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
66328433
label
[Cicconi Memos – 1981]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
66328433
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
[Cicconi Memos – 1981]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
James Cicconi's Memorandums
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
66328433
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9b6400dfd1f73fc6
ocrText
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection: Cicconi, James W.: Files
Archivist: dlb/bcb
File Folder: [Cocoini Memos, 1981]
Box /
Date: 2/19/98
OA 10793
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker re Intelligence
11/30/81
PS
Executive Order, 2p.
2. memo
JW Cicconi to James A. Baker re Relations with
12/7/81
PS
Organized Labor, 2p.
3. memo
JW Cicconi to James A. Baker re Human Events
12/22/81
PS B6
Article on Loret Ruppe, 4p.
10/19/00
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National security classified information [(a)(1) of the PRA].
F-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA].
P-2 Relating to appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA].
F-2 Release could disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA].
FOIA].
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information
F-3 Release would violate a Federal statue [(b)(3) of the FOIA].
[(a)(4) of the PRA].
F-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President and his advisors, or
[(b)(4) of the FOIA].
between such advisors [(a)(5) of the PRA].
F-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(a)(6) of
FOIA].
the PRA].
F-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of
the FOIA].
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
F-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions
[(b)(8) of the FOIA].
F-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of
the FOIA].
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection: Cicconi, James W.: Files
Archivist: dlb/bcb
File Folder: [Coccini Memos, 1981]
Date: 2/19/98
OA 10793
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
JW Cicconi to James A. Baker re Intelligence
11/30/81
P5
Executive Order, 2p.
2. memo
JW Cicconi to James A. Baker re Relations with
12/7/81
P5
Organized Labor, 2p.
3. memo
JW Cicconi to James A. .Baker re Human Events
12/22/81
P5
Article on Loret Ruppe, 4p.
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National security classified information [(a)(1) of the PRA].
F-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA].
P-2 Relating to appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA].
F-2 Release could disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA].
FOIA].
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information
F-3 Release would violate a Federal statue [(b)(3) of the FOIA].
[(a)(4) of the PRA].
F-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President and his advisors, or
[(b)(4) of the FOIA].
between such advisors [(a)(5) of the PRA].
F-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(a)(6) of
FOIA].
the PRA].
F-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of
the FOIA].
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
F-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions
[(b)(8) of the FOIA].
F-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of
the FOIA].
I have memos both
Elizabeth & John did
you want detail on if this. I.
It:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Fell held Tell Pid
WASHINGTON
to give if
11-9-81
TO: JAB III
Try + theree
fle
RE:
Public
Liaison/
Travel
Budget
no
we
This is the matter Elizabeth Dole raised
with you today. You asked that I check
into it.
That
Red Cavaney says the $15,000 allotted is
too little, and will not allow them to
later.
perform all the public speaking they feel
you want to drum up support for Administra-
tion positions. Red says, though, that
have to and without a fuss.
they will of course live with it if they 9AB
John Rogers told me he feels the $15,000
is fair, and feels it is much too early
for them to complain. He is very firm.
I agree with John. Suggest we tell them
to please give it a shot. If there are
things that are important that they cannot
attend due to budget, we can always readjust
later.
Decision?
Do you want to convey, or do you want me
to break the news?
your
IC memos
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
11-10-81
TO: JAB III
RE: General Revenue Sharing
This memo from Rich Williamson makes
two key points to the President:
1. The Administration proposal to
cut revenue sharing by 12% ($552
million) has caused a "hemorrhag-
ing" in our relations with city
and county officials.
2. The main reason for the extreme
reaction is that the President
made campaign promises which at
least appear to strongly support
revenue sharing as a program con-
sistent with his notion of fed-
eralism,
JC
Cicconi
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Ruh you wasted their
paid
November 5, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON
Rich
land comventing lat on nytt you car from en eyest on to
SUBJECT:
GENERAL REVENUE SHARING
As you know, the Administration has proposed a 12% ($552
million) cut in General Revenue Sharing. This proposed
reduction has caused more hemorrhaging of our relationship
partier moT
with city and county officials than any other action the
Administration has proposed in the past nine months. Since
the announcement of this action, we have received (and
11/5
continue to receive) 1700 phone calls, letters and telegrams
in opposition.
I thought it would be useful for you to know some of the
reasons for this reaction from state and local officials:
1.
Broken Campaign Promises
Many local officials feel that you broke your promise
during the campaign that you wouldn't cut revenue sharing.
Attachment #1 is a sampling of campaign statements on this
subject.
2.
General Revenue Sharing is an Entitlement Program
Both city and county officials have argued that general
revenue sharing is an entitlement program. OMB has
agreed with local government on this point. The entitlement
nature of revenue sharing is a particular problem because
local officials are in the middle of their fiscal years and
have been planning on using these federal funds.
3.
The Federal Program Most Consistent with Reagan Federalism
In talking to elected officials in cities, towns and counties,
they all felt that general revenue sharing is the only
program that allows them the flexibility to maximize federal
dollars for service delivery. Many other federal programs
- 2 -
are ladened with mandates that reduce the level of funding
for the actual service to be provided. The National Asso-
ciation of Counties' immediate past President, Roy Orr, has
said on numerous occasions, "If I could receive half of the
total federal dollars that come to my county in the form of
general revenue sharing, I could do more in my county with
less money than all those other federal programs combined".
4. No Urban Policy Statement
Because the Administration thus far has not issued an urban
policy statement, local elected officials are concerned
about the Administration's apparent ignorance of their
problems. They would like to begin to plan programs that
are consistent with the Administration's plans for munici-
palities, but they see no Administration urban policy. Many
have concluded that the Administration is more concerned
about budget cuts than about establishing a meaningful
partnership with state and local governments.
5. Contrary to Returning Revenue Sources
General revenue sharing is the closest thing we have to
returning revenue sources to local governments. Reducing
or repealing the revenue sharing program cuts at the heart
of federalism. You have said that you would like to find a
revenue source to return to state and local governments in
place of revenue sharing. However, inasmuch as it will take
some time to return revenue sources to local governments,
general revenue sharing is the best interim program.
6. Congressional Opposition
Some of our key supporters, such as Congressman Bud Brown
(R-Ohio), have strongly opposed the 12% cut in revenue
sharing. Republicans on the Hill generally have told us
they view revenue sharing as a "Republican" program and a
pure block grant.
ATTACHMENT I
Examples of your campaign statements in support of revenue
sharing are as follows:
"I am astonished that the Carter Adminis-
tration and the Democratic Congress have
allowed the general revenue sharing program
to expire
I pledge that when elected
reenactment of revenue sharing will be among
my highest domestic priority (sic) " 1/
"One of the goals of my Administration will
be to decentralize responsibility and
resources to mayors under federal revenue
sharing. " 2/
"We should maintain general revenue sharing,
at least until the transfer program [of
returning responsibilities to state and
local governments] is completed.' 3/
1/ Telegram to the National Association of Counties,
October 4, 1980.
2/ Speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Seattle,
Washington, June 8, 1980.
3/ Speech to the National Urban League, St. Louis,
Missouri, August 5, 1980.
Je memor
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
11-11-81
TO: JAB III
RE: Houston Mayor's Race
Word I get is that there are efforts
by supporters of Jack Heard to get
the WH involved in the runoff of the
mayor's race. Some former RR support-
ers (the Vannersons?) reportedly feel
this is "owed" to them.
Apparently, the statement they coaxed
out of Rich Williamson (which really
was nebulous) was part of those efforts.
As you know, they played it up.
They want more, and my info is they
feel you and other "Bush Republicans"
are blocking them.
Wanted you to know before trip, especial-
ly since President is along.
(If you confirm this is going on, suggest
a "true" Reaganaut like Nofziger call and
put a stop to it.)
JC
JC memor
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 13, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM: JAMES W. CICCONI
SUBJECT: Report on Economic Outlook
A. The Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs met today.
Primary business was a report on the economy by
Beryl Sprinkel, Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs.
Sprinkel reported:
1. We are now "in an optimum position to achieve
a non-inflationary rate of monetary growth. "
The target rate for 1981 was 3% to 6%; we project
it will come in at 4.5%. In light of this, a
1982 target range of 2 1/2% to 5% is realistic.
2. There is "a dramatic downward movement in interest
rates. " A significant fact is that Monday's
Treasury auction yielded the lowest interest
rates in over a year.
The only real spurts of interest rates upward
was last spring at the same time as a rapid rate
of growth in the money supply. Though intuition
leads one to question this, the reason is clearly
the feeding of inflationary expectations.
3. The economy is still likely to bounce back from
recession next spring. Outlook is good because:
a. Tax cut is in place that will encourage
savings and investment.
b. There is now no doubt that inflationary
expectations are down. The money market
reflects this.
4. It is critical to now move from zero growth of money
to a moderate rate of growth. Otherwise the recession
will grow deeper.
- 2 -
Sprinkel expects resistance on this from the Federal
Reserve. Though they follow policy publicly, he
says they are Keynesians who privately feel they
must be careful not to let interest rates come down
too much. They feel this would fuel inflation, but
Sprinkel says that view is absurd: lower interest
rates can only help.
Sprinkel says we need the moderate growth in money
supply, but there is a good chance we will not get
it. The Fed should not resist the decline in interest
rates, or else it will postpone real recovery until
the third quarter next year (NOTE: perhaps too late
for the 1982 elections.)
B. Only other business was a report on the proposed merger
between Kuwait Petroleum Corp. (100% owned by government
of Kuwait) and Santa Fe International Corporation (whose
main holdings are drilling rigs). This is being reviewed
by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (no
real authority to block) and by Antitrust Division of
DOJ.
Initial report is that there is no real competitive overlap;
Kuwait would not control anything significant. This is
being studied further, though.
CC: Richard Darman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 16, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM: JIM CICCONI
SUBJECT: Cabinet Council on Commerce & Trade
At its meeting on November 13, the Council discussed
three topics: the USPS electronic mail proposal, the
steel industry, and the auto industry.
1. USPS Electronic Mail Proposal
This proposal envisions a system whereby companies
could send an electronic message to a USPS terminal
where a hard copy will be made for delivery. Much
money has already been spent on preliminary work,
aiming for a start-up after the first of the year.
Commerce opposes the proposal claiming government
should not enter an area where there is no demonstrated
need for intervention. They also argue this violates
a 90 year old decision (Western Union acquisition
attempt) to keep government out of telecommunications.
Postal Service argues they are not entering
telecommunications, but instead want to use the
technology to make their operation more efficient;
they further say they would work with Administration
and Congress to make the limits clear.
Consensus of Cabinet Council is against the proposal,
with Baldrige and Lewis strongest opponents. Bolger
suggested a small study committee, Lewis wanted immediate
vote. Baldrige decided on one more full meeting on issue.
2. Steel Industry
Discussion about the Trigger Price Mechanism (TPM) that
is in place to prevent U.S. producer lawsuits against
the rest of the world.
Commerce (DOJ) is filing lawsuits against Belgium, France,
South Africa, Brazil and Romania for violation of the
TPM and damage to the U.S. steel industry. More cases
will soon be filed by the government. The industry wants
up to 90 cases filed, but Commerce opposes the shotgun
approach. Public approach is to keep the process non-
political, quasi-judicial.
- 2 -
3. Auto Industry:
Roger Smith, the head of G.M. (with whom you are meeting
Wednesday), has told Baldrige that General Motors will
shortly lay off 40-50,000 workers. This means another
40-50,000 among suppliers, and untold others among
dependent industries. The effect of this added unemploy-
ment will probably be more outside pressure on us to
alter our economic program.
Auto sales are now abysmal, and the 1982 outlook is not
much better. The deterioration is especially pronounced
at G.M. which has tried to operate normally in present
circumstances (as opposed to Ford, which did not).
G.M. has a projected $0.6 to $3.6 billion negative
cash flow even assuming a 40% cutback in investment plans.
Factors involve following:
a. Americans still feel foreign cars are built better;
b. Japanese have enormous cost advantage; and
C. people are using cars less to reduce expenses,
and keeping them longer.
G.M. is thus in a most difficult situation: it must
postpone investment to deal with today's problems, yet
the effect of delaying investment makes their long-
term prospects even worse.
CC: Richard Darman
file
Je memes
TODAY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
11-18-81
TO: JAB III
RE: Consumer Handbook
Elizabeth never got an answer on
this handbook (which was revised,
but which Meese wanted cancelled).
Do you want to discuss at breakfast,
or do you want her to discuss directly
with Meese?
Discuss at Breakfast
JAb
Dole discuss with Meese
I've mentioned if to him
Drop the Matter & mid I
thought she
JC
I
had a point.
Done
His apread to
gue
11-18-81
hear her
arguments.
11/18/81
Memo Sor. I'm Ciccone
Trom: Rec Coveney
Subject: Consume Resource
Handbook
The latest memo I provided
you or the Subject is one are
that gim should use. Is we
discussed, if it does not they the
Elizabeth would like to make
a presentation to meese re the
project Is this OK with you?
File
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
JAB,
Mark White wanted to discuss the
prison case, and is blaming last
night's disturbance in one of the
units (3 injuries, no deaths) on
the presence of federal monitors
in the prisons. He says it has
broken the chain of authority.
He's talking to Brad Reynolds on
this also, and "wanted the President
to know.' "
Personally, I don't buy that-- though
I'd bet the problems are at least
due to rising expectations caused by
the lawsuit.
He said he fully understands your
not wishing to talk about the case.
I mentioned the conversation to Ed
Schmults, along with fact we asked
White to talk with DOJ instead of us.
S11-19-81
menory
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
11-30-81
TO: JAB III
RE: School Lunch Program
The Cabinet Council on Human Resources
and the Agriculture Department have
recommended that the President approve
a change in the child nutrition programs
that would allow children to accept
smaller meal portions than the norm
if they do not intend to eat it all.
This would be an option resting entirely
with the child (unlike the earlier
proposals that would have mandated
smaller amounts)
Ag Dept says this will be well received
by some in nutrition areas because it
will allow children to be exposed to a
wider variety of foods. This would
also reduce plate waste and probably
save money at the local level.
Criticism is still possible, but I
feel this is a much better thought out
idea than the original. Some change is
felt necessary due to congressional mandate
to reduce State and local costs of program.
Decision will be made by President on
Thursday or later.
JC
file Je memos
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Novembér 30, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
Intelligence Execuitve Order
The following are points on which the proposed order might draw
public criticism, though adequate justification can be given
for many of the changes. (References are to pages in the
Analysis.)
1. AG no longer has to approve CIA counterintelligence in-
side U.S.; DCI no longer has to approve FBI counter-
intelligence outside U.S. Instead each "coordinate"
with the other under a procedure agreed to by the AG
and DCI. (pp. 36 and 58).
2.
"Consistent with applicable law" language eliminated
in section on conduct of special activities (p. 38).
It is now redundant due to other sections (expecially
2.8 on p. 80); could easily be reinserted to eliminate
misunderstanding.
3. Eliminates language that required intelligence activities
to be conducted "in a manner that preserves and protects
established concepts of privacy and civil liberties."
Substitutes a requirement for consistency with the Con-
stitution and applicable law, and that the activity re-
spect traditional US principles (p. 61).
4. Allows CIA to gather intelligence within US for foreign
intelligence purposes only, and only in "significant"
matters; it may not gather info re domestic activities
of US persons. (p. 64)
5. Allows free (probably automatic) dissemination of intelli-
gence gathered on US persons to other agencies in the
Intelligence Community. (p. 67A)
6. Allows physical surveillance by CIA of former employees
(now allowed only for present employees). Also elimi-
nates the "reasonable belief" standard for overseas sur-
veillance of US persons; would allow it to obtain signifi-
cant information that cannot otherwise be obtained. (p. 72)
Memorandum for James A. Baker re Intelligence Executive Order - II
7. Eliminates the requirement that the President specifically
authorizes intelligence techniques "for which a warrant would
be required." Instead, the AG can approve without the Presi-
dent's involvement.
8. General: Question re our use of the term "aggressive" in des-
cribing the ways in which we will gather intelligence. (sec-
tion 2.1, pg. 61). While this may be accurate, the word it-
self is a red flag. For example, in the Q & A we state "the
new Administration supports an aggressive and effective intelli-
gence effort. " Suggèst we might substitute the word "active",
or some other word in order to avoid the deliberate misinterpre-
tations some might wish to put forward.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 4, 1981
Jun Please
MEMORANDUM
Jim FOR Cicconi JIM JENKINS
tel not do hauring. to this them any
FROM:
SUBJECT: Possible Visit of Bolshoi
88
Frank Hodsoll, Chairman of the National Endowment for the
Arts, advises that the Metropolitan Opera is presently dis-
cussing with the Bolshoi the possibility of their visiting
the United States. Such a visit would not actually take
place for 6 months to a year.
The Metropolitan is seeking guidance from the Administration
before going further. They do not wish to proceed if such a
visit would be officially opposed.
I would appreciate it if you would get this information into
the proper channels.
12-9-81
Called Katr Moone, 634-6005, and gaws above "gg. missage.
JC
f
THE WHITE HOUSE
JABREAD has
WASHINGTON
Ltel
12-5-81
TO: JAB III
RE: Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs
Two points were discussed at the meeting
yesterday:
1. Federal Credit Policy: efforts are
proceeding to tighten up. The loan
guarantee reductions of $20.3B decided
on by the President are being effected
largely by administrative action.
Housing guarantees, which are about 60%
of federal credit activity, are targeted
for a 25% cut. HUD disagrees, citing
the depressed housing industry. President
will probably have to decide.
There is disagreement with HUD over the
scope of its FHA effort, too, with dispute
centering on whether the credit limitation
will hurt first-time and inner-city home
buyers.
Further dispute is over scope of GNMA cut-
back. President has already OK'd cut
in '82 commitments from $64B to $48B. Now
a further cut in '83 to $38B is being
proposed (and opposed by HUD).
HUD is exploring privatization of GNMA.
All of this will give our opponents
ammunition in a housing crunch since
rightly or wrongly, it
(ctd.)
Memo to Jim Baker
12-5-81
appears that, in a time when it is hard
to buy and hard to build, we are making
it even harder by cutting back federal
credit for housing purposes.
2. Housing and Construction Industry:
Housing starts and residential construction
have fallen steadily all year. The
economic forecasters differ on whether
there will be a rapid recovery through
next year, or further declines.
The construction industry, as a whole,
is in better shape because it has been
successfully shifting its resources
between different construction sectors
(such as office, or hotel/motel).
JWC
CC: Dick Darman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 7, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT: Relations with Organized Labor
The recent AFL-CIO meeting was, by most accounts, productive in
that it:
a.
showed Administration responsiveness;
b.
highlighted labor's leadership as the party resisting a
dialogue; and thus
C. helped force labor leaders to choose between either further
isolating themselves from the rank and file or moderating
to a small degree their public stance toward the Adminis-
tration.
By taking certain steps, and allowing the public to be made aware of
them, we may be able to cause the AFL-CIO to moderate its stance:
1.
We could move to quickly schedule a second meeting sometime next
year. Obviously it must be tentative this far in advance, but
the act of follow-up on the President's expressed desire for
continued dialogue will help solidify the impressions that we
are seeking views from a somewhat reluctant labor leadership.
Perhaps a letter could be sent to each of the Council members
stating how valuable the President found the exchange of views
to be, and stating that we are already planning on another meet-
ing next year. It could be important for the AFL-CIO Council
members to know they will be coming back to the White House
since such a perception underlines our "open door" statement.
2.
We could save a few small budget programs important to specific
unions whose leaders more clearly reflect rank and file think-
ing. One example of this is the Office of Construction Industry
Services in DOL, a $1 M program we have previously discussed
that is important to the Ironworkers. There are probably others
that Elizabeth Dole's office could identify. The President
could then save a few from anticipated cuts or phase-out. This
is a small way to demonstrate the Administration's willingness
to work with unions that are more concerned with the well-being
of their members than they are with inciting political opposi-
tion to the President.
3.
We could assure labor at the highest levels that in the future
we will make every effort to consult with them in advance on any
appointment that directly affects labor and its responsibilities.
Memorandum for James A. Baker, III
December 7, 1981
Page 2 of 2
Such a commitment might have the effect of loosening the hold
on Van de Water, but should not be presented or viewed by
either ourselves or labor as a quid pro quo. The idea makes
sense on its own and, at very least, might prevent unnecessary
(or unanticipated) confrontations on future nominees. I have
discussed this informally with both Max Friedersdorf and Pen
James, and they indicated agreement (Pen said he has an up-
coming appointment on which consultation would be useful).
Max also said Bob Bonitati had previously suggested such an
approach.
In the meeting, the President, by stating he personally knew
Van de Water and that it never occurred to him that consulta-
tions would be needed, at least implied that consultations
might henceforth be useful. The President could personally
call Kirkland and assure him that from now on the Administra-
tion would make every effort to consult with labor on appoint-
ments which directly affected it (such as NLRB, DOL, Conciliation
and Mediation), but being careful to state that he reserved
final judgment. Van de Water should not be mentioned. It is in
our interests to know labor's views in advance: if we then
choose to fight on a nomination they oppose, we can at least do
so with our eyes open.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 7, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT: Enterprise Zones (Follow-up)
Decision paper will be circulated soon, perhaps today. There
will probably not be a meeting with the President on this sub-
ject before next week.
Kass feels Baldrige will win his argument that other federal
programs should not be excluded from enterprise zones. This
will be an option discussed before the President.
Federal cost will be as follows (figures are not cumulative,
and are based on 25 zones each year for 3 years) :
1984
$310 M
1985
620 M
1986
930 M
TOTAL
$1.86 Billion
The above figure will increase between $300 and $400 million
(depending on new figures from Treasury) if the payroll tax
credit option is decided on. Most feel this is one of the
best additions to the bill in terms of helping the zone con-
cept succeed, but question if it can survive Congress (since
it amounts to paying some social security from general revenue).
Regarding the idea of "targeting" certain portions of federal
grants (or block grants) into enterprise zones, Kass says
there has been no agency study made as to how this might be
done or what it might mean in terms of "smaller slices of the
pie" for other urban areas. Apparently the idea was not studied
closely due to the philosophical problems it posed: it was felt
that Congress would be inclined to argue for an amendment along
such lines anyway, and it would be better if our proposal went
up to the Hill in a "pure" state.
As this gets closer to a Cabinet Council meeting with the
President, I will have more information.
CC: Dick Darman
f Jc memor
I
to
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 9, 1981
TO: James A. Baker, III
Do you want a quick oral briefing on the
DOE dismantlement options, or nothing at
all due to recusal?
Jim Cicconi
P
g-
Jetter this mailed gets
her
find file Alco can (a.c. one see files. that of n) Wallopue (keep letter Thanks for
SAYS you Should
THE WHITE HOUSE
SEE TODAY 12/11 -
WASHINGTON
mot
December 11, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi Jim
SUBJECT: Keyworth Response to Senator Wallop
I have a question in my mind as to the extent Jay's remarks
were misinterpreted on laser BMD. His draft letter does
not really convince me, and it probably won't convince
Wallop.
However, I feel we should probably let him send his response.
My reasons are:
1. I think there really is a policy difference that cannot
be explained or resolved in one letter;
2. A request that he revise will upset Jay and probably not
result in a better letter; and
3. The key is the offer to sit down and discuss the issue,
discover any differences and work them out. If it's
important to Wallop, he'll accept.
I also feel you should call Wallop, tell him the letter is
coming, and express the hope he will come to an understanding
with Keyworth. If he still feels there are problems, Wallop
should then let you know.
Decisions
1. Keyworth's draft letter:
OK to send JOBITE
Revise letter
2. Wallop phone call;
Will call
No need to call
Qc: you plan call Madeolm for me.
Tell him I would be pleased to your w/ him
if he wants & if hestit fuls a public 12-15-81 to please a
call m. Thank Andr
Done He'll call if there's
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 10, 1981
Dear Jim:
As you requested, I penned the attached response to
Senator Wallop's letter to you regarding my purported
stance on space-based ballistic missile defense. How-
ever, upon further examination of the relevant dates,
I realized that I had a personal meeting with Senator
Wallop in his office on November 19, six days subsequent
to transmittal of his letter. Accordingly, I believe
that some substantial progress has already been made
toward ameliorating his attitudes toward me. In fact,
I believe that the underlying rancor belongs not to him
but to a member of his staff who is a zealous advocate
of this very tenuous technology. If you concur I will
proceed to meet with Senator Wallop personally to both
further allay his concerns and to establish a supportive
relationship between himself and our administration on
this issue. I am, however, concerned about the Senator's
reference to the President's specific support of space-
based ballistic missile defense, which I believe is
simply a narrow interpretation of the President's support
for pursuing ballistic missile defense in general.
I regret that this Congressional staff-generated flap has
come to your attention. Rest assured that it has made me
more aware of Congressional sensitivities, and I will make
every effort to ensure that no support will be lost for our
policies over this issue.
Sincerely,
Jug
Jay Keyworth
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
11-30-81
TO: JAB III
RE: Wallop Letter on Keyworth
Steps in response to letter:
Do. - 1.
see Keyworth; get written
response
2. call Sen. Wallop
3. consider letter to industry
execs explaining Admin's
position.
JC
MALCOLM WALLOP
COMMITTEES
WYOMING
11/25
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FINANCE
SELECT INTELLIGENCE
United States Senate MAT:
ETHICS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
This is very serious.
November 13, 1981
9 want to see Keyworth
get a written response.
11/20 How Randle ? think the
Mr. James Baker
letter to
Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
industry upes.
1 doubln rubme
Dear Jim:
I ward
It has come to my attention that on Wednesday, October 21, Dr. Keyworth of Sm Wullop
your staff spoke to a group of executives from the aerospace industry. As
reported by his audience, he told them that they had done the country a dis- Plean
service by telling "irresponsible elements" on the Hill clearly meaning
me, since I have been leading the effort that it is possible to build
rain with
space laser weapons and that since taking his job he has spent three-fourths me
right
of his time trying to "rebuff these advocates. He strongly suggested to his
audience that they go to the Hill and "convince Congress otherwise."
after
T-biring.
By this speech, Dr. Keyworth has undermined the President's policy on strategic
weapons, has delivered a personal insult to me, and has attempted to bias the
Thank
information coming from the private sector to the legislative branch.
JABTH
First, Dr. Keyworth said that the advancement of directed energy weapons "as
an alternative to Mutual Assured Destruction" is "interfering with strategic
decision-making," and that he is "fundamentally frightened" about developing
directed energy ballistic missile defense. The President, however, thinks
otherwise. Mutual Assured Destruction is the last President's policy, and
the antithesis of this President's policy. This President has said any number
of times that he wants to develop space-based laser defenses against ballistic
missiles. We in the United States Senate voted 91-3 to develop laser defenses
against ballistic missiles as soon as possible. Not we, but Dr. Keyworth is
interfering with strategic decision-making. It should be intolerable to you
that your subordinate has spent "three-fourths" of his time on the job working
against the President's strategic orientation.
Dr. Keyworth also said he was not against research and development, and spoke
of developing an R&D plan. But he said that we are moving too fast in making
chemical lasers into a weapons system, and said we must work on more exotic
technologies. It just so happens that these technologies come from Dr. Key-
worth's old laboratory. Of course no one knows when and if these technologies
will be ready. I suggest that his rejection of present technology for some-
thing beyond the horizon is responsible for bringing us to our present sorry
strategic state. I has thought we had gotten rid of that sort of thing last
November 4.
Mr. James Baker
Page 2
November 13, 1981
Second, Dr. Keyworth did a disservice to me and to these Senators who co-
sponsored my amendments, by telling his audience that we contend that a space
laser BMD system could be operational in 3 years and be 100 percent effective.
I know the Congressional Record is not exciting reading, but had he read it
he would have known that we forecast 10 to 12 years, and a high-but-indetermin-
able rate of effectiveness. That estimate is reasonably widespread in industry,
and not far from the Carter Administration's own conclusion.
The Carter Administration fought our efforts -- incidentally they used the same
staffer now on Dr. Keyworth's payro11 -- but they never descended to this level
of deliberate misrepresentation.
Third, I do not see how one can condone a member of your staff trying to bias
the information which the private sector gives to the U.S. Senate. By what
authority did Dr. Keyworth do that? Not once during its efforts against us
did a responsible official of the Carter Administration give industry such
marching orders. This subversion of President Reagan's publicly expressed
preferences, this attack on the President's longtime supporters and this
attempt to bias industry's presentation of facts is irresponsible.
I really think it would be appropriate for every industry executive who attended
Dr. Keyworth's speech to receive a letter from you stating clearly the Presi-
dent's views on Mutual Assured Destruction, his desire that space-based BMD
be accomplished as soon as possible. I am reluctant to bring this to your
attention, but neither I, nor my cosponsors, nor the 93 Senators who voted for
the amendment should be considered "irresponsible elements" on the Hill. The
task of protecting Americans from the threats of strategic nuclear warfare is
too important for such pettiness. I intend to remain loyal to the President's
programs, but not to the extent of suffering insult for a deeply held belief
that we can begin to defend our country.
Sincerely,
Malcoln Wallys
Malcolm Wallop
United States Senator
MW:ac
the
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 12, 1981
TO: JAB III
RE: Japanese Non-Tariff Barriers
Per your request at Senior Staff
meeting, this has been made an
issue for Cabinet Council discussion.
USTR is preparing a list of such
barriers imposed by Japan. Also,
Treasury is identifying differences
between Japanese and U.S. customs
procedures.
The info should be ready for full-scale
discussion soon.
JWC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT: Revenue Sharing
Per Dick Darman:
1. Revenue sharing is the same as the March
level--4.6 B.
2. It was exempted from the 12% cut of Sept.
24, and exempt from cut below our March
request.
3. We have been satisfied to get the full
March/RR level (4.6 B) in the current Con-
tinuing Resolution.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 14, 1981
TO: Richard Hauser
RE: Financial Statement
This is to request an extension of
several weeks in the filing of my
required financial statement.
The reason for this request is that
all of my financial records, including
income tax returns, pay receipts, etc.,
are still located in Texas. I will be
able to retrieve them over the Holidays
from the boxes in which they have been
packed.
Jan Cicconi
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 15, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES W. CICCONI
FROM:
RICHARD A. HAUSER
RAD
SUBJECT:
Financial Disclosure Report
Pursuant to our discussion and for the reasons set forth in
your note of December 14, 1981, the deadline for filing your
financial disclosure report has been extended an additional
45 days. The report is now due on January 19, 1982.
Thank you
from its of de memos
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 15, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
jom
SUBJECT: Economic Impact of Defense Buildup
Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs Meeting
December 8, 1981
Murray Weidenbaum presented a paper on the above subject which, along
with the discussion, made these key points:
Economy should be able to handle our defense buildup without in-
creasing the underlying inflation rate.
Current recession is a propitious time to launch a defense buildup.
What about problem in '84, '85, defense buildup then even
greater, economy should be in full stride--prospects of inflationary
impact then? Question not fully answerable.
Shipyards - losing people, will go under at more rapid rate next
year unless Navy contracts move in quicker to help--could become the
bellweather contracts.
Wages - need for DOD settlements with defense contractors to hang
tough on wages, avoid setting pattern for other sectors.
DOD has some real probelms with proposed cuts in NASA; will affect
strategic systems.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
3AB
December 15, 1981
TO: JAB III
OMB says that no rescission is
planned for EDA "at this time
for
1982 anyway. "
The above is per someone who called
Aileen back, saying he had checked
with Stockman (we had not asked them
to do so).
The first answer she got, from the
boss of EDA's budget examiner, was
that "no decisions have been made,
but it hasn't been ruled out. II
Bottom Line: they really have not
thought it through, though Stockman
is tending against right now.
JC
gc muries
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 16, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi Jim
SUBJECT: Letter on Multifibre Arrangement
Legislative Affairs Office says Senator Heinz would like a
copy of the same letter we sent to Thurmond and Campbell
on the Multifibre Arrangement, addressed to him.
Textiles are a big issue in Pennsylvania, and he says this
will greatly assist him in his reelection campaign.
As you recall, you signed the previous letters.
DECISION
Do you want to send letter to Senator Heinz?
YES If the
NO
contript the letter
makes rease just going to Hung
AA: please pull letters
sent
change centext as we
need. and then prepare
Dear John Tumbs for JAB sig.
pc
Reading File
JC emot
&
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 16, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT: FYI
The Department of Agriculture made a proposal to the President
that they offer to sell, on a competitive bid basis, 70,000
tons of cheese to the private U.S. trade for export, without
restriction as to destination. For the private trade to com-
pete on the world market, offers to buy will be substantially
below USDA's acquisition cost.
President may make decision very
soon (not sure when).
you
Themes
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 18, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
jun
SUBJECT: Appalachian Regional Commission (1983 Budget)
For your information, OMB is proposing to terminate the
Appalachian Regional Commission and all its non-highway
funding by the end of 1982.
A 3-year finish-up of the Appalachian Highway Program will
be funded from the DOT Highway Trust Fund.
The Regional Commission and Appalachian Governors had
wanted much more, including transition job and health care
programs.
JC memos
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 21, 1981
TO:
Richard Hauser
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
5
RE:
Gift Received
This date I was given a three-volume
set of books, "The Life of Benjamin
Disraeli" by Monypenny.
The books are copyright 1910, and were
purchased in a second-hand bookstore.
The purchase price, I have been assured,
was under $35.00.
The gift is from a close personal
friend, James Spears, who is Special
Assistant to the head of the Land &
Natural Resources Division of DOJ.
He and I have exchanged gifts at
Christmas for the past three years
during our time in Texas State Government.
The books are in my office, and will
remain there pending advice from
Counsel's Office on how I should
handle this (I am uncertain after
reading the gift policy memo.)
Thanks for your help, Dick.
pre
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 21, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi you
SUBJECT: Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs
At its meeting on December 21, the Council discussed two main points:
Ex-Im Bank
The Council has reached an apparent decision to reduce credit subsidies
generally, and feels the Ex-Im Bank must share in those reductions.
Baldrige has real reservations about this, and likens it to a type of
unilateral disarmament in which the Germans, French, etc., will not
participate. Matter will continue under discussion for at least awhile.
Recession
Murray Weidenbaum reported that we are clearly still in the recession,
and that the "early bird" signs of a recovery are not yet evident. He
also noted that it is now clear the primary cause of the recession was
high interest rates.
In addition, Murray referred to an article in Fortune in which its lead-
ing economists agreed with our forecast of a second-quarter recovery
(though for different reasons).
One final note: Murray mentioned to me last night that his sources tell
him it now looks like the Fed will loosen up a bit.
CC: Richard Darman
IAB I memos
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 21, 1981
TO: JAB III
RE: Appropriations
For your information:
Darman is now circulating the following
appropriations bills for comment prior
to the President's signature:
Agriculture Interior
HUD
Transportation
DOD-Military Construction
Stockman has recommended the President
sign all of them. If you have a parti-
cular interest in any one of them, please
let me know. I've reviewed them all,
though, and see no problems which have
not previously been discussed.
JC
THIS WEEK'S NEWS FROM
Inside Washington
president of the Khmer Peoples National Libera-
tion Pront (KPNLF), was told by Under Secretary
vide moral and political support."
of State Walter Stoessel, and Assistant Secretary of
"There's a certain amount of sharing going on,"
Free speech, liberal-style: Harvard economist
State for East Asian Affairs John Holdridge, that
the official said. China is providing material sup-
J. Kenneth Galbralth agreed recently to address
the U.S. would provide moral and political sup-
port and there may be material forthcoming from
Washington's Gridiron Club, made up of some of
port,' but no military aid.
other concerned countries.' He did not elaborate.
the Capital's most prestigious journalists, on the
Based on discussions with State Department of-
Thus, the U.S., despite President Reagan's ex-
subject of Reaganomics. But Galbraith laid down
ficials, HUMAN EVENTS has learned that the U.S.
pressed concern about helping those who want to
one caveat: Under no circumstances could the
has entered into an informal alliance with the
fight for their freedom, has seemingly turned a
Club Invite supply-side economist Arthur Laffer of
Communist Chinese on the Cambodia issue, rely-
deaf ear to pleas for military support from Son
the University of Southern California to appear on
ing on Peking to supply the Cambodian resistance,
Sann, and is prepared to let Communist China play
the same program.
including the 30,000-40,000 guerrillas still loyal to
the major role in the area, even if this means an
Pol Pot, with military aid.
eventual return to power of the Khmer Rouge.
Son Sann told HUMAN EVENTS that his troops,
the right attitude on a number of issues, the de-
who supervise "liberated zones" containing more
partment has frequently just "not issued formal
than 100,000 Cambodians, are receiving a few
orders or regulations, and has failed to pursue
small arms from the Chinese, but that most of the
Executive Orders which would bind staff attorneys
Chinese aid is going to the Pol Pot forces. He said
The Heritage Report:
to these positions."
Pol Pot is getting anti-tank and anti-aircraft
One major recommendation made by Heritage
weapons; while the KPNLF is getting a few rifles
Justice Under Fire
called for the enhancement of a system to control
PRESERVATION.COPY
and automatic weapons. He said the KPNLF relies
and review all litigation activity in the department,
mostly on captured arms. As a result, he told us, if
The conservative Heritage Foundation, in re-
but all indications are that this has not been
the 200,000 Vietnamese troops now occupying the
viewing the performance of the Reagan Admin-
achieved. Indeed, since January 20, the depart-
country are eventually forced out, the Pol Pot
istration, has not only been sharply critical of the
ment has implemented the following liberal actions:
forces could overwhelm his men and establish
State and Defense Departments (see HUMAN
Pursued a suit compelling Yonkers, N.Y., to
another brutal Khmer Rouge dictatorship.
EVENTS, December 5, page 3), but the Justice
build low-income housing on sites chosen by
U.S. policy on Cambodia has been in a shambles
Department as well. Justice, charges Heritage,
Justice;
since the Vietnamese invaded the country in 1979
"has been a major disappointment" during the
Challenged the constitutionality of a proposed
and overthrew Pol Pot, the man responsible for the
first year. It has "not taken the lead in revising
legislative veto of agency regulations;
deaths of more than two million Cambodians. The
regulations, opinions and Executive Orders; it is
U.S. and other countries didn't want to recognize
actively blocking reforms proposed by other
Entered into a settlement agreeing to termi-
departments.'
nate use of the federal PACE exam and, poten-
the Vietnamese-installed regime, so they voted to
tially, any future employment tests which fail to
give Cambodia's United Nations seat to the Khmer
Even worse, says Heritage, "A number of indi-
produce an acceptable number of minority job
Rouge.
cators suggest that improvements at Justice are
candidates.
unlikely."
This policy, begun under Jimmy Carter and
continued under President Reagan, was usual-
The problems, as so many of the problems of
Opposed Department of Education regula-
ly rationalized by saying that there was no
the Reagan Administration, "begin with person-
tions which would have exempted colleges from
"third force" alternative in the country. In
nel." The Department "resembles a Wall Street
"some of the more onerous affirmative action
fact, Son Sann, a respected Cambodian na-
law firm. Top appointees are business lawyers
regulations."
tionalist, is that alternative.
who have little or no experience in the constitu-
Heritage recommended at the beginning of the
tional or public policy issues with which Justice
Reagan presidency that Justice "exert better con-
Son Sann, 69, has held a number of high posi-
deals on a daily basis."
trol over those staffers who have worked actively
tions in previous Cambodian governments. He is a
In addition to lacking critical expertise, charges
to undermine the official policies and actions of
staunch opponent of the Khmer Rouge, as well as
Heritage, "these officials are accustomed to using
the department." And while some uncooperative
the Vietnamese invaders, and he indicated to us
junior associates for legal research. Thus, they are
staffers have been transferred to non-sensitive
internal
House Rewards Ruppe for
Bad Judgment, Disloyalty
Peace Corps Director Loret Ruppe, a very luke-
warm Reaganite at best, won a handsome victory
last week. In opposition to stated White House
policy, the House, in effect, voted 258 to 155 to
totally separate the Peace Corps from ACTION,
headed by a tough, no-nonsense presidential
loyalist, Tom Pauken.
"What this means," said a close observer of the
Corps, "is that Ruppe will find it far easier from
now on to do her own thing. It proves that loyalty
to the President doesn't really pay."
Here's why many of the President's admirers
1104
PRESERVATION COPY