that must be considered in deciding whether or not to
harvest. Cost is one that has to be weighed heavily in
the decision process.
11Q: You have signed legislation creating more Wilderness than
any other President. There are those who argue that we
have already established enough Wilderness and that any
more designations should stop. Others hold that we need
additional Wilderness areas. What is your position?
A: America is blessed with abundant land, water and wildlife
resources that provide excellent opportunities to our
citizens for outdoor activities. We are fortunate that
our predecessors in this government had the foresight to
establish great national parks, Wilderness, and wildlife
refuge systems to protect the best of these national
treasures.
-7-
Protection of the Nation's park, Wilderness and wildlife
resources has been and continues to be a high priority of
this Administration. It is a goal I stressed to Secretary
Hodel when I nominated him to be Secretary of the Interior.
With regard to the question of whether we have enough
Wilderness already, the Congress established a procedure
for inventorying and studying our resources to determine
their suitability for designation as Wilderness. We
continue to study lands to determine which areas possess
Wilderness characteristics and should be protected and
preserved. The system provides for input from all
interested parties, with the final designation decision
resting with the Congress, following recommendations from
the Executive Branch.
While there is no absolute answer to your question on how
much Wilderness is needed, I think the process established
by Congress provides for proper consideration in reaching
wise decisions.
12Q: The National Wildlife Federation believes the private
sector must take the lead in solving many environmental
problems. With this in mind, we have established the
Corporate Conservation Council as a forum in which these
issues can be discussed. Would you offer your views on
the role you see for the private sector and the value of
this kind of exchange?
A: Well, I'm tempted to say, "Welcome to the team!" The
National Wildlife Federation isn't alone, by any means, in
believing that we need to tap the vast talent and know-how
the private sector can offer in dealing with the Nation's
natural resource issues. I'm for using the broadest array
of expertise we can put together to address these matters.
We've always believed that this was the way to go, and
that government can't do the job alone. That's the
motivation behind our private sector initiative effort.
We've been trying to open up the avenues by which business
and industry can tackle some of these issues that are
growing beyond the means of any one organization or
government agency to solve.
If your Corporate Conservation Council can support these
ventures and provide a forum for ideas on how best to
build these sorts of partnerships, it will be doing a real
service. I can assure you that any recommendations coming
out of the council or any similar body will get a fair
hearing in this White House.
-8-
We've pioneered a number of private sector projects at the
Interior Department. For example, the new National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation will help promote even greater
private sector involvement in fish and wildlife issues.
The Foundation, as you know, is designed to encourage
donations of funds and property to support the activities
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
So we've got the ball rolling, and I welcome the Federation's
Corporate Conservation Council to help us keep it going
with your ideas, your direction, and your support.
13Q: Many studies have concluded that pollution controls
actually provide economic benefits through increased
employment and business profits. Isn't this a strong
argument for pollution cleanup?
A: Let's just say that I don't need that argument to convince
me of the need for pollution prevention and pollution
cleanup. The strongest economic argument for pollution
prevention and cleanup is the fact that excessive pollution
levies some very heavy costs -- costs in terms of added
health care problems, avoidable injury, deterioration of
structures and equipment, and harm to tourism and recreation
attractions.
Pollution abatement and cleanup do provide opportunities
for some new businesses, and more employment. Of course,
we also have to recognize they add to the final cost of
goods and services. Consumers either pay the higher costs
for the U.S. made goods, or perhaps switch to cheaper
imports, adding to our international balance of trade
deficit. This same process also can price U.S. goods out
of international markets, with the same consequences.
I think the point here is that pollution control has both
benefits and costs, and that a wise government learns to
weigh both carefully as it protects the public interest.
-9-
14Q: Mr. President, your ranch and being out-of-doors obviously
give you a great sense of well being for renewal. For the
vast majority of Americans, their ranch is found in parks,
wilderness areas, refuges -- public lands. When you head
for your ranch, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Citizen pack up the kids
and visit parks, go fishing, camping, hiking, and backpack-
ing. Would you support investments in parks, natural
areas, etc., to protect this outdoor heritage? Many of
our readers might wonder if deferral does not mean loss of
these lands.
A: Yes, I support investments in parks, natural areas and
other portions of our outdoor heritage, and our track
record shows it.
From 1981 through 1984, the National Park Service spent
over $365 million to acquire nearly 64,000 acres of new
parkland. More than 10,000 acres were acquired by dona-
tion or transfer. Another $66.8 million is available for
acquisition in the National Park System in 1985.
As you know, we have recommended a three-year moratorium,
beginning in 1986, on purchase of new Federal parklands in
light of our national need to do something about the
budget deficit. But our commitment to protecting our
outdoor heritage has not diminished. In fact, even our
1986 budget request includes $11.3 million for emergency
land acquisitions so that truly threatened areas will not
be lost. We will continue to seek creative alternatives
to Federal purchase, such as land exchanges, donations,
and easements, until our Federal budget situation allows
us once again to buy additional lands.
In addition, as many of your members know, we have just
completed -- one year ahead of schedule -- a historic park
restoration and improvement program which provided more
than $1 billion for restoration and improvement of facil-
ities in the National Park System. For too long those
parks had been left to deteriorate. Now, they've been
cleaned up.
We'll keep working with individuals and businesses to
encourage private initiatives to benefit the Nation's
outdoor heritage. It's a birthright of all Americans.
-10-
15Q: Finally, Mr. President, what would you like to leave as
the environmental legacy of your terms in office?
A: Early in this century, President Theodore Roosevelt said
that we should treat the natural resources as assets which
we must turn over to the next generation increased and not
impaired in value.
That's the legacy I want to leave -- fewer toxic waste
hazards, cleaner air and water, identification of causes
and a framework for reduction of acid rain, better main-
tained and managed national parks, improved protection for
wetlands, effective fishery restoration, more recovery
programs for endangered species, additional wilderness,
and a new spirit of partnership in the stewardship of the
land and its resources.
This legacy would include the promise of a future free
of international conflict that would bring the ultimate
in environmental disaster. And the legacy would include
an America that has the economic vitality to maintain and
protect the environmental ethic so well stated eight
decades ago by Teddy Roosevelt.