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
66328441
label
[Cicconi Memos – January 1982-June 1982] (4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
66328441
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
[Cicconi Memos – January 1982-June 1982] (4)
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
66328441
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
01a34308be090574
ocrText
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection: Cicconi, James W.: Files
Archivist: dlb/bcb
File Folder: [Coccini Memos, Jan - Jun 1982] [4 of 4]
Date: 2/18/98
Creconi
OA 10793 Box (
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker, III re Black Strategy:
6/14/82
PS
P5
Follow-up, 1p.
2. memo
JW Cicconi to JAB, III re Safe Drinking Water Act,
6/28/82
PS
2p.
3. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker re CCLP Meeting, 2p.
6/28/82
PS
43 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, Jan - Jun 1982] [4 of 4]
Date: 2/18/98
OA 10793
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker, III re Black Strategy:
6/14/82
P5
Follow-up, 1p.
2. memo
JW Cicconi to JAB, III re Safe Drinking Water Act,
6/28/82
P5
2p.
3. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker re CCLP Meeting, 2p.
6/28/82
P5
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-8 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 conceming wells [(b)(9) of
the FOIA].
Calcel- talked
May 24, 1982
to Hooks
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON counsel
MEMORANDUM FOR MIKE DEAVER
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
Telegram from
Benjamin Hooks
My suggestion is that you not
respond to this in writing, but
instead handle it by phone.
How frank you are with him should
depend on your relationship.
If you feel he will keep it between
the two of you, you may want to
assure him that we will not get
involved in the case.
If you are unsure as to whether
he will keep the conversation
confidential, I suggest you simply
thank him for his thoughts and
tell him we will give his views
very careful consideration.
Fred Fielding concurred in this
approach as I explained it to him.
WHC017(1644) (1-022673A140)PD 05/20/82 1644
ICS IPMWGWC WSH
1982 MAY 20 PM 5 54
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1981 356-697
08991 05-20 0511P EST
MS WHITE HOUSE DC 20500
4-0428785140 05/20/82
ICS IPMMIZZ CSP
2026671780 TDMT WASHINGTON DC 150 05-20 034 6P EST
MS MICHAEL DEAVER, DLR
WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON DC 20500
FOR EIGHTEEN YEARS REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION HAVE
CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED A BROAD I ATERPRETATION OF TITLE VI AND or HER
CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS TO BAR USE OF GOVERNMENT MONEY TO COMMIT ACTSTHAT
RESULT IN DISCRIMINATION. NOW, IN THE GUARDIAN CASE, THE JUSTICE
-
DEPARTMENT IS CONSIDERING CHA GING THIS POSITION IN THE SUPREME
1
COURT.
OUR LAWYERS HAVE MADE THEIR LEGAL ARGUMENTS TO THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,
ENT PRINTING OFFICE 1981 356-697
BUT I UNDERSTAND THIS MATTER IS RECEIVING POLICY CONSIDERATION AT THE
HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE ADMINISTRATION. IF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
CHANGES POSITION, IT COULD HAVE DEVASTATING EFFECTS ON THE RIGHTS OF
BLACK PEOPLE, HIPANIC AMERICANS, WOMEN, DISABLED PERSONS AND SE NI OR
CITIZENS TO FAIR TREATMENT IN GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED PROGRAMS.
ON BEHALF OF THE LEADERSHIP CO NFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, A COLLISION
OF 160 NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, I URGE THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION STAY
WITH THE POSITION OF ITS PREDECESSORS AND ARGUING FOR A STRONG AND
FAIR INTERPRETATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS.
BENJAMIN L HOO KS
CHAIRPERSON
LCCR
40.5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF
(2027 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NORTHWEST WASHINGTON DC 20036)
1604 EST
NNNN
Memo to Red Cavaney
THE WHITE HOUSE
May 28, 1982
WASHINGTON
Page 2
May 28, 1982
to reward those who helped us on
AWACS and not those among the Jewish
MEMORANDUM FOR RED CAVANEY
community who opposed us. Otherwise
we would send a signal that it's safe
FROM:
Jim Cicconi,
to oppose the President without con-
sequence.
SUBJECT:
Jewish Community
(I realize you've probably already
heard the above points, but thought
I recently met with a Republican who
I should pass them on anyway since
has solid connections in the Jewish
I trust the source.)
community. He was understanding and
complimentary of our efforts, especially
Thanks.
in forming the Spiegel group. However,
he wanted to point out to us the danger
(as I'm sure you know) of angering some
Red
of the traditional Jewish leaders by
having them deal with our system as
If this point registres some help
opposed to dealing directly with the
President, as they often did in the
past.
from SHE, let me know.
In
One person he specifically suggested
we "stroke" was Max Fisher. He said
that we could let him know in subtle
ways that he is still welcome as an
advisor, etc. without harming our new
setup.
One other suggestion: if there is a
dinner or other event for Begin during
his visit, he suggested we recognize that
invitations are much prized in the Jewish
community and should not treat it as a
social event. He said we should be sure
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 28, 1982
FOR:
KEN DUBERSTEIN
FROM:
JIM CICCONI
SUBJECT:
Clean Air Act
JAB asked me to let you know that he completed the phone
call to Howard Baker on the Clean Air Act.
Senator Baker talked with Senator Stafford and said he has
a commitment from him to report a bill out no later than
mid-July.
CC: Richard G. Darman
Elizabeth Dole
Boyden Gray
f Janning
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 1, 1982
TO: JAB III
Re the attached, I talked with
Craig and do not feel a response
from you is advisable. I then
spoke with Ken Starr at the
AG's office and he said the
AG took Fuller's memo as being
your response.
I'd suggest we leave this one
alone for awhile. As far as
Justice is concerned Fuller has
the action on their idea.
6/1
& J'm
OK - Thank
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 10, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM:
CRAIG L. FULLER as
SUBJECT:
DOJ Review and Approval of Proposed Executive
Orders and Presidential Proclamations
Having received a copy of your letter to Jim Baker on the
subject of Executive Orders and Proclamations, I wanted to
assure you that I could not agree more with the statement
that the President has the right to expect a thorough and
professional legal review of such items. In fact, if I
had known that you or your staff had any reservations about
the Sugar Import Quota Proclamation, I would have delayed
any action until a satisfactory review was completed.
Dick Darman and I will not send forward items that have not
been properly reviewed. In the case of the Proclamation
concerning Sugar Import Quotas, I told the agencies involved
in expediting the process (as agreed upon at the Cabinet meeting)
that all of the regular OMB and Justice clearances would be
required. Our records indicate these were received.
Please be assured that we will respond immediately to any
request from the Justice Department for adequate time to
satisfactorily review Executive Orders and proclamations.
?
We are reviewing the memorandum concerning proclamations
you recommended. Let me know if there is anything else
that can help improve the process.
CC: Edwin Meese III
David A. Stockman
James A. Baker III
5/11 JC: Ph draft
Richard G. Darman
response thills.
from me. M. this
meno Shouldn'u we
send the memo from RR theads
of depts. & aguins theref
says win norwing? JAB
SEQUITUR PUSTICE DEPARTA OF
Office of the Attorney General
OaLd
AMOUNT
Washington, B. C. 20530
JUSTITIA
May 7, 1982
Honorable James A. Baker III
Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Re:
Department of Justice Review and
Approval of Proposed Executive
Orders and Presidential Proclamations
Dear Jim:
Although I attended the Cabinet meeting at which the
subject was discussed, I learned for the first time by
reading Wednesday's paper that President Reagan had approved
imposition of import quotas on sugar as a way to protect
domestic producers and the United States Treasury from the
cost of foreign competition. Import fees are apparently
also to be a part of the package. The newspaper article
stated that the U.S. Cane Sugar Refiners Association has
threatened litigation, claiming that it is illegal to impose
quotas and import fees simultaneously.
At approximately 10:00 a.m. Wednesday morning, an OMB
official came to our Office of Legal Counsel seeking approval
as to form and legality of Proclamations which, we were
told, the President intended to sign before noon that same
day.
The level of the fees and quotas and the combination
of imposing fees and quotas at the same time raise difficult
legal questions. Needless to say, these circumstances were
not wholly conducive to the conduct of the thorough and pro-
fessional legal review which the President has the right to
expect and which, in my view, proposed proclamations and
Executive orders must receive.
We have had a number of Executive orders and Proclama-
tions thrust upon us with very short notice in the last
few months. Fortunately, most of them have been relatively
routine, but even the routine ones must be examined carefully
to make sure that we do not certify that the President can
do something which is not legal. Simply processing these
materials -- which can be on virtually any subject -- takes
some time.
- 2 -
We gave tentative telephonic approval of the sugar
Proclamations but pointed out that we simply had not had
adequate time to satisfy ourselves fully that the proposed
action was legal. I am particularly concerned about this
incident because of the threatened law suit. The stakes are
so high that the law suit is a virtual certainty. And, the
President will have acted without the normal written certi-
fication that his actions were legal.
The procedures established by Executive Order to certify
as to the legality of proposed Presidential action are extremely
important to the President. We cannot conceivably begin to do
our job properly if we are not given adequate time within
which to do it.
Because it is so important to the President that he act
legally and that he be given proper assurances that the
actions which he takes have been examined for their legality
I recommend that the President consider sending a memorandum
to the heads of executive departments and agencies on this
subject. A proposed memorandum is enclosed for your conven-
ience in accomplishing this result.
Many thanks.
Sincerely,
Bill
William French Smith
Attorney General
CC:
Edwin Meese, III
David A. Stockman
Craig Fuller
Jememos
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 7, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR CRAIG FULLER
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
Am
X
SUBJECT:
Minority Business Goals
Concerning the attached, Jim Baker has
asked that I convey his agreement with
Wendell Gunn's recommendation that the
aggregate goal for federal procurement
from minority firms for FY 1982 be in-
creased so that it is more in line with
the percentage increase in total procure-
ment.
from
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 11, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD DARMAN
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
J
SUBJECT:
Legislative Strategy
Per JAB, would you please schedule
a meeting of the Legislative Strat-
egy Group as soon as possible.
Subjectof the meeting is when to
send our tuition tax credit bill
to the Hill. There is apparently
some disagreement on this. Meese
and some people in Legislative
Affairs wanted to do it on return
from Europe. However, Don Regan
came in today and asked that we
not send it up before July 15.
The bill is largely ready with the
religious group support lined up.
Conservatives are grousing that it
is taking us way too long.
Thanks.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 12, 1982
JAB,
Remember the complimentary article on
the AG in American Lawyer?
The AG was very flattered when the
President mentioned it in the Cabinet
meeting (after you left), and when
the Cabinet applauded him.
I casually mentioned to a friend at
Justice that you had brought the
article to the President's attention.
He later told the AG.
Inc
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 14, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Federal Election Commission
FYI, I met with Ernie Minor and he
made me promise to pass on to you
his interest in the next GOP slot
that comes open on the FEC. He
sounds like he's tired of CEQ.
I assume he's not at the top of the
list, and won't pass on to Personnel
unless you think I should.
to
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 14, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Texas Primary Races
Congressional:
Steve Bartlett beat Kay Bailey in the
3rd with 57% of the vote.
In El Paso, it will be a liberal Demo,
Ron Coleman, versus Pat Haggerty (this
is a sleeper race).
Solomon Ortiz (Dem.) will probably win
the new 27th in South Texas/Corpus.
In the new 25th (south Harris Co.), it
will be Walter Mischer's wunderkind,
Mike Andrews (D) V. John Ray Harrison.
State:
In the down-ballot offices, the Demos
have their most liberal ticket ever--
Jim Mattox for AG, Garry Mauro (Krueger's
campaign manager in '78) for Land Comm'r,
and Ann Richards for Treasurer. Last
word I had was that Allen Clark (a former
Clements asst I worked for awhile, Viet
veteran Green Beret, double amputee) will
be the last-minute Republican nominee for
Treasurer.
he was also
Legislature:
briefly on Deputy
at V.A.
Milton Fox survived a tough challenge,
but Bob Gaston did not. Bill Blythe
was beaten in a primary challenge to
Buster Brown (R), the State Senator
who beat Babe Schwartz in '80. Blythe
will not be missed by many Republicans.
June
JC
CC: Lee Atwater
Notes on Meeting with Jim Billington
Attendees: Jim Baker, Bud McFarlane, Jim Cicconi
Israel
at strategic level, there is an opportunity in next few months to
try for a settlement--much more leverage now than previously
*
in Billington's opinion, Sam Lewis is more Israel's Ambassador to
U.S. than vice versa--Lewis, due to way his relationships have
developed, may not be able to carry President's hard word as well
*
crucial to allow development of more moderate Palestinian leadership,
but Israel won't allow it. The present opportunity will probably
disappear in 6 months.
Russia
*
possibilities for variation are admittedly small--2% either way--but
Russia is nearing a type of break point--we are not doing adequate
political intelligence, and are horribly ill-equipped for the coming
changes--everything going into present studies is based on outside
factors, ideology, etc.; not inside factors or knowledge
*
our diplomats listen to 75 year old politicians and our journalists
to 25 year old poets--not much contact with mass in between--academia
in U.S. is eating each others garbage on subject
*
What to do? Use more aggressive embassy work like the Russians do
here; if the Soviets cause difficulties, insist on reciprocity with
the arrangements they have here.
may need a Marshall Shulman type with loose portfolio for everything
Soviet
*
studies currently being done are based on very little solid info
from the Soviet Union; they are instead based more on the hopes or
biases of their authors
*
offer to help by Billington
*
Russians feed stuff to us, but we have no independent way of judging
the information's accuracy
*
the danger is that, with communism not working, the Soviet Union is
falling back on an even more striden nationalism
*
we have a management problem of getting an integrated analysis of a
great power about to undergo its most dramatic leadership change
since the Russian Revolution
*
embassy could be used more effectively
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 14, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
Women's Strategy Follow-up
1.
Develop a report on positive accomplishments for women during
the Reagan Administration.
ACTION/STATUS: Mike Baroody is currently preparing such a
report. A first draft will probably not be ready before June 21.
2.
Move forward with implementation of the 50 States Project.
ACTION/STATUS: Rich Williamson is currently preparing a state-
by-state status report on the project.
You and Elizabeth Dole are to meet and discuss the naming of a
new project director concurrent with transfer of the project to
OPL.
3.
Assure the implementation of Executive Order 12336, creating the
Task Force on Legal Equity for Women.
ACTION/STATUS: Brad Reynolds is in the process of completing the
Justice Department's first quarterly report. I have been in
close touch with him throughout the process. The report, once
approved by the Attorney General, will be transmitted to the
Cabinet Council on Legal Policy.
Ed Harper is forming a high-level CCLP working group on women's
issues, which will meet before June 30 to consider the completed
DOJ report.
On receipt of the DOJ report, Ed Harper will also transmit our
thanks to Barbara Honegger for her work as chairman of the in-
terim Working Group on Legal Equity for Women; since that interim
group will have been superceded by the new high-level working
group, it will be terminated (though several members of the
Honegger group will serve on the new group).
4.
Conduct an issues briefing for key women appointees in the Admin-
istration.
ACTION/STATUS: Elizabeth Dole will identify such appointees, but
no decision will be made on such a briefing until the Baroody and
Reynolds reports are complete and have been assessed.
Memorandum for James A. Baker, III
June 14, 1982
Page 2 of 2
5.
Identify respected women outside the Administration who will
then speak in support of the President's accomplishments on
women's issues.
ACTION/STATUS: Margaret Tutwiler will work with the RNC to
identify women who might serve as spokesmen on issues of concern
to women. However, further action should await an assessment of
the Baroody and Reynolds reports.
6.
Conduct a review of the President's campaign commitments on
women's issues as well as other policy issues affecting women,
and identify those on which we can move forward between now and
1984.
ACTION/STATUS: Ed Harper will conduct such a review, and will
coordinate with Mike Baroody to avoid duplication.
7.
Intensify recruitment of women for high-level posts in the Admin-
istration.
ACTION/STATUS: Helene von Damm has formed, and will chair, a
group composed of women appointees which will identify a pool of
women for prospective appointment. Dick Darman will assist Per-
sonnel in developing a system to assure that women from the pool
are discussed when particular appointment decisions are made.
8.
Commission a poll to assess public sentiment, and perceptions of
the Administration, on issues of concern to women.
ACTION/STATUS: Ed Harper will set up a meeting with Bob Teeter
and Dick Wirthlin to discuss this subject.
9.
Develop a program to increase the electability of state and local
Republican women.
ACTION/STATUS: Suggest you call Ed Rollins and ask that he
(a) identify female candidates the President could support,
(b) consider setting up a meeting with the President to boost
their candidacy, and (c) make any other recommendations he feels
may help in achieving this goal.
10.
Consider a Presidential speech on women's issues.
ACTION/STATUS: This idea will be considered sometime after June
30.
CC:
Edwin Meese
Mike Deaver
Richard Darman
Elizabeth Dole
Craig Fuller
Ed Harper
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 14, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
Black Strategy: Follow-up
1.
The question of whether to hire a black in a senior WH position
to serve as an Administration spokesman has, until now, been
left open. I would suggest it continue to be left open for
several reasons:
a. It is useful to pause and assess our situation after recent
initiatives. In particular, we should give Mel Bradley a
chance to develop his enhanced role of representing black
concerns within the Administration;
b. The naming of Clarence Pendleton as head of the Civil Rights
Commission allows us to develop an Administration spokesman
from within an agency that has traditionally addressed black
concerns. This might be preferable to having such a spokes-
man within the WH; and
C. The naming of a black to a senior staff position in the WH
would, at this time, cause problems in our organizational
structure.
2.
The Attorney General is, at present and on his initiative, con-
sidering the hiring of a black in a senior position who would
report directly to him.
3.
All persons now holding senior liaison positions within the
Office of Public Liaison are commissioned appointees except two:
Thelma Duggin and Henry Zuniga. Thelma and Henry are responsi-
ble for black and Hispanic liaison, respectively. It is my
understanding that Elizabeth Dole is considering both for promo-
tion to Special Assistant; I would suggest that such responsi-
bilities should have at least equal status within OPL, and that
whoever holds the positions should, indeed, be ranked as a
Special Assistant to the President.
4.
The Political Affairs Office is moving forward with a plan that
will pinpoint perhaps 25 congressional districts with significant
black population, and then seek to appoint blacks from those
districts to various federal advisory boards and commissions.
Thelma Duggin is assisting Lee Atwater in this project, which is
designed to develop a black Republican element in specific dis-
tricts. For it to have a chance, however, there should be a
commitment to make about 50 such appointments, roughly 2 per dis-
trict, to advisory committees (which can include the numerous
departmental committees). If Personnel agrees, Atwater and
Duggin will undertake to forward names of prospective appointees.
JCmemos
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 17, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR ED HARPER
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
to
SUBJECT:
H.R. 4498
Attached is a memo to Jim Baker from
Carlton Turner on H.R. 4498, which
relates to the use of marijuana for
medical purposes.
I felt that the request for guidance
was more appropriately handled by your
office.
By the way, Joe Wright told me that the
bill was not going anywhere for the moment.
Thanks.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 18, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICH WILLIAMSON
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
his
SUBJECT:
Voting Rights Act Signing Ceremony
I received a verbal request from Governor Bill Clements'
office that he be invited to the White House signing
ceremony for the Voting Rights Act.
As you know, Texas is the largest state covered in toto
by the Voting Rights Act. Nevertheless, Governor Clements
has supported and praised the President's position
throughout the debate. He also testified in favor of
extension.
With Mark White's emergence as the Democratic nominee for
governor, this issue takes on added importance for
Clements. The reason is that Mark White has a record of
opposition to the Voting Rights Act going back to 1975
(he is the White in the Supreme Court's White V. Regester
decision). Clements has already attempted to use the
issue to make inroads with the Hispanic vote at White's
expense, and his presence at the signing ceremony would
probably assist such efforts.
CC: Ken Duberstein
Lee Atwater
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 18, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: 8th Circuit Judgeship
I checked on status of this judgeship,
which was between Fagg and Donaldson.
It is on "hold" right now for a further
check into Donaldson (Gov. Ray's pref-
erence).
Justice felt Fagg was better qualified,
but I remember questioning them on this
at the time because it seemed they'd
been unduly turned off by Donaldson's
overt campaigning for the judgeship.
It will be on the agenda for the next
Judicial Meeting within a week or two.
FC
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 18, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Voting Rights Act Passage
FYI, the bill passed the Senate
today 85-8. The eight were:
Harry Byrd
Humphrey
Denton
Hayakawa
East
McClure
Helms
Symms
&
P.S. Thurmand and Hatch
beth voted for the bill.
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
June 21, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Federal Tort Claims Act
Sherry Cooksey checked into the
status of this bill (Fred was un-
sure), and said that we have gotten
our version reported out of the
House committee. Thus, the Senate
may not be as crucial as we'd thought.
Sherry advises that neither you nor
Meese should call Specter at this
time. She says Specter wants to feel
he's the decisive vote (same game he
played on Voting Rights) and a call
would just feed that impression he
has.
Aug
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Kc.' READING/14 File pls.
June 11, 1982
JAB MOT
MEMORANDUM FOR:
EDWIN MEESE III
JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING 111
SUBJECT:
Federal Tort Claims Act Amendments
Attached for your information is a summary, prepared at my
request by the Department of Justice, Civil Division, of the
recent, relatively chaotic developments regarding the proposed
amendments to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Those amendments, as you know, would substitute the United
States as the exclusive defendant in cases currently brought
under the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Bivens V. Six Unknown
Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). That case permitted the
filing of a lawsuit against a federal official for alleged
violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
6/14 Toge
Call Fridf. beh
him: "Should I wall
Spectes? would that Ro any
good?
Jub
Em or JAB call? ?
Sherry has copy will
advise : 6/18
No JAB should not
call Spector, CBE'd.
H. want. Comm will Spector report shouldn - what + ,IVn we seel Re's
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
Re: Federal Tort Claims Act Amendments
Congress is currently attempting to address the serious problems
resulting from the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in Bivens V. Six
Unknown Named Agents which permitted a plaintiff to file a personal
lawsuit against a federal officer for alleged violation of the
plaintiff's constitutional rights. 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Since
this decision there have been approximately 10,000 lawsuits filed
personally against federal officials at every level of the government
for doing no more than carrying out the duties which Congress and
the President have ordered them to perform. We currently face
some 2200 lawsuits of this nature with 7500 to 10,000 individual
defendants. This type of lawsuit is particularly sinister because
it seeks to attack the personal assets of the official rather than
those of the United States, which remains immune because of concepts
of sovereign immunity. Therefore the defendants face the specter
of losing their homes and savings at the hands of vindictive plaintiffs.
No other group of officers or professionals lies so exposed to
personal loss through legal actions as do these federal public
servants. From the perspective of the government these suits are
a tremendous drain on resources requiring a disproportionate amount
of attorney time and expense because of the added ingredient of
individual liability. Moreover, the Department of Justice has
been required to spend some $3,000,000.00 since 1976 to retain
private counsel to represent officers because of conflicts of
interest which frequently arise in multiple defendant cases. It
is also noted that these suits are being used increasingly as a
collateral attack against law enforcement activities either as a
source of intimidation or a discovery tool. In addition, they are
being used as a means to intimidate federal managers from disciplining
and terminating unsatisfactory employees.
There are two bills before the Congress. Both would substitute
the United States as the exclusive defendant in such cases and
would authorize suit against the United States for the Bivens type
of tort. Copies of testimony submitted by Deputy Attorney General
Schmults, Assistant Attorney General McGrath and OPM Director Divine
are attached for further background. In the House, H.R.24 was
introduced by, now retired, Congressman Danielson from California.
It is currently the responsibility of Congressman Sam Hall from
Texas, the new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Law
and Governmental Relations of the House Judiciary Committee. The
Republicans on the Subcommittee, (Morehead, Kindness and McClory)
are in full support. In addition, the Chairman and Mr. Mazzoli
from Kentucky appear to be supportive and, there appears to be no
substantial opposition at the Subcommittee level. We have been
advised that the Subcommittee Chairman is in position to move
forward with the Bill at any time but is waiting for the Senate;
therein lies the problem.
The Administration version of the legislative proposals is
embodied in S.1775 which was introduced by Senator Grassley from
Iowa, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agency Administration of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, who has proceeded vigorously. He
conducted four days of hearings and prepared an overall excellent
record. He attempted to markup the Bill on Wednesday, June 9 but
was prevented from doing SQ by the actions of Senator Specter from
Pennsylvania. Up until 9:00 P.M. of the evening preceeding the
scheduled markup, the White House, Justice and the Chairman had
been advised that Senator Specter had agreed to support the bill
in toto at Subcommittee and move it to full Committee. However,
at the markup he introduced a complicated and unacceptable amendment
and insisted on a vote. Senator Grassley was justifiably surprised
and irritated and adjourned the session with the stated purpose of
achieving a consensus Bill before returning to markup.
Since Wednesday, June 9, several meetings have occurred at
several different levels. Intense negotiations were undertaken
with the staff of Senator Specter and, again, an accomodation
appeared to have been reached. However, when Justice Department
staff attended the meeting at which the agreement was to be finalized,
the staff of Senator Specter had completely abandoned the proposal
which was to have formed the basis of an agreement and submitted a
different "Proposed Baucus-Specter-Metzenbaum Amendment."
The situation created by Senator Specter has allowed the
principal opponent of the legislation, the ACLU, to have a field
day. The present goal of the Chairman, a consensus of all five
members of the Subcommittee, is extremely unlikely and plays into
the hand of the ACLU, whose ambition is to kill the Bill. There
are shifting coalitions of young staffers manipulating their own
views of jurisprudential and social propriety. The consensus which
Senator Grassley is seeking would have to embrace the Administration
proposals, those put forth by the ACLU, and Senators Metzenbaum,
Baucus, Specter, Grassley and Laxalt. Ironically, the various
proposals put forth by various Senate staff groups have been so
unreasonable that the American Civil Liberties Union has now taken
on the role of impartial broker. The situation has deteriorated
to that extent.
In our view, the only immediate hope for resolution in the
Senate is to attempt to reestablish a Republican consensus initially
with Senators Grassley, Laxalt and Specter, which will continue in
full Committee. This perhaps could be initiated with leadership
and direction from high levels of the Administration, and signals
that the Bill is important. The situation is extremely fluid and,
frankly, chaotic at this time.
- 2 -
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL UHLMANN
BOB THOMPSON
ANN FAIRBANKS
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
Attached
Attached is for your information.
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
June 11, 1982
TO:
Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President
The White House
FROM:
William T. Coleman, Jr. of
SUBJECT: Proposed Tuition Tax Credit Bill and the
Provisions Requiring Non-Racial Discrimination
I think it is good that the Administration, in
the proposed legislation, recognizes that there should be
affirmative provisions in the bill denying the parents
the tuition tax credit if the school discriminates on the
basis of race. I would not want to be put in the position,
however, of giving public endorsement to the bill for the
following reasons:
1. I think there is a serious constitutional
question whether any type of federal tax credit for parents
whose children attend religious schools does not violate
the First Amendment.
2. As a matter of federal policy, so long as
there are insufficient federal funds and state funds to
support a completely adequate public school system, I do
not think federal revenues should be diverted to private
schools.
3. With respect to the provisions dealing with
non-racial discrimination, I find the following deficiencies
in the proposal as presently drafted:
a. Section 3 (3), the definition of what is
a "racially discriminatory policy" is not inclusive enough.
(page 6) It certainly should include the types of despicable
conduct which goes on at the Bob Jones University. It
should, in fact, include any kind of conduct which includes
the separation of the races.
b. There is no need for the provisions with
respect to racial quota, etc., also set forth on page 6.
C. The fact that by Section 3 (4) (on page 6)
the credit is not disallowed until after the action brought
is final means that the school might well be an eligible
institution for four or five years, as the case wends
through the courts.
d. The statute of limitations in the bill
is awfully short, to wit, the complaint has to be made to
- 2 -
the Attorney General within 180 days and he has to bring
suit within one year. (page 6)
e. It is desirable that the Attorney General
be given enforcement policy, but there is no reason to
make that the exclusive remedy. For example, the Attorney
General has the right to bring civil and criminal antitrust
suits but we all know that the private right of enforcement
is also desirable to make sure that the antitrust laws are
fully complied with.
f. In the memorandum, draft dated June 5,
1982, it is said that the person discriminated against
would continue to have a private right of action under
42 U.S.C. 1981, but I cannot find that provision in the
bill. If it is not put in the bill there is the argument
that the remedy set forth in the bill in Section 4, to wit,
enforcement by the Attorney General, is the exclusive remedy.
g. Section 6, which states that the tax
credit is not federal financial assistance, is inconsistent
with the Budget Control Act of 1974. If you look at the
budget report you will see that tax credits are treated as
a federal contribution. This is one of the reasons why the
civil rights groups argue in the Bob Jones University case
- 3 -
that if Section 501 (c) (3) and Section 170 are construed
as permitting the tax deduction even if there is racial
discrimination that such statutes are unconstitutional.
I end as I started. It is commendable that
the Administration has recognized that the racial dis-
crimination issue must be dealt with. There are, however,
certain provisions trying to carry out this decision which
I wish were done differently. If you wish, I could, on a
confidential basis, provide the resources to have the
non-discriminatory provisions written in a way which would
get acceptance by those who think such provisions are
exceedingly important.
Thanks for your confidence.
WTC, Jr.
- 4 -
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH DOLE
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
N
SUBJECT:
50 States Project
As an addendum to the May 20 decision memo signed by JAB
transferring the 50 States Project to OPL, I feel it
necessary to restate our conversation last month in which
it was agreed that no slot would be added to OPL without
concurrence from Rich Williamson. Absent such concurrence,
you will recall, you agreed to try to work out with John
Rogers any arrangements necessary to staff the new
responsibility.
With the decision to name Thelma Duggin as the project
director, the above may, of course, be moot since she will
retain her current responsibilities as well.
CC: Richard Darman
Craig Fuller
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
June 22, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Eastern Pa. District Judgeship
Sen. Heinz called you about an O'Neill,
who was passed on by he and Sen. Specter
as a nominee for district judge.
There are no objections to O'Neill per
se-- - his name has not even been formally
considered in the Judical meeting. All
we want is a few more names; most sen-
ators will give us 5. We know Heinz and
Specter haev more names from their nom-
inations committee that they are not
sending us. The reason is that we have
generally not taken their first choices
in the past.
We need more than one name for two key
reasons:
1.
the President of the US should
have a choice; and
2. it is in the senators' interest
to give us more names to avoid
embarrassment if we have to
reject their first choice.
Also, FYI, if we get another name, we
probably would not go with O'Neill--
Justice says he's too liberal.
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 22, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Enterprise Zones
FYI, at the recent CCHR meeting with
the President it was mentioned that
the enterprise zone proposal is having
problems in Congress, and that this
was in part due to a perception that
the President was not really serious
about passing it.
Sec. Pierce said it would be very
helpful if the President were to make
some sort of statement, perhaps at the
start of his next press conference, to
stress his commitment to passing the
enterprise zone proposal. There was
general Cabinet Council agreement in
this suggestion and the President said
that he'd very much like to make such
a statement.
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 22, 1982
JAB,
Attached are Tower's comments on the
subject of impact aid to educate illegal
alien children.
As you can see, he embellished a bit,
but the difference is not readily
apparent and will probably go unnoticed.
I gave Anson the guidance to handle
questions on this.
JC
Comments by Sen. Tower re Administration Reaction
to Federal Aid for Educating Aliens
They indicated they would be glad to consider favorably
any reasonable congressional initiative. That is an
indication- I don't have any hard promises or anything
like that, but at least they didn't throw cold water
on the idea. In fact, quite to the contrary, it seemed
to me that they encouraged it.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 22, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD DARMAN
FROM:
Jim Cicconi 4-m
SUBJECT:
Comments on Signing
Statement for H.R. 4
I definitely feel the CIA draft is
better for use in the signing cere-
mony on the Agents' Identities bill.
Suggest we consider, though, whether
the last sentence ("...our next legis-
lative goal FOIA...") should be in
the statement. It would probably
take away from the impact of this
bill's passage by allowing the press
to write about future plans that they
no doubt disagree with (due to their
professionally expansive reading of
the First Amendment). In short, I
think we should drop the last sentence
of the draft.
JUSTICE DRAFT SIGNING STATEMENT
I am pleased to approve H.R. 4, the "Intelligence Identities
Protection Act of 1982." This legislation represents a tough law
enforcement measure which was passed with the strong support of
this Administration. The statute will provide a strong weapon
against those who attempt to undermine foreign intelligence
activities by revealing names of covert agents operating on behalf
of the United States. Enforcement of this law will create an
effective deterrent against such conduct.
Preservation of undercover intelligence identities is
essential in order to ascertain the necessary insight into actual
plans and intentions of foreign powers which seek to confront the
United States and also in the discovery of problems of an
international magnitude. Disclosure of such identities harms the
nation's ability to conduct foreign policy and provide for a
common defense. This measure shall help prevent disruption of
intelligence activities.
CIA DRAFT SIGNING STATEMENT
Recommended Signing Statement
On December 4th of last year I had the pleasure of signing
the Intellience Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1982. At
that time I expressed the hope that I would soon be able to
sign the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which I said
would be another step forward in revitalizing our intelligence
efforts. It is with the deepest sense of pride, therefore,
that today I sign into law Enrolled Bill H.R. 4.
The formulation of sound foreign policy and the security
of our nation depend to a great extent upon the timely acquisi-
tion of information concerning the capabilities and intentions
of other countries. There have been great technological
advances in intelligence collection techniques, but in the
crucial area of intentions the human source and the human
collector remain paramount, and they can never be replaced by
machines. Protection must be afforded to the dedicated men
and women who serve our nation in difficult and dangerous
intelligence assignments. I know that every patriotic American
feels the same revulsion that I do for those who have made it
their business to expose the names of individuals engaged or
assisting in our intelligence activities. I am gratified that
the Congress has provided the necessary means to put an end to
this perverse conduct, and that it has done so in a manner
which protects First Amendment rights.
I am well aware of the serious attention and debate that
was given to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in both
Houses, and I wish to commend the Congress for its overwhelming
bipartisan support for the Bill. I would like to take this
opportunity to express my appreciation to all of those who
worked so diligently on this legislation. The effort to pro-
tect intelligence identities began several years ago, with
the initiatives of Senator Lloyd Bentsen and Representatives
Bob Michel and Charles Bennett. In the 97th Congress, the
Chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on Intelligence,
Senator Barry Goldwater and Representative Edward Boland,
worked diligently to secure passage of the legislation.
Senators Thurmond, Denton, Jackson, and East were steadfast
supporters of the Identities Bill, and Representatives Robinson,
Mazzoli, McClory, Hyde, Solomon, Wright, and Young pressed the
effort in the House. I especially want to state my deepest
admiration for Senator John Chafee, whose outstanding leadership
and determination played the key role in securing approval of
the Bill in the Senate. I only wish that the late Representa-
tive John Ashbrook, who took the lead on the House floor, could
be with us today to witness this signing; the Intelligence
Identities Protection Act is a monument to him.
Enactment of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
is proof that this nation values and will continue to support
the efforts of its intelligence agencies and their personnel.
This achievement will allow us to focus our efforts on the next
legislative goal in our program to revitalize the nation's
intelligence capabilities: securing relief for the Intelligence
Community from the wasteful and debilitating impact of the
Freedom of Information Act.
PREDENT
OFFICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
EXECUTIVE
STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
JUN 22 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 4 - Intelligence Identities
Protection Act
Sponsors - Rep. Boland (D) Massachusetts and 52 others
Last Day for Action
June 26, 1982 - Friday
Purpose
To prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of information
identifying certain United States intelligence officers and
agents.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
Department of Defense
Approval
Department of Justice
Approval (Signing
statement attached)
Central Intelligence Agency
Approval (Signing
statement attached)
National Security Council
Approval
Department of State
Approval
Discussion
This bill enacts the Administration's recommendations. Existing
law does not prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of the
identities of United States intelligence agents. As you noted in
a September 14, 1981, letter to Senator Thurmond, however,
"nothing has been more damaging to our intelligence effort abroad
than the pernicious, unauthorized disclosure of the names of
those officers whom we send on dangerous and difficult
assignments abroad." H.R. 4 is intended to deter unauthorized
and knowing disclosure of agents' identities by making it a
felony.
In brief, H.R. 4 establishes three felony offenses for disclosing
the identity of a covert intelligence agent to a person not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
U.S. Government is trying to keep that agent's identity
concealed:
2
(1) Where information directly identifying the covert agent
is so disclosed by a person with authorized access to
that information, the person is punishable by up to a
$50,000 fine or ten years imprisonment, or both.
(2) Where the covert agent's identity has been learned as a
result of authorized access to classified information
and information serving to identify the agent is
similarly disclosed, the person is punishable by up to
$25,000 fine of five years imprisonment, or both.
(3) When a person has engaged in a pattern of activities
intended to disclose the identity of covert agents,
believing that such disclosure would impede U.S. foreign
intelligence activities, and does in fact make such a
disclosure, the person is punishable by a fine of up to
$15,000 or imprisonment of not more than three years, or
both.
The third type of offense has been criticized in Senate floor
debate as encroaching on First Amendment freedoms because it does
not necessarily require the unauthorized disclosure of, or
information derived from, classified information. Opponents of
this provision argued that even a well-meaning'intent to inform
the public about wrongdoing or abuse by intelligence agencies
would put journalists in peril of prosecution in determining
whether the naming of any individuals in their reporting subjects
them to criminal prosecution, particularly when the action is
based on information available to the public.
In reply, Senator Leahy (D-Vt.) one of the managers of the bill
in the Senate, argued on the floor against the opponents of the
provision saying:
"The conference report makes quite clear that
the government must prove that the defendent
engaged in a pattern of activities both
intended to identify and intended to expose a
covert agent. In my view, it is the latter
element which limits the reach of this bill to
those individuals not engaged in legitimate
first amendment activity."
3
Consistent with Senator Leahy's view, the Department of Justice
states in its attached views letter that H.R. 4 will withstand
constitutional challenge on First Amendment and due process
grounds.
The enrolled bill also contains (1) a number of limited defense
and exceptions to prosecution, (2) a requirement that the
President report annually to the Congress on measures taken to
protect the identities of covert agents, and (3) a provision
establishing extraterritorial jurisdiction for an unlawful
disclosure of the identity of a covert agent if the person maki
the disclosure is either a citizen of the United States or an
alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence.
H.R. 4 passed the House by a vote of 315-32 and the Senate by a
vote of 81-4.
Both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of
Justice have prepared signing statements, which are attached for
your consideration.
James m. Director Trey for
Legislative Reference
Enclosures
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 24, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILE
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
e
SUBJECT:
Battleship Iowa Modernization
A meeting was held on June 22, 1982, at the request of
Senator John Heinz, Senator Arlen Specter, and the eastern
Pennsylvania congressional delegation to discuss the con-
tract for modernizing the battleship USS Iowa. WH staff
in attendance included James A. Baker, III, Ken Duberstein,
Jim Medas, B. Oglesby, and myself.
The delegation argued the merits of awarding the contract
to the shipyard at Chester, Pennsylvania. At the onset of
the meeting, Jim Baker explained that we were meeting at
their request to hear their concerns, but that such deci-
sions have been made at the Defense Department during our
Administration, and not at the WH. He also stressed that
we specifically have not pressed political considerations
on DOD during its decision-making on defense contracts.
After hearing the delegation's concerns, Jim Baker urged
that they speak directly with Secretary Weinberger on the
issue at an early date.
CC: Dick Hauser
JC
memos
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 24, 1982
TO: FRED FIELDING
RE: 5th Circuit Judgeship
One of JAB's friends in Houston men-
tioned the name of Pat Lykos as a
possible female nominee to the 5th
Circuit. JAB does not know her well,
though she is apparently well regarded
in the Houston legal community.
Lykos is currently a Republican judge
in Harris County, Texas.
We would appreciate it if Justice
could take a closer look at her cred-
entials and qualifications.
Thanks.
fin Jim Cicconi
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
June 25, 1982
TO: JAB III
I suggested to Ken Cribb that it
would probably be a good idea if
he and I tried to get together
more often to discuss what was
going on regarding issues, exchange
views, prevent problems, etc.
He thought it was an excellent
idea and suggested we have a reg-
ular lunch every Monday; I agreed.
All I really hope for in this is
smooth communications and to try
to head off policy differences
between you and Meese before they
come to a head. So far my dealings
with Ken have had some success in
minimizing such differences, and
this can only help.
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 25, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Economic Update
Some points from the CCEA meeting
(which Dave Gergen has already men-
tioned to you in connection with
unemployment) :
-- per Jerry Jordan of CEA, we are
definitely looking at a period of
economic growth in the 2d half;
-- however, factors are not yet in
place (presumably he meant interest
rates, etc) to assure the recovery
is deep and sustained;
-- the worst is behind us on housing
starts;
-- unemployment is likely to hit 10%
in time for the November elections;
-- on the whole this recession has
not been as severe as the one in 74-75;
-- year-over-year inflation will stay
around 61/2%.
Also, Kudlow warned that we may have
seen the last of the dramatic declines
in inflation figures.
The
JC
CC: Dick Darman
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
June 25, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Voting Rights
FYI, it was decided at the meeting chaired
by Deaver that Jesse Jackson, Tony Bonilla,
Coretta King, and even Lady Bird Johnson
will be invited to the Voting Rights
signing ceremony.
Ruben Bonilla will not be invited since
he does not head any prominent organization
and since that would really give Bill
Clements heartburn.
It's going to be a good event. We just
hope that Jackson and Co. will mind their
manners.
Cop.
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 25, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
Women's Issues Update
Going into "ERA Expiration Week," the status on our various
initiatives is as follows:
1.
50 States Project: Thelma Duggin has been promoted to Special
Assistant and will direct the project. A status report has
been prepared by Rich Williamson's office.
2.
Women's Equity Task Force: The Justice Department will finalize
its first quarterly review of federal laws and regulations by
Monday. The Attorney General will then formally transmit the
report to Craig Fuller (for CCLP).
3.
ERA: Guidance re our position on both expiration and reintro-
duction of ERA is being formulated by Ed Harper's office and
should be ready by Tuesday.
4.
Report on Administration Accomplishments for Women: Mike Baroody
has prepared a fact sheet which is now being circulated on the
Administration's record.
5.
Other Steps: The Justice Department has prepared an analysis of
the statutory and judicial progress towards equality for women
that has occurred since ERA originally passed the Congress.
Justice will be prepared to handle questions on this subject.
The group that met in Ed Harper's office today agreed that a
proposal would be submitted = brief the President before
Wednesday on the various women's issues (with a recognition that
such a proposal is made on shorter notice than our procedure
calls for, and thus may not be accepted). The briefing would
include Brad Revnolds and Carol Dinkins (Women's Task Force),
Thelma Duggin 50 States Project), Helene von Damm (appointments)
and Ed Harper general policy). Red Cavaney is drafting the
proposal.
CC: Richard Darman
Craig Fuller
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 28, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Credit Control Act
CCEA now has an options paper concerning
possible extension of the Credit Control
Act. It will be forwarded to the Presi-
dent shortly.
The clear majority on CCEA feel that
credit control powers should not be
used, and they recommend to the Presi-
dent that the Administration oppose
extension or expansion of standby
credit controls.
By the way, the CCEA heard a report
that Carter's invoking of credit
controls for 3½ months in 1980 may
have caused a $23B loss in GNP.
JC
Son
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 28, 1982
JAB,
FYI, Human Events this week does a real
number on Rex Lee, the Solicitor General.
In my view this is not undeserved. From
the story, it appears that most of the
info came from a few Reaganites in DOJ
(probably the same ones who have given
Meese's shop inside analyses of certain
cases like Lord and Guardians).
Cof.
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 28, 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Safe Drinking Water Act
At its meeting last week, the CCNRE
considered the issue of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The discussion
at first centered on the desirability
of enacting changes in the Act, but
soon broadened to considering outright
repeal.
EPA basically opposed efforts to make
substantial changes in the Act, much
less repeal it. Watt and others sug-
gested some dramatic changes, even to
the point of repeal. Watt, at the end
of the meeting, asked that an options
paper be prepared to bring the issue
before the President.
I talked with Ed Harper and Danny Boggs
after the meeting. They agreed that
there is no real reason to even be
considering this issue-- there are no
hearings scheduled and the "expiration
date" is only an expiration of funding.
under the Act. I suggested we try not
to rush to judgment on the issue, and
Harper agreed with putting it off for
awhile. I later spoke with Craig on
slowing it down, also.
The obvious problem here is that we
Memo to JAB III
June 28, 1982
are hamstrung generally on environmental
issues. In many ways we have less free-
dom of action than Jimmy Carter had.
In the case of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, though there are clearly grounds
for change, any changes at all will
probably be portrayed as efforts to
"gut" the Act-- and this is especially
true of the changes contemplated by
Watt.
JC
of
CC: Richard Darman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
Secretary J of Energy
Secretary Watt approached me after the CCLP meeting today
concerning the choice of a successor to Secretary Edwards
at DOE. Watt feels it would be preferable to name
Secretary Baldrige, or his deputy at Commerce, as acting
Secretary of Energy (holding both posts concurrently).
Watt feels this would be preferable to naming Don Hodel
since DOE is to be merged into Commerce, not Interior. He
says Hodel would be pleased to take on the job, but that
he agrees with Watt's suggestion. I raised a question
about the legality of one man heading two different
departments, but assured him I would pass on his suggestion.
Watt said he had already raised the idea with Ed Meese and
said Meese "seemed interested."
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
CCLP Meeting
Immigration
1.
Re legalization, it was decided to push for a middle ground
rather than support the provisions in Simpson-Mazzoli (S. 2222)
The main sticking point is that S. 2222 now offers permanent
resident status to those illegals who have been in the U.S.
since January 1, 1978; it offers temporary status for those who
entered after 1978. The bill also grants all welfare benefits
to permanent residents, and Medicaid and SSI to temporary
residents.
The middle ground we advocate will probably give temporary status
to all illegal aliens. It may also offer Medicaid and SSI, but
only after a cap on total costs has been determined.
The AG says our middle ground approach probably has little chance
on the Hill. Since he feels strongly we need to pass an immigra-
tion bill this year, he says we may need to negotiate the best
deal we can while being prepared to veto an unacceptable bill.
2.
Re identification cards, S. 2222 would call for an ID card of some
sort. The Administration position has been that such a card was
unnecessary and undesirable, and could lead to a national identity
card. The decision on this point was that we seek to modify the
language in S. 2222 to study, but not implement, the ID card plan.
Antitrust
In summary, this issue involves the antitrust liability of home-rule
cities. For the most part, cities have been able to claim an antitrust
exemption prior to the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Boulder
case. Boulder, in effect, opened the door to antitrust claims against
cities and has caused those cities to seek an exemption from Congress
if their particular state's law also allows it. Federalism arguments
are used by both sides in this. DOJ says we should not support exemp-
tion bills as a general policy, and that legislation in this case would
be premature. Rich Williamson argues that an exemption is necessary
here because of federal interference (by the Supreme Court), and that
we should repair the situation to sanction exemptions where state law
presently allows them.
Memorandum for James A. Baker, III
June 28, 1982
Page 2 of 2
It was my understanding that the decision was to hedge a bit in Bill
Baxter's testimony by expressing sympathy for the cities' situation,
a desire to see such matters left to state law, and yet also express-
ing concern about passing legislation. (Note: Baxter is testifying
at committee request on the overall situation and not on a specific
bill.)
Crime Package
The AG made the point that the time is ripe to move full speed on the
Thurmond-Biden anti-crime measures. He specifically asked that:
a.) the President meet with Senators Baker and Thurmond to push
for speedy action in the Senate;
b.) the President meet with O'Neill, Rodino and others to push
the package; and
c.) the CCLP, or a sub-group of it, monitor progress of the
legislation and make recommendations for necessary WH or
departmental actions to speed passage.
The first recommendation was accepted with the proviso it be done by
phone. The second recommendation was considered unwise, and the third
(which impinges on the Legislative Strategy Group's functions) was not
really discussed.
CC:
Richard Darman
Dave Gergen