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
66328453
label
[Cicconi Memos – July 1982-December 1982] (6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
66328453
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
[Cicconi Memos – July 1982-December 1982] (6)
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
66328453
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
080ce896b788954e
ocrText
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection: Cicconi, James W.: Files
Archivist: dlb/bcb
File Folder: [Coccini Memos, Jul - Dec 1982] [6 of 7]
Date: 2/19/98
Cicconi
OA 10793
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker, III re CCEA Meeting
11/23/82
on Jobs Proposal (p.5-20-whole), 15p.
2-16
2. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker, III re Clean Air Act,
12/2/82
D5
2p.
3. memo
JW Cicconi to "John" [Schrote] re Clements
12/3/82
P6 B6
Operation 1p.
4. memo
JW Cicconi to JAB III re Safe Drinking Water Act,
12/8/82
D5
1p.
5. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker re Safe Drinking Water
12/8/82
PS
Act, 1p.
03 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, Jul - Dec 1982] [6 of 7]
Date: 2/19/98
Ciccon,
OA 10793 Box /
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
JW Cicconi to James Baker, III re CCEA Meeting
11/23/82
P5
on Jobs Proposal (p. 5-20 whole), 15p.
2-16
2. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker, III re Clean Air Act,
12/2/82
P5
2p.
3. memo
JW Cicconi to "John" [Schrote] re Clements
12/3/82
P6
Operations, 1p.
4. memo
JW Cicconi to JAB III re Safe Drinking Water Act,
12/8/82
P5
1p.
5. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker re Safe Drinking Water
12/8/82
P5
Act, 1p.
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 agericy [(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].
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 23, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR BUD MCFARLANE
FROM:
Jim Cicconi ju
SUBJECT:
Brazilian Trip
For your information:
During World War II, Brazil was the only Latin American
nation to send a large military unit to fight in the
European theater. If memory serves me well, the Brazilian
Division fought as part of the US 5th Army during the
Italian Campaign (1944-45, I believe). The Brazilians are
proud of this fact, and I would think some acknowledgement
of it during the President's trip would be well received.
(I was not able to forward this before the draft remarks
for the trip went in to the President because, frankly, it
didn't occur to me at the time I read them.)
I realize it may be too late to work something like this
in, but forward it for your consideration in case an
appropriate opportunity arises.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
23 November 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Ellington AFB
FYI, on your behalf I signed off
on the Property Review Board's
recommendations re Ellington.
They are in conformity with
the views you expressed at the
last meeting, and with my pre-
vious memo that you signed off
on.
The recommendations will be adopted
without a board meeting since it
will be unanimous. You should
know, though, that the City of
Houston will not be happy (though
there are no tracks to you, they
still know you're on the Board)
We will now proceed to sell the
excess land to the highest bidder.
(To refresh you, Houston wanted
51 acres of the excess free, and
offered up to $15,000 an acre for
the other 51 acres-- well below our
estimate of its value).
Jim
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
23 November 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Mushroom Imports
For your information:
By Monday we will probably announce
that the President will take no action
to restrict import of canned mushrooms
from China due to the ITC's finding
that market disruption does not exist.
We will continue to monitor the sit-
uation, though.
You may recall that (believe it or not)
one of the TV network news shows did
a segment on this subject not too
long ago.
Min
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
23 November 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Tylenol/Johnson & Johnson
As follow-up to your meeting with
Messrs. Burke and Mullen of Johnson
& Johnson, I checked into the sub-
ject of legislation to make tampering
with drugs, food, etc. a federal
crime.
Justice informs me that FBI Director
Webster proposed on November 5 that
such tampering as occurred in the
Tylenol case be made a federal crime
with felony penalties ( right now it
is a crime to alter food or drugs,
but it is only a misdemeanor and is
meant to apply more to manufacturer's
negligence).
DOJ's Criminal Division began review
of the proposed bill on November 15.
I've asked Bob McConnell (DOJ Legis-
lative Affairs) to keep me informed
on this.
I called Mullen with Johnson & Johnson
to inform him of the above. He's
happy and appreciative. Obviously
we'll seek the company's help if we
go with the legislation.
gin
11/29
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Please this
November 23, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
5
SUBJECT:
Number of Federal Employees
The latest information on this subject is that OPM has
dramatically revised their estimate of the reduction in
non-defense employees. Their earlier estimate, as I had
already related to you, was that non-defense employment
had been reduced by 31,000 FTE work years. Now OPM feels
that the reduction has actually been 66,972.
The following answers your question regarding the net
change in employment after adjusting for the increase in
DOD's civilian employees:
66,972
Reduction in FTE non-defense work years
- 31,424
Increase in defense civilian employees
35,548
Difference
+ 1,000
Margin of error
36,548
Net reduction in "FTE work years"
OPM feels the actual reduction in "bodies" on the payroll
is even higher, though they are still working on a reliable
means of counting that can be applied to all agencies.
CC: Richard Darman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 23, 1982
11/29
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi Jim
ge fed's tath
SUBJECT:
Black Outreach
r this. No Thank.
(nomen
You had decided to support Elizabeth's suggestion that all
black outreach be in one place and that Mel Bradley handle
it. You then asked me to work out the details with
slobs.)
Meese's office.
Done
4
Elizabeth's main concern, of course, was that Thelma Duggin
could not handle black outreach with her other duties.
Since you decided not to give her a new slot, her preference
was to transfer to Mel.
When I first raised this with Meese (through Cribb), they
thought it was a good idea and agreed. Then they said they
would do it if we put Mel on WH staff. I said we'd only
agree if it was an even trade of slots between OPD and
Meese's staff.
Harper and Meese have wanted to get Mel on WH bodycount (as
opposed to OPD's) for some time. John Rogers has told them
they could do this provided there was an even trade of slots
with Meese's shop. That way OPD would not get a new slot
because Meese would have to put one of his staff on OPD's
bodycount, and overall WH bodycount would stay the same.
Bottom line is that Meese seems to have dropped the condition.
He told Harper to talk with Elizabeth directly and try to
work something out.
Red told me he feels the matter will quietly die for lack of
agreement. Harper wants a new slot (he feels Mel is doing
political, not policy work) which we won't give him. Also,
Red says Mel is not really willing to do all the work in-
volved in outreach; Mel now "does his own thing" and relies
on Thelma for the serious detail work.
Red and I are discussing other ways to try to get some
creative thought focused on black/minority issues, and on
what steps we might take. Clearly, the present system of
split responsibility will not work. As you know, we have
had no real public effort in this area since the Voting Rights
Act.
11/23
THE WHITE HOUSE
I Call H. Bahir
WASHINGTON
clean Air. Get
November 23, 1982
committement!
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
inform
II Call Ken D.
SUBJECT:
CCEA Meeting on Jobs Proposals
& Dich D.
re results with mty.
Attached is the options paper prepared for today's CCEA
discussion with the President on jobs proposals. I have
Rosty.
highlighted and jotted remarks in it where I thought it
appropriate. Since the paper did not get here till this
morning, I have not had time to prepare a detailed summary.
However, I would note the following on each option:
Option 1: this is the wage subsidy idea that initially
appealed to you. It is more complex now than
at first, though, and I have reservations
about whether it is still a good idea.
Option 2: this appeals to me, especially as an alter-
native to Option 1.
Option 3: this is also appealing since it seems to be
a simple way to address the growing problem
of displaced workers.
Option 4: I see problems here-- it would be very easy
to pass an extension of benefits right now,
but it does nothing to put people back to
work.
Option 5: this is the summer wage differential for
youth, and I see no good reason not to support
it. It would create 300,000 to 600,000 summer
jobs.
Option 6: I dislike this for various reasons, including
the fact that it seems to create an indirect
incentive for youth to drop out of school.
Option 7: this is a possibility, but it is clearly less
well thought out than the other options. Any
number of problems could be raised with this
that are not addressed in the paper.
Option 8: politics of this is very bad, and could place
the President in a very bad light. This is the
type of thing you do when unemployment is 6%.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 22, 1982
CABINET COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
DATE:
November 23, 1982
LOCATION:
Cabinet Room
TIME:
11:15 a.m.
FROM:
CRAIG L. FULLER
CS
I. PURPOSE
To discuss options that deal with solving the
long-term unemployment problem, youth
unemployment, increasing work opportunities for
the mainstream unemployed and removing incentives
to remain unemployed. The Cabinet Council and
several working groups have been seeking
appropriate options for this Administration to
specifically consider. Four options are to be
discussed at this meeting: 1) Establish a wage
subsidy for unemployment insurance exhaustees;
2) Permit states to use unemployment insurance
trust funds to provide retraining and relocation
assistance; 3) Increase funding for displaced
workers under the Job Training Partnership Act;
4) Extend federal supplemental compensation for
six months with tighter eligibility requirements.
A Presidential decision is requested. (Paper
attached)
To mention those defeated Members of Congress who
should be considered for positions in the
Administration. Talking points are attached which
list the key Members for consideration.
II. PARTICIPANTS
Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs members will
be attached to the agenda.
III. PRESS PLAN
None
IV. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Secretary Baldrige will lead the discussion on
unemployment. Talking points for the discussion
on Members to be placed in the Administration are
available for you.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
THE CABINET COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
November 23, 1982
11:15 a.m.
Cabinet Room
AGENDA
1. Structural Unemployment (CM#303)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 22, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CABINET COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
ROGER B. PORTER
RBP
SUBJECT:
Structural Unemployment
This memorandum outlines a series of options that the Cabinet
Council has discussed over the last three weeks. As the Council
requested at our November 16 meeting, members of the Working
Group, representing the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and
Commerce, the Council of Economic Advisers, the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, the Office of Policy Development, and the Office
of the U.S. Trade Representative, have divided these potential
proposals into four groups -- assisting the long-term unemployed,
addressing youth unemployment, increasing work opportunities for
the mainstream unemployed, and removing incentives to remain
unemployed. These proposals share a common theme -- seeking to
expand opportunities and incentives for individuals to secure
employment.
I. Assistance for the Long-Term Unemployed
While many of the unemployed find jobs or withdraw from the
labor force relatively quickly, a sizeable fraction of unemploy-
ment is due to persons who suffer long-term joblessness. During
1983 an estimated five million persons will experience unemploy-
ment for longer than six months. It is likely that somewhat over
2.5 million people will exhaust all unemployment compensation
benefits during 1983. Even after the economy recovers, long-term
unemployment will continue to be a problem for a significant
minority of workers. In 1979, when the overall unemployment rate
was 5.8 percent, almost three million people experienced six or
more months of unemployment. Long-term unemployment imposes the
greatest costs on workers in terms of illness, stress, and possi-
ble personal bankruptcy. Long-term unemployment is also the most
visible part of the unemployment problem and arouses the most
public concern.
The Council has concentrated on four options for assisting
the long-term unemployed.
-2-
Option 1: Establish a Wage Subsidy for Unemployment Insurance
(UI) Exhaustees
This proposal contemplates making available special employ-
ment assistance benefits to persons who have exhausted all the
unemployment insurance payments available to them. Benefits
could be taken in one of two forms:
1. Thirteen weeks after exhausting all regular UI benefits or
extended benefits if available, workers could receive 26
weekly vouchers which they could give to employers. Each
voucher could be redeemed by the employer to subsidize part
of the worker's wages for each week of full-time employment.
The total value of the vouchers would be one half the amount
of the worker's regular UI benefit entitlement. For workers
who qualified for the 26 weeks of regular UI, each weekly
voucher would thus be worth one half the worker's UI benefit
amount, a subsidy on average of about $60 a week.
Employers would turn in the vouchers to the U.S. Treasury at
a credit against their tax liability. Employers could not
receive a credit for employees they previously laid off.
Vouchers would expire one year after the worker exhausted UI
benefits.
a can
2. Workers moving more than 100 miles to take a new job would be
eligible for the vouchers without the 13-week waiting period.
01 worms
This proposal would be advanced to replace the Federal
Supplemental Compensation (FSC) which expires March 31, 1983.
Required Legislation
Federal legislation would be required. No state legislation
is believed necessary, but agreement by state governors would be
needed to implement.
Costs and Coverage
Costs depend on how many of the estimated 3 million
unemployed eligible workers would take advantage of the program.
About two-thirds of them would probably not use the subsidy
because either they left the labor force, took a job before the
end of the 13-week waiting period, or were unable to find
employment even with the subsidy.
Assuming the remaining one million took the wage subsidy for
the full 26 weeks, the cost of the program covering one year's
worth of workers would be approximately $2 billion. The program
- 3 -
would subsidize an average of 500,000 jobs throughout the year.
The employment effect of the program would depend on employer
decisions and is difficult to predict. Some of the subsidized
workers would have found work without the program; some would
simply displace other workers. At best, a program on this scale
might raise net employment by 300,000 jobs and reduce unemploy-
ment by the same amount. At worst, assuming it kept in the labor
force some of the estimated 25 percent of exhaustees who would
have dropped out, the program might raise measured unemployment,
if most of the subsidized jobs were jobs that would have been
filled in the absence of the program.
Advantages
o
The program would be targeted at experienced workers with
very serious employment problems. Only persons taking the
constructive step of getting a job would receive help.
The program would offer a productive alternative to
continuing federal supplemental benefits.
The program would encourage workers to move to areas with
greater employment opportunities.
The proposal could be implemented relatively quickly since
it only requires federal legislation.
Disadvantages
O
Although the subsidy will make these workers more attractive
to employers, the program does nothing to help those still
unable to find a job. Critics may attack it as a hollow
promise pointing to a lack of jobs, even if subsidized, in
high unemployment areas.
This would constitute another uncontrolled entitlement
program. Expenditures could appreciably exceed estimates
should more workers than expected get subsidized jobs. It
is potentially more costly than a simple extension of the
FSC program, which is estimated to cost $1.4 - 1.7 billion
for a six-month extension through September 30, 1983.
o
Administering the tax credit will increase the already heavy
existing IRS workload.
It could result in "churning" as employers let subsidized
workers go after 26 weeks and replace them with other
subsidized workers.
- 4 -
Congress might well shorten the 13-week waiting period, thus
increasing costs as subsidies go to workers who would have
taken jobs during that period anyway.
Option 2: Permit States to use Unemployment Insurance Trust
Funds to Provide Retraining and Relocation Assistance
Under current law, states can use UI trust funds only to
provide cash assistance to unemployed workers. The proposal,
which has been recommended by the National Productivity Advisory
Committee, would permit states to use UI trust funds to provide
assistance to unemployed workers in the form of retraining and
relocation assistance. The proposal includes two specific
provisions:
o A limitation of 2 percent of annual state UI tax receipts
would be placed on the amount of UI assistance that could be
paid by the state in the form of training or relocation
assistance.
States running a deficit in their UI programs could. borrow
from the U.S. Treasury to finance training and relocation
assistance at a rate of interest equal to the 3-month
Treasury bill rate.
Required Legislation
Both federal and state legislation would be required to
implement the proposal. Because most state legislatures meet
irregularly and only for a portion of the year, it is unlikely
that the proposal could be adopted on a widespread basis until
calendar year 1984.
Cost and Coverage
It is unclear how many, if any, states would aggressively
pursue this option. If all states adopted the proposal, the
maximum outlays for FY 1984 under the 2 percent limitation would
be $436 million. Assuming an average cost per individual served
of $2,500, the program would serve 174,000 individuals.
Advantages
o
Provides a means whereby states can encourage individuals
who have been permanently separated from their jobs to
retrain or relocate themselves.
States could tailor their assistance to the specific needs
of long-term structurally unemployed workers.
- 5 -
Disadvantages
O
It is not clear that many states would adopt this option.
Under current law, states can provide retraining and relo-
cation assistance and finance such assistance in a very
similar manner to that provided in the proposal. Nothing in
less
current law prevents a state from levying a payroll tax or
likely
borrowing from the general public to finance such
Though
assistance.
The large industrial states experiencing a severe displaced
worker problem are also states with large UI trust fund
debts. These states are unlikely to raise state taxes to
finance the program. Rather, they are likely to borrow from
the trust fund, thereby raising their indebtedness. Cur-
rently, pressure is building in Congress to forgive state
debts. Further indebtedness would only increase this
pressure. Since the UI trust fund is part of the federal
budget, any state borrowing will increase the federal
deficit.
Option 3: Increase Funding for Displaced Workers Under the Job
Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
The recently enacted Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
includes a federal-state matching program to provide assistance
this seems
for displaced workers. Under the Act, several kinds of
to be one
assistance can be offered:
of the
Private sector retraining or approved schooling;
simplest,
yet effective
Relocation allowances for workers who wish to move; or
options.
Wage subsidies for firms hiring displaced workers.
Under current budget requests, the Department of Labor plans
to spend $100 million in FY 1983 and $240 million in FY 1984.
This option would increase funding for the displaced workers
program by $200 million.
Required Legislation
No additional legislation is required. Only an increased
budget appropriation is needed.
Cost and Coverage
The cost per person is estimated between $2,000 and $3,000.
The additional funds would be targeted at on-the-job training in
- 6 -
growth industries by providing wage subsidies for experienced
workers. Between 70,000 and 100,000 individuals would be
assisted by the creation of these subsidized training jobs, and
the number of subsidized jobs could be between 30,000 and 50,000.
Advantages
Since training provided under JTPA is offered through the
private sector, it is job oriented and often leads to a
permanent job.
Increased expenditures on JTPA would be limited by a budget
appropriation enabling the government to anticipate and
control outlays.
When an individual receives on-the-job training, he is no
longer counted among the unemployed. Thus, any additional
funds spent on JTPA will directly reduce the unemployment
rate.
Unlike proposals requiring state legislation, additional
funding for JTPA can create newly subsidized jobs
immediately.
Disadvantages
This proposal adds to a discretionary program that has not
in the past proven itself.
The Department of Labor has discretion over only 25 percent
of the displaced worker funds under the new Jobs Act.
Seventy five percent of the funds are available to the
states for use by the governors who provide matching funds.
Therefore, of the $440 million proposed here, at most $110
million could be targeted by the Department of Labor.
Since the Administration has requested scaling down
appropriations for all JTPA programs, asking for additional
displaced worker funding might be viewed as a policy
reversal.
States are required to match the federal resources
dollar-for-dollar. While this incentive could lead to
better programs leveraging more resources, it could also
inhibit use in states with large budget deficits.
C
- 7 -
Option 4: Extend Federal Supplemental Compensation (FSC) for Sfx
Months with Tighter Eligibility Requirements
This proposal would accept, if necessary, extending the UI
Federal Supplemental Compensation (FSC) program beyond its
present expiration date of March 31, 1983, but only with amend-
ments to tighten up eligibility. The present program provides up
to 10 additional weeks of benefits in states that paid extended
benefits after June 1, 1982, up to 8 additional weeks in remain-
ing states with insured unemployment rates of over 3.5 percent
and up to 6 additional weeks in all other states. Benefits are
payable to those who use up all their weeks of UI and, where
available, extended benefits (EB).
This proposal would tighten up FSC by:
Requiring that claimants have worked 30 weeks out of the
52-week period used to determine their entitlement to UI,
rather than 20 weeks now required.
Denying FSC to those who voluntarily quit their last job.
Increasing the level of the insured unemployment rate
necessary to trigger on the eight and ten week programs.
Establishing an FSC "needs test" by imposing a tax of up
to 100 percent on FSC benefits received by individuals
with adjusted gross incomes above $25,000.
Required Legislation
Federal legislation would be required. No state legislation
is required; governors would have to sign an agreement to
implement FSC in their states. All did the last time.
Costs and Coverage
The program described above would cost considerably less than
a straight extension of the present FSC program which automatic-
ally provides up to 10 weeks of FSC in the 38 states that were on
EB at one time or another since June 1, 1982.
Advantages
This proposal provides cash benefits to the long-term
unemployed with past demonstrated workforce attachment, who
lost jobs through no fault of their own; the tax reduces
the windfall to families with other income.
- 8 -
O
It provides 5 weeks of FSC in moderately high unemployment
states that fall below the level now required to "trigger"
on EB (5 percent insured rate), thus reducing pressure to
rollback the 1981 EB trigger rate changes.
O
It targets the remaining 5 weeks of FSC on states with very
high unemployment.
Disadvantages
o
Extending FSC will likely raise the measured unemployment
rate. Additional weeks of cash benefits encourage
beneficiaries to relax their search for work, or to remain
in the labor force when they otherwise would have dropped
out.
o
It provides additional weeks of benefits at unemployment
rates below those now required for EB, undercutting the
Administration's position on maintaining the current EB
trigger rates for the long run.
It does nothing to put people back to work.
biggest objection To
O
inclusion in a "jobs"
package
Decision
Option 1:
Establish a Wage Subsidy for UI Exhaustees
Option 2:
Permit States to use Unemployment
Insurance Trust Funds to Provide
Retraining and Relocation Assistance
Option 3:
Increase Funding for Displaced Workers
Under the Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA)
Option 4:
Extend Federal Supplemental Compensation
(FSC) for Six months with Tighter
Eligibility Requirements
- 9 -
II. Youth Unemployment
Youth unemployment is a serious labor market problem.
Approximately thirty percent of the current unemployed are
youths under 21. Increasing our ability to absorb the surge of
new workers, mostly youths, that enter the labor market each year
is essential. Experience suggests that youths who have
difficulty in the first year or two in securing employment run a
higher risk of becoming part of the long-term unemployed.
The Council has concentrated on two basic approaches -- a
summertime youth differential minimum wage and tax incentives for
on-the-job training of school leavers -- which are not mutually
exclusive.
Option 5: Establish a Youth Differential Minimum Wage for Summer
Employment
Under current law, a single Federal minimum wage of $3.35
exists for all workers independent of their age. The proposal
would establish a youth differential minimum wage with the
following provisions:
o
The lower minimum would be established at 75 percent of the
current minimum, i.e., at $2.50 per hour.
Only youth under the age of 22 would be eligible for this
lower minimum.
The lower minimum would be available only during the period
May 1 through September 30 each year.
Background
You endorsed the concept of a youth differential several
times during the 1980 campaign. On August 5, 1980, before the
National Urban League, you said: "We have a special need to
expand the job opportunities for young people, through enactment
of a youth differential in the minimum wage Permitting young
people to work at less than the legal minimum wage would allow
them to get what they need most -- a job and the work experience
it provides."
The minimum wage has risen 15 times since it was first
enacted in 1938. The last legislated increase in the general
minimum wage took effect January 1, 1981 when the minimum rose to
$3.35 an hour. This level has increased from $3.10 in 1980,
$2.90 in 1979, and $2.65 in 1978. The increases from 1978 until
now were specified in the 1977 amendments to the Fair Labor
- 10 -
Standards Act. Since these amendments did not specify any
increase beyond 1981, the $3.35 rate will remain fixed unless new
amendments are enacted.
A youth minimum wage is not a new concept. A youth differen-
tial was recommended by the Nixon Administration in 1973, and the
President based his veto of the minimum wage bill passed by the
Congress that year in part on the failure to include a youth wage
provision (the House vote to override the veto failed by 23
votes). At the time of the 1977 minimum wage revisions, an
amendment was rejected by only one vote in the House (211 to 210)
that would have permitted employers to pay 85 percent of the
minimum to youths 18 or under for the first six months of
employment.
The mayors of the two largest cities in the nation, Mayor
Koch of New York and Mayor Bradley of Los Angeles, have strongly
supported a youth differential minimum wage. One reason is that
it would benefit many inner city youths.
Required Legislation
Modifying the minimum wage would require amending the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Cost and Coverage
No additional Federal outlays would be required. It would
reduce the cost of the summer youth programs by $75 million. It
would create an estimated 300,000 to 600,000 new summer jobs.
Advantages
The minimum wage is particularly harmful for many youths
because they lack sufficient skills and experience to earn a
wage at or above the current minimum. If enacted, a youth
differential minimum wage would increase teenage employment.
Opposition to a general youth subminimum stems from concern
that employers would substitute youths for older workers.
Such substitution is much less likely if the lower minimum
is restricted to the summer months. Thus, congressional
support is more likely for this proposal than for a general
reduction in the minimum wage. The proposal is consistent
with your previous commitments supporting a youth
differential minimum wage.
- 11 -
Disadvantages
A youth differential minimum wage might generate pressure
for an increase in the general minimum wage.
Organized labor vehemently opposes lowering the minimum
wage. Major political opposition can be expected from those
who wish to benefit from the support of organized labor.
Option 6: Create Tax Incentives for Temporary Private Sector
On-The-Job Training for School Leavers
Youth who have recently dropped out of school or graduated
from high school and are not attending post-secondary school
would be eligible for the program.
Private sector employers would receive a tax credit for
employing certified school leavers equal to 40 percent of wages,
up to a total credit of $1,600 over a six month period. For
administrative simplicity, schools would certify eligibility for
the program. Tax credits would be claimed through the Federal
tax system.
Background
For American youth the transition from formal schooling to
full-time employment is characterized by high unemployment. In
periods of full employment, the unemployment rate of high school
graduates not enrolled in college is about 20 percent. For high
school dropouts the comparable unemployment rate is over 30
percent. During a recession these unemployment rates rise
sharply. Unlike youth enrolled in school, most school leavers
are in the market for full-time jobs that provide employer
training. The minimum wage and the lack of entry level positions
for apprentices and craft training make it difficult for youth to
find jobs that provide private sector skill training and an
opportunity to develop good work habits. The Federal government
provides substantial direct and indirect support to individuals
who enroll in some form of higher education, but provides few
financial incentives for individuals to acquire and firms to
provide skill training on-the-job.
Required Legislation
The proposal would require Federal legislation -- perhaps as
an amendment to the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (TJTC), which
provides tax credits for employing disadvantaged youth.
- 12 -
Cost and Coverage
The cost of the program is difficult to estimate since the
level of employer participation is very uncertain. The working
group estimates that the proposal would create 100,000 new jobs
at a cost of $1 billion in 1984.
Advantages
The tax credit would mitigate the negative effect of the
minimum wage on employment and on employer provision of job
training.
The program attempts to improve the employability of school
leavers before they experience serious labor market
problems. The "preventive" approach to assisting unemployed
youth may be more cost effective than the remedial approach
characteristic of past training programs.
There may be long run benefits to the program if access to
jobs with training opportunities reduces job turnover.
Disadvantages
Although the unemployment rates of school leavers are high,
many youth who would have worked in the absence of the
program will receive a subsidy.
The program may induce employers to substitute youth
eligible for the credit for other potential workers. As
a
result, adults and youth not eligible for the program may
also, this
experience increased unemployment.
gives an
indirect
This is a more expensive way of mitigating the negative
incentive for
effect of the minimum wage than establishing a youth
youth to
differential minimum wage.
drop out of
school.
Decision
Option 5:
Establish a Youth Differential Miminum
Wage for Summer Employment
Option 6:
Create Tax Incentives for Temporary
Private Sector On-The-Job Training for
School Leavers
- 13 -
III. Increasing Work Opportunities for
the Mainstream Unemployed
The Council has also considered structural reforms of the
unemployment insurance system that would increase work opportuni-
ties for the mainstream unemployed.
Background
At the present time, in many states workers who have been
laid off but take part-time jobs lose many or all of their
unemployment benefits. This tends to reduce individuals' incent-
ives to help themselves by taking part-time work. In addition,
it causes employers and employees not to take advantage of
part-time worksharing arrangements in times of temporary economic
distress.
Option 7: Mandate Uniform State Standards to Encourage Part-Time
rk by Unemployment Insurance Beneficiaries
This proposal involves mandating a uniform set of UI benefits
for partially employed workers. The plan has two parts:
States would be required to establish a uniform benefit
formula for unemployed individuals who are unable to find
suitable full-time employment and who accept part-time work.
The formula would allow workers to work (earn) up to certain
threshold without losing employment benefits.
States would be required to adopt legislation that permits
the payment of partial UI benefits to workers who take
shorter weekly hours as an alternative to being laid off.
The formula would make the partial UI benefits proportional
to the reduction in work hours. Such arrangements already
exist in California, Arizona, and Oregon.
Required Legislation
Both Federal and state legislation is required.
Cost and Coverage
O
An estimated 100,000 unemployed workers would take part-time
employment if a partial-benefit structure similar to that
now used by Pennsylvania (where an unemployed individual may
- 14 -
take a job and earn up to 40 percent of his weekly UI
payment without penalty) were adopted by all states. An
estimated 40,000 layoffs would be saved by establishing
uniform partial UI benefits for workers who would otherwise
be laid off if a plan similar to that in California were
adopted (where UI benefits are in strict proportion to the
reduction in work days).
The total cost of this program is estimated to be about $450
million.
Advantages
It would encourage more stable employment in the form of
worksharing in plants undergoing temporary reductions in
output.
O
It encourages continued attachment to the labor force in the
form of part-time jobs for workers who might otherwise
refuse such employment.
JAB : I don't Think this option has
been thought than as well as the
Disadvantages
others I see a lot more problems
than those listed here.
By setting a Federal standard for state UI benefit
structures this proposal may pave the way for Federal
minimum UI standards.
This proposal expands the Federal role in unemployment
insurance contrary to the general thrust of the Adminis-
tration's federalism proposals.
Decision
Option 7:
Mandate Uniform State Standards to
Encourage Part-Time Work by Unemployment
Insurance Beneficiaires
- 15 -
IV. Removing Incentives to Remain Unemployed
The Council has also considered structural reforms of the
unemployment insurance system that would remove incentives for
recipients to remain unemployed.
Background
Under current law, unemployment compensation benefits are
taxed only for married couples with joint incomes above $18,000
and for single individuals with incomes above $12,000. The not
fully taxing of UI benefits makes replacement rates very high for
some workers, especially married women and persons with many
dependents. Many studies have shown that high benefits discour-
age the unemployed from returning to work and increase
unemployment.
Option 8: Extend the Taxation of Unemployment Insurance Benefits
This proposal calls for lowering (possibly to zero) the
income threshold above which unemployment compensation benefits
are taxed. The funds raised could be earmarked to initiatives to
combat unemployment.
Required Legislation
Federal legislation to reform the tax code would be required.
Costs and Coverage
The amount of the revenue raised would depend on how far the
threshold was lowered. Taxing all UI benefits would raise $1.9
billion in 1983 and 1984. A reduction in the income threshold to
$12,000 for married couples and $8,000 for single persons would
raise $600 million per year in 1983 and 1984.
Advantages
best
O
Unemployment insurance benefits are a form of income and
but
should not be favored for tax purposes over other income.
politics this bad.
Funds raised by taxing UI could be used to finance programs
very
to combat unemployment.
O
Fully taxing UI benefits would eliminate the work disin-
centive for persons near the income threshold.
- 16 -
Fully taxing UI benefits would increase incentives for
persons to accept jobs rather than continuing to remain
unemployed.
Disadvantages
Extending taxation of UI benefits might be unwise at a time
when the unemployment rate is high and rising.
Fully taxing unemployment benefits or reducing the income
threshold would impose a tax increase only on low income
individuals since middle and upper income individuals
currently pay taxes on UI benefits.
States might respond to fully taxing benefits by increasing
those benefits in order to compensate. This would require
increased payroll taxes by employers, possibly discouraging
new hiring and encouraging layoffs.
Both business and organized labor have strenuously opposed
taxing unemployment benefits in the past and can be expected
to do so in the future.
Decision
Option 8:
Extend the Taxation of Unemployment
Insurance Benefits
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 30, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR BUD MCFARLANE
ROGER PORTER
DAN MURPHY
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
of
SUBJECT:
Wilson Center Events
Attached is the calendar of Wilson Center events during
December. Please note especially the Evening Dinner
Dialogue scheduled for December 3.
If you or anyone on your staff would like to attend, please
contact Aileen Anderson (2174), and she will make the
necessary arrangements.
Calendar of Events
WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
Smithsonian Institution Building Washington D.C. 20560 202 357-2115
DECEMBER 1982
Noon Discussion
"Soviet Religious Policy: Political Requirements
Wednesday
at Home and Abroad in the 1980s"
December 1
Albert Boiter, Research Associate, Georgetown
University, Center for Strategic and International
Studies
Noon Discussion
"Franco-American Relations in the 1980s"
Thursday
December 2
Bernard Vernier-Palliez, Ambassador of France to
the United States
Colloquium
"Political Parties and the Reconstruction of Democracy
Thursday
in Argentina"
December 2
4-6 pm
Marcelo Cavarozzi, CEDES, Buenos Aires, Argentina;
former Fellow, The Wilson Center
Commentators: Peter Lange, Professor of Political Science, Duke
University
Guillermo O'Donnell, Professor of Political Science,
University of Notre Dame
Noon Discussion
"The New Shape of Japanese History"
Friday
December 3
Marius B. Jansen, Professor of History, Princeton
University
Evening Dialogue*
"The Japan Experience and American Industrial
Friday
Reorganization"
December 3
Chalmers Johnson, Professor of Political Science,
University of California, Berkeley
Noon Discussion
"Rewriting Chinese History: Lessons of the Sino-
Monday
Japanese War, 1894-95"
December 6
Samuel C. Chu, Professor of History, Ohio State
University; and Sun Yat-sen, Professor of China
Studies, Georgetown University
Colloquium
"Power Changes When Decentralizing: The Case of
Monday
Yugoslavia"
December 6
4-6 pm
Eugen Pusic, Professor of Political Science and Law,
University of Zagreb; former Fellow, The Wilson Center
Commentators: Paul S. Shoup, Professor of Government and Foreign
Affairs, University of Virginia
C. Dwight Waldo, Emeritus Albert Schweitzer
Professor in the Humanities, Syracuse University;
former Fellow, The Wilson Center
Noon Discussion
"Japan's New Prime Minister"
Tuesday
December 7
Panel: Yoshihisa Komori, Correspondent, Mainichi Newspaper
Company
Thomas P. Shoesmith, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific
Affairs, Department of State
Makoto Watanabe, Political Counselor, Embassy of Japan
Noon Discussion
"Scholarly Exchanges with the U.S.S.R. and Eastern
Wednesday
Europe: Achievements, Problems, Prospects"
December 8
Allen H. Kassof, Executive Director, International
Research and Exchanges Board
Noon Discussion
"Generating Innovative Capabilities in Science
Thursday
and Technology in Developing Nations"
December 9
Michael J. Moravcsik, Professor of Physics,
Institute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon
Dinner/Seminar*
"Why Nations Have Developed Nuclear Weapons"
Thursday
December 9
Arnold Kramish, Fellow, The Wilson Center
Evening Dialogue*
"The Pacific Basin Community: America's Failure
Tuesday
to Meet the Challenge"
December 14
Lawrence B. Krause, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Hahn-Been Lee, Fellow, The Wilson Center; Chairman of
the Board, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology, Seoul
Noon Discussion
"Brecht's Stalin Poems"
Wednesday
December 15
John Fuegi, Professor of Comparative Literature and
German, University of Maryland
Colloquium
"Liberty Versus Efficiency: The Industrial Trans-
Thursday
formation and American Social Thought"
December 16
4-6 pm
Mary 0. Furner, Fellow, The Wilson Center; Associate
Professor of History, Northern Illinois University
Commentators: Robert Kelley, Fellow, The Wilson Center; Professor
of History, University of California, Santa Barbara
Warren Susman, Professor of History, Rutgers University
Noon Discussion
"U.S.-Japan Economic Frictions and What Can Be Done
Friday
About Them"
December 17
C. Tait Ratcliffe, President, International Business
Information, Inc., Tokyo
Noon Discussion
"Prospects for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty"
Wednesday
December 22
Ben J. Wattenberg, Vice-Chairman, Board for International
Broadcasting and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Noon Discussion
"The Soviet Union Revisited: A New Look at Sino-
Wednesday
Soviet Relations"
December 29
Chun-tu Hsueh, Professor of Politics, University
of Maryland
*By invitation
It is suggested that events be confirmed on the day of the event by telephoning
Louise Platt or Cynthia Ely, 357-2115.
12/10
THE WHITE HOUSE
"In
WASHINGTON
like us
December 2, 1982
I'd to This Cough. in Importation in Jan.
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
for jeb's of you,
Ken
SUBJECT:
Clean Air Act
me.
D. JAB
As you know, the issue of whether and how to address the acid
rain problem has been one of the key factors that has bogged
what
down revision of the Clean Air Act. Addressing the problem
P.S.
of acid rain is not only a legislative issue, though: it
hould
has become a public relations point. By alleging an unwill-
we
until
ingness to deal with acid rain on the part of the Administra-
tion, the opposition hopes to kill or greatly restrict the
major revisions in the Clean Air Act we are seeking. We
should, therefore, seek to defuse this issue and, if possible,
turn it to our advantage.
duchtine.
+
I would suggest we begin work quietly and at a high level on
an "acid rain package" we can portray as a control strategy.
S.S.
is
There is already a bill (by Randolph) which is acceptable to
EPA and which could serve as the heart of the package. We
an
pad.
could add other elements, such as a shift of research funds,
acceleration of experimental programs like lake liming and
coal washing, some pressure on industry for increased private
JABIN
sector research, etc. Development of such a package should
commence immediately since it would have to be completed by
February 1. It should be prepared with the possibility of a
Presidential-level announcement in mind.
This step, of course, assumes that a victory on the major
revisions we seek is not likely in the lame duck session; it
is, instead, preparation for another try early next year.
An acid rain package would help to re-frame the overall issue.
At present, we are perceived as having no real alternative
and as being unwilling to address the problem. While we
should be under no illusions about the reaction of environ-
mentalists (very critical, inevitably), we should also recog-
nize that it is much better to have an affirmative stance on
the issue--to have a program consistent with the President's
position of reasonable regulation of the environment, and not
one perceived as blindly anti-environment.
Memorandum for James A. Baker, III
December 2, 1982
Page 2 of 2
This approach, if combined with other factors under ours
or EPA's control, might help chances of passing some of the
Clean Air revisions we seek. If no such revisions pass,
however (and this must be considered a possibility), a more
forthcoming stance on acid rain would at least place the
President in a better political position. It would be harder
to accuse the President of trying to "gut" the Act. Also,
he would have taken an action that could be portrayed as
pro-environment and as an attempt to break the logjam on
Clean Air in general: the sanctions and other harm that
follows failure to revise the Act can then be more readily
blamed on liberal Democrats.
CC: Craig Fuller
Dick Darman
Ken Duberstein
RONALD W. REAGAN LIBRARY
THIS FORM MARKS THE FILE LOCATION OF ITEM NUMBER A-3
LISTED ON THE
WITHDRAWAL SHEET AT THE FRONT OF THIS FOLDER.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 3, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN SCHROTE
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
Mark Heckmann
Attached is a resume for Mark Heckmann, who was Deputy Press
Secretary to Governor Clements (handling speech writing
chores in addition) during the time I was on staff there.
Mark also handled press for the 1980 Reagan-Bush effort in
Texas.
Should there be a suitable opening, I'd appreciate any con-
sideration you might give him.
Thank you.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 3, 1982
Dear Mark:
I received your letter and resume, and can only say I wish
the circumstances surrounding your search for a new job
were different. I followed the Texas races closely, and,
needless to say, was very sorry to see Governor Clements
lose.
I have forwarded a copy of your resume to the White House
Personnel Office with a request that they contact you should
any suitable openings come to their attention. I will also
keep a copy in my office in case I hear of anything you
might be interested in. I must tell you in all honesty,
though, that the mid-term turnover in jobs at all levels
has been surprisingly small.
In the meantime, I wish you, Susan, and the family the very
best, and hope that you have a happy holiday season.
Sincerely,
11.
James W. Cicconi
Special Assistant to the
President
Mr. Mark R. Heckmann
4000 Greenmountain Lane
Austin, Texas 78759
MARK R. HECKMANN
4000 Greenmountain Lane
Austin, Texas 78759
November 13, 1982
Mr. Jim Cicconi
The White House
Washington, D.C.
20500
Dear Jim:
Now that the tidal wave has swept over the Governor's Office,
I am looking for employment in the field of public relations
and/or speechwriting. Enclosed is my personal resume which
details my experience since college.
I know you are familiar with my qualifications, and I would
appreciate any suggestions or advice you can give me regarding
potential employers.
In addition, should you know of someone who needs an experienced
public relations and/or speechwriting professional, please feel
free to give them my resume.
I am interested primarily in governmental or corporate public
relations, and I am willing to relocate to Washington, D.C.
Jim, I have enjoyed our friendship, and I hope our paths continue
to cross. Thanks for all your help.
Mark Sincerely yours,
Mark R. Heckmann
encl.
MARK R. HECKMANN
4000 Greenmountain Lane
Austin, Texas 78759
residence: 512/345-4775
office: 512/475-4215
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Office of Governor William P. Clements, Jr. - 1979 to present.
Deputy Press Secretary and Chief Speechwriter
Consult with the Governor and senior staff in analyzing issues and preparing
strategies to maximize positive media coverage.
Assist with daily liaison between the Governor and the State Capitol press
corps, Washington press corps, statewide and national news media.
Write speeches, press releases, articles, and position papers for the
Governor. Chief speechwriter for First Lady Rita Clements.
Reagan-Bush Campaign in Texas - 1980.
Communications Director
Organized and supervised public relations staff of four persons during the
general election campaign, after taking a leave of absence from Governor
Clements' staff.
Responsible for daily liaison between the State Campaign Headquarters and
the State Capitol press corps, Washington press corps, statewide and
national news media; press releases; campaign newsletter; articles on behalf
of Mr. Reagan; radio actuality system; press advance arrangements; and
letters-to-the-editor program.
Advised advertising agency in preparation of brochures and other campaign
materials.
Bill Clements for Governor Campaign and Transition Office - 1978.
Press Director
Supervised public relations staff of three persons during successful general
election campaign to elect William P. Clements, Jr. as first Republican
Governor in Texas in more than 100 years.
Responsible for daily liaison between Mr. Clements and the State Copitol
press corps, Washington press corps, statewide and national news media;
press releases; campaign newsletter; radio actuality system; and press
advance arrangements.
Advised advertising agency in preparation of brochures, direct mail, adver-
tising copy, and other campaign materials.
Mark R. Heckmonn - Page 2
Houston Chronicle - 1974 to 1978.
Newspaper Reporter
Hired by largest newspaper in the Southwest United States within six months
of graduation from college.
Covered variety of news assignments, including police reporting, courts,
politics, and general news. Experience in newspaper lay-out, paste-up, and
production.
Beaumont Enterprise-Journal - 1974.
Newspaper Reporter
Assigned to features and education beat. Experience in photography,
newspaper lay-out, copy editing, and production.
Prior to graduation from college, worked for the State Capitol Bureau in
Austin on part-time basis during senior year, and on full-time basis at home
office in Beaumont during summer of 1973.
EDUCATION:
The University of Texas at Austin - 1970 to 1974.
Bachelor of Journalism
Was graduated from the University of Texas School of Communication in
May, 1974. Minors in government and history.
MEMBERSHIPS:
The Wheat Ridge Foundation - 1976 to present.
Board of Directors
International, church-related, charitable organization with headquarters in
Chicago, Illinois. Chairman of public relations committee.
Redeemer Lutheran Church - 1981 to present.
Board of Elders
PERSONAL:
Family: Married, one child.
Date of Birth: May 4, 1952.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MDT
December 6, 1982
Please note and
toge. This is N+WR the
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
the
ntum print made in US we have
SUBJECT:
CCMA Meeting
noticle - and
made good progrem
non
Reduction of federal non-defense employment was again dis-
cussed at the CCMA meeting December 1. The goal is a net
reduction of 75,000 FTE work years between FY '82 and
defense
FY '84.
The target for FY '82 was 26,000. The actual result was
a
reductions
reduction of 66,900 non-defense FTE work years. This was
principally due to the dismissal of 11,000 air traffic
controllers, furloughs, unfilled vacancies, and general
JAPON
budget pressures. However, while we greatly exceeded the
FY '82 target, Don Devine said that the overall goal might
not be met by 1984 unless changes are made in agency requests
for higher personnel levels over the next two years (see
attached chart).
Of the reductions already made, approximately 10% were RIFs,
while the remaining 90% resulted from normal attrition. This
is evidence we can use to show that the Administration's
approach to employment reduction has been both positive and
sensitive.
On other subjects, OPM reported that it is planning a series
of events in January (including a postage stamp) to recognize
the 100-year anniversary of the Civil Service. The events
are designed to raise the morale of federal employees in the
wake of recent cuts. Also, it was reported that the Private
Sector Survey's work is progressing well: of the 36 task
forces, 26 are either writing their reports or have finished
and are reviewing them with the agencies.
CC: Richard Darman
Non-Defense Employment (end of FY 1982)
Full Time Equivalent Work Years
FTE Work Years
1,200,000
Goals
We excended our FY02 targot. but the goal
of reducing non-dofenge amployment by 78,000
BASE
FTE will not be nohieved unlonn ohonged are
FY02 REVISED
wade in agency FTE requents for FY88 and/or FYB4.
1,183,100
1,150,000
Results
FY02 GOALS
1. 130, 100
FY03
FY04
ADENCY REQUESTS
AGENCY REQUESTS
1,122,000
1,121,000
3
Requests
1,100,000
FY03 DOALB
1,108,400
1,008,100
FY82 RESULTS
FY84 GOALD
1, 088. 100 (-76,000)
Through FY02 WB will have
reduced FTE work yours
1,050,000
by 80. 800. Our target
was 28,000.
1,000,000
BASE
FY02
82
83
84
85
REVISED
Fiscal Year
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 6, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR ED MEESE
FROM:
James A. Baker, III
JABIM
SUBJECT:
Line Item Veto Authority
The President would like us to look into the possibility of
setting up a commission to work toward obtaining line item
veto authority for the chief executive. Such a commission
could be chaired by Gerald Ford, and perhaps also include
Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.
I would appreciate it if you would ask OPD to prepare a
paper for us on this proposal that you and I could then dis-
cuss with the President.
Thank you.
CC: Mike Deaver
Richard Darman
Ken Duberstein
Dave Stockman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
6 December 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: 4th Circuit Vacancy
DOJ will probably end up backing
Ken Starr, the Counselor to the
AG, for the new vacancy on the
4th Circuit.
Ken is from Virginia, and the
opening is for a Virginian.
They feel John Warner will
support the choice.
Ken is about 37, practiced law
in Bill Smith's firm, and clerked
by Burger on the Supreme Court.
They do not feel he'd have a
problem with the ABA.
I have a high opinion of Ken,
and it would be nice to have
someone who'd be on the court
for a long time.
Any preliminary thoughts on this?
(verbally conveyed)
in
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 7, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
stin
SUBJECT:
Presidential Statement on Minority Business
Development
The Presidential Statement on Minority Business Development,
which has been under discussion for some time, will be
announced on December 15, 10:45 a.m., in the East Room. The
key points in the statement are:
--
The Minority Business Development Agency of the Depart-
ment of Commerce and the S.B.A. will assist in the
formation of at least 60,000 new minority businesses
over the next 10 years.
--
The Administration will assist in expansion of 60,000
current minority businesses (10% of the minority busi-
nesses already operating) over the next ten years.
--
The federal government will procure an estimated $15B
in goods and services from minority businesses during
FY '83, '84, '85 (this does not include indirect pro-
curement by federal grantees, which could amount to an
additional $6-$7B during this 3-year period). The goal
for 1983 is 10% above the actual procurement during
1982 (you may recall an earlier dispute over this).
--
We will make available approximately $1.5B in credit
assistance and $300M in management and technical assis-
tance to promote minority business development during
the same 3-year period.
--
The President will direct agencies to develop incentives
to encourage greater subcontracting to minority busi-
nesses by federal contractors. Similar incentives will
be devised to cover federal grantees.
--
To increase private sector involvement in minority busi-
ness development, the President will ask business
leaders to help get at least 2,500 private firms to
expand their business with minority enterprises.
Memorandum for James A. Baker, III
December 7, 1982
Page 2 of 2
In addition to the above, the statement will call on the
President's Advisory Committee on Small and Minority Busi-
ness to explore ways to reduce regulatory barriers to
minority business expansion, especially into international
trade. As follow-up to the statement, the President will
later issue an executive order detailing specific steps to
be taken, and directing the CCCT to set minority business
development objectives for each agency.
CC: Richard Darman
Butteri 12/13
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 7, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
Contract Sanctity Provision
Roger Porter has outlined an additional argument that could
help us regarding the contract sanctity provision in the
CFTC reauthorization bill, and which Ken Duberstein may or
may not be aware of. Briefly, the points are as follows:
1.
The Administration is prepared to begin negotiations by
next summer on a new long-term grain agreement with the
Soviet Union;
2.
The Durenberger language would remove any incentive for
the Soviets to negotiate such an agreement because it
would, in essence, allow them to enter into the U.S.
market at any time they find advantageous, through a
guaranteed contract, and disrupt the market to any
degree they choose via the size and timing of their
purchases;
3.
Thus, rejection of the contract sanctity provision would
operate to increase agricultural trade with the Soviet
Union in a way which is not disruptive to the U.S.
market by providing the Soviets an incentive to nego-
tiate a new long-term agreement.
The above agreement may be particularly useful with certain
conservative senators such as Lugar.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
8 Dec 1982
JAB
Ann Gorsuch told me in private
that she feels the President
would be making a real mistake
to try to make any revision
in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
She was sandbagged into backing
some modifications by the more
extreme views in CCNRE. Ann
would love to see the whole
idea killed by the WH.
for
this was in
confidence.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 8, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi in
SUBJECT:
Safe Drinking Water Act
This morning CCNRE discussed options regarding the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Going into the meeting some agencies,
including CEA and OPD, had supported an effective repeal
of the Act. Others had advocated major changes designed
to loosen standards and restrict the authority of the EPA
Administrator. EPA did not agree with Council sentiment
to modify the Act and worked to come up with a proposal
that was, from their standpoint, less disagreeable. In
the meantime, the OMB mark for EPA reportedly deleted all
money for enforcement of the Act.
The proposal EPA worked out, in conjunction with Phil Gramm,
would still greatly modify the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
biggest changes would be to set a standard of "no unacceptable
risk" (instead of "any adverse effect"), and a requirement that
any regulation undergo a cost-benefit analysis.
It is important to note, though, that any change in the Safe
Drinking Water Act would probably have little chance of
passage in Congress, and would be portrayed as an attempt to
"gut" or at least weaken the Act. I would anticipate that
the political effect would be uniformly bad, and it is at
least an even bet that private industry would leave us
hanging out there by ourselves (these changes were supposedly
first suggested by the water supply industry).
A memorandum with CCNRE's recommendation is being prepared
for the President. While the changes it suggests may be
desirable, they are not necessary, would have a slim chance
of passage, and would cause further political damage to the
President on the subject of the environment. I would recom-
mend that a decision be made not to pursue any changes in
the Safe Drinking Water Act. I would also suggest that the
Safe Drinking Water enforcement portion of EPA's budget be
examined very closely should it reach the Budget Review Board.
CC: Richard Darman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
8 December 1982
TO: JAB III
RE: Cabinet Meeting
Yesterday's Cabinet meeting was largely
an update session on issues you are
already aware of. Briefly:
1. Bill Verity briefed on the PSI
Report. It will recommend that Jay
Moorhead's office be continued, a
new Cabinet-level task force be
created, and that a private advisory
council be set up.
2. The President congratulated all
spokesmen for the campaign work they
did. He especially praised the VP,
saying "no one in that office has
ever done more".
3. The President briefly described
the Latin American trip.
4. Amb. Brock briefed on the GATT,
and summarized with the comment that
"the trading system may be gone if
political expediency (meaning the EC)
continues to be imposed on economic
questions. " The only other item was
that Jeane Kirkpatrick compared the
deterioration in GATT with that in
UNCTAD-- she says we need to start
using foreign aid based on who votes
with us in such forums. Ken Dam did
not respond.
DC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
JAB
Just wanted to let you know that I
called Jerry terHorst re his letter
to you. You had asked that I look
at it and somehow acknowledge it.
He had suggested that we hit the
dollar/yen problem a bit harder,
and I was able to point out how
we were doing so. I also men-
tioned the President's emphasis
for the past month on free trade
issues and the need for other nations
like Japan to reduce protectionist
barriers.
terHorst asked me to pass on to you
that Philip Caldwell, Ford Motors
chairman, was very pleased with the
President's recent, tougher statements
on the trade issue.
Lastly, I told terHorst you were
very appreciative of his letter, and
basically agreed with the sentiments
he expressed.