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
66328469
label
Cicconi Memos – January 1983-June 1983 (7)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
66328469
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Cicconi Memos – January 1983-June 1983 (7)
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
66328469
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
2966259ab933dc0c
ocrText
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection: Cicconi, James W.: Files
Archivist: dlb/bcb
File Folder: JW Coccini Memos, Jan - Jun 1983 [7 of 11]
Date: 2/18/98
Cicconi
OA 10793
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker, III re Reauthorization
4/5/83
P5
of Civil Rights Commission, 2p.
2. memo
The Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs to RR re
4/12/83
P5
Administration Position on the Reauthorization of the
Revenue Sharing Program (p.2 partial, p.3 whole),
2p.
3. memo
Working Group on Health Insurance for the
4/12/83
P5
Unemployed to Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs
re Administrative Position on Health Insurance for the
Unemployed (p.4 partial, p.5-6 whole), 3 p.
4. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker, III re Personnel
4/21/83
PS
Meeting, 1p.
us 10/18/00
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: JW Coccini Memos, Jan - Jun 1983 [7 of 11]
Date: 2/18/98
Cicconi
OA 10793 Box 2
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker, III re Reauthorization
4/5/83
P5
of Civil Rights Commission, 2p.
2. memo
The Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs to RR re
4/12/83
P5
Administration Position on the Reauthorization of the
Revenue Sharing Program (p.2 partial, p.3 whole),
2p.
3. memo
Working Group on Health Insurance for the
4/12/83
P5
Unemployed to Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs
re Administrative Position on Health Insurance for the
Unemployed (p.4 partial, p.5-6 whole), 3 p.
4. memo
JW Cicconi to James A.Baker, III re Personnel
4/21/83
P5
Meeting, 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 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-6 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
March 29, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
Ave
SUBJECT:
Forest Service Study Area Near Rancho del
Cielo
As you know, the Forest Service announced on March 15 that
it was studying six million acres of property for possible
future sale. We have since confirmed that one Forest
Service tract being studied is completely surrounded by
the President's ranch property, and that another tract
abuts his property.
A detailed map, forwarded by the Forest Service, is attached
at Tab 1.
The White House first learned on March 16 (the day after
the initial Forest Service announcement) that land near the
President's ranch might be included in the study area. This
resulted from a reporter's question at the Forest Service
press conference in San Francisco. When this information
reached the Property Review Board, Joshua Muss called Max
Peterson, the chief of the Forest Service, to ask about it.
Peterson said he did not know the accuracy of such information,
but would check. At this point, Muss also called Mike Baroody
to make him aware that the question had come up. Later on
March 16, Peterson called Muss back and confirmed that
property abutting the President's ranch was indeed included
in the study area. Muss relayed the information to Ed Harper
in a March 17 memo (Tab 2). At that time, however, the
Property Review Board did not have a clear picture of the
actual tracts involved since they had only been supplied
with large-scale maps. The detailed map attached to this
memo was forwarded by the Forest Service just last week, and
on their own initiative.
To the best of my knowledge, the White House received no
information in advance of the Forest Service announcement
that property near Rancho del Cielo would be included in the
study area. Further, to the best of my knowledge, the
President has not yet seen a detailed map of the tracts in
question.
Memorandum for James A. Baker, III
March 29, 1983
Page 2 of 2
As part of its intensive study of the six million acres of
forest land, the Forest Service will also evaluate public
and congressional reaction. They will then develop legis-
lation to allow the sale of tracts which are isolated or
inefficient to manage. It should be noted that the Forest
Service has no authority to sell tracts of land: such
authority can only come from the Congress.
CC: Fred Fielding
T.E.N.
10mg
4
3006
b
T.5N.
+
NUESTRA
SENORA
DEL
UGIO
of
-
f
to
OCL
YA
Map
p2of3 P2 of 3
FIGUEROA RECREATION AREA
Birebont
D
A
can
Ballard a
VISTA POINT
Hillow Spr
Figueroa
CUMBRE
Min
F"
PICNIC AHEA
Im
PINO AL TO
HATURE TEAIL
CATIYAY
THE
PICNIC AREN)
green is
EXIT
National Frush
FIGUEROA
STA
"
FIGUERDA
LIGH
land to bes Indied
="
!
D
Red is nanch
Goundary
Black line is study
avea boundary
white area IS
privately privately owned owned
F
G
H
R 30 W
DE
n"
McR
MARY
133
STUDY AREA
5
BOUNDARY
R314
30 W
30
P343
DOUNDA
X
Ranch Boundary N
Gaviola Omni
A
skodio Hings
of
Bald Mtn
OTip Top Ranch
12
Willes
7
0
S
INSIDE OF P A STUDY AREA
DJ RCE
S)
N
A
T
1800
Bruy
14
VABH 1531
24
worney.
U
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
March 17, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR ED HARPER
FROM:
JOSHUA MUSS John
SUBJECT:
FOREST
SERVICE
RANCHO DEL CIELO
The attached map indicates that the Forest Service
intends to further study forest property that abuts
the President's ranch in Santa Barbara County. We
learned this late yesterday and alerted the
Communications staff. The selection of this property
is consistent with the nationwide criteria established
and applied by the Forest Service.
After the regional press briefing in San Francisco
yesterday, Chronicle reporter Dale Champion pointed
out the location of the President's ranch to the
regional forester. He confirmed the location.
A story on Page 11 of today's Chronicle leads off
with "Wild Mountain Country Bordering President
Reagan's Santa Barbara County Ranch
is
part
of
6,000,000 acres the Administration is studying for
sale.
=
If the Forest Service gets some follow-up, I will
let you know. They told us today's phones were
ringing with calls from "buyers" around the country.
Attachment
CC: Mike Baroody
"
3005
CAÑADA
DE
Los
PINOS
Beath
{
S'
OR
Llon Oad
ARLOS
DE
JONATA
-
4
100
COLLEGE
RANCHO
2
=
-
i.
Heary
Sent
Yes
Valley
SAN
MARCOS - -
03
Yes
&
11
crea
246
YUNK
Phis
s
Alexander
}
F
Pk
Solvang
RIVER
TEQUEPIS
Lome
- Alle
Are
or
CACHUMA
THEIR
were
/
8:
RECREATION
NOV OQUI
-
AREA
\
LOMAS
DE
LA
PURIFICACION
CACHUMA
/
-
3006
01
I
Bahl Min
Santa
M"
NCE
A
Z
s
0
205
1.0
Brush PM
U"
if
Condo/Pt
10.0
ro
+:
154
0
of
I
CAÑADA
DEL
CORRA
&
to
101
&
cm
LOS
DOS
PUEBLOS
ULULO
LANE
a
di
COLETA
1111
LGuieta
Coal ON
STUDY AREA INSIDE
PL
Golder PL
USA
ECREATION AREA
BLACK LINE
P
/
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
March 18, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED FIELDING
FROM:
JOSHUA A. MUSS Jobrabuss
SUBJECT:
DEVELOPMENT OF (THE FOREST SERVICE
ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Attached are relevant documents which were the key
parts of the development of the Forest Service
Asset Management Program. This program is an
element in the property management initiative begun
by Executive Order 12348. The other two major
elements are the sale of surplus real property by
GSA and the sale of unneeded public land managed by
the Bureau of Land Management in accord with the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
The Forest Service developed an asset management
program which was presented to the Property Review
Board on August 7, 1982, by Secretary Block and
Assistant Secretary Crowell. Their working papers
are attached as Tab A. No legislative authority
exists to sell tracts that are isolated, or
inefficient to manage.
Attached as Tab B is the press and field information
package which was sent out immediately following the
Board meeting.
Attached as Tab C is a memorandum of November 19
from the Forest Service headquarters to their regional
offices setting out the criteria for the initial,
quick review of the 140 million acres which was placed
in the "study" category initially.
This quick review ended up identifying about
6 million acres which will be kept in the "study"
category for further, intensive study. The balance
of 134 million acres was placed by the Forest Service
in the "retention" category. The results of this
quick review was announced by regional Forest Service
personnel beginning on Tuesday, March 15. To identify
- 2 -
the lands still under study, some 300 different maps
were marked. Copies of the marked-up maps were
provided directly to Congress, and the Governors,
and made available to the general public at local
Forest Service sites throughout the country. One
complete set of maps is also at the Property
Review Board staff office.
Attached as Tab D is the background package
prepared by the Forest Service describing the results
of the quick review.
After evaluating public and Congressional reaction,
a legislative proposal to allow sale of selected
tracts is planned.
We have much more documentary material if you would
like to see it.
Attachments
Forest Alarm Bells Ring Too Soon
The announcement by the U.S. Department of
The service also says selection of the 6 million
Agriculture that it plans to ask Congress for
acres for study does not mean that all would be sold.
legislation that could lead to the possible sale of part
To the contrary, it believes that "intensive study
or all of 6 million acres in the National Forest
will rule out many of the tracts," and that objections
system has set the alarm bells ringing in the
from the states will eliminate many more.
environmental community. Gaylord Nelson, the
We have no objection to the study as long as the
head of the Wilderness Society, calls it "the opening
government sticks to the rules. The final decision on
salvo in an unprecedented assault" by the Reagan
selling or retaining the properties must be made by
Administration on the integrity of public lands.
Congress, and only after public hearings have been
We think that such judgments are premature.
held in the states. And those safeguards should
The lands in question, amounting to 3.2% of the
apply even to acreage that the Forest Service
National Forests, are in 39 states. Montana has the
describes as "excess to its needs and objectives," and
most acreage-872,054; California is second with
that it would like to sell without legislative
723,975.
approval.
The Forest Service insists that the tracts that
We agree that the record of the Reagan
might be put out to bid have no recreational or
Administration is not one that inspires trust in its
scenic importance. The service describes them as
pronouncements regarding public lands. But if the
"isolated parcels, lands in checkerboard ownership,
final say rests with Congress, which has shown
sites for community expansion and lands now under
commendable concern for the future of the National
special-use permit that are unlikely to be needed for
Forests, there is no reason an objective survey of
public purposes in the future."
potentially surplus lands should not be undertaken.
LOS ANGELES TIMES March 21, 1983
P10f3
1030 file
3/17
To: Deputy Chief Housley, WO
From: R5 - Kent Mays
Note: Please deliver immediately
to Ray Housley!
capito: Robertson Housing
cagics
T.6.N.
LIABLE
come
0)
3006
w
to
T.5N.
NUESTRA
SENORA
DEL
REFUGIO
I
OCL
VA
Map I
p2of3
3
FIGUEROA RECREATION AREA
Birebont
can
P A (
Ballard a
VISTA POINT
Willow Spr
Figueroa
CUMBRE
[THO]
PICNIC AHEA
Mtn
PINO AL TO
HATURE TPAIL
CATWA
M.W.WC AREA
PICNIC AREN
ENTO
FIGUEROA
STA
FIGUEROA
(THOI)
a
"-" =>
F
G
H
B 3 W
R 30 W
1321
R314
30W
P343
31
stip
or
Ranch Bounda
N
Gaviola Omei
A
piskedio Honge
S10
Tip K Top Ranch
Bald Mtn
THE
12
7
2300
0
S
P A
D
R
E
N
A
[-]
Spring
Buy
14
VABM 363
LIFER
TRAIL
N.F.
COST
Tondwar
ARY
24
UOLUEY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 29, 1983
NOTE TO THE FILE
The attached memo was shown to the
President early this afternoon by
Jim Baker. Ed Meese was also pres-
ent. (The President had asked JAB
about the subject this morning after
learning that an overview of PPB
activities was an item on today's
Cabinet agenda-- an item which,
in the end, was not covered).
Baker advised the President that
he should not discuss the matter
with anyone, and could not negot-
iate with the government for pur-
chase of the tract in question,
or for an exchange of property
involving the tract. Baker further
mentioned that Fielding was pre-
paring a more detailed memo on
the legal aspects of this matter.
JWC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 29, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
we
SUBJECT:
Forest Service Study Area Near Rancho del
Cielo
As you know, the Forest Service announced on March 15 that
it was studying six million acres of property for possible
future sale. We have since confirmed that one Forest
Service tract being studied is completely surrounded by
the President's ranch property, and that another tract
abuts his property.
A detailed map, forwarded by the Forest Service, is attached
at Tab 1.
The White House first learned on March 16 (the day after
the initial Forest Service announcement) that land near the
President's ranch might be included in the study area. This
resulted from a reporter's question at the Forest Service
press conference in San Francisco. When this information
reached the Property Review Board, Joshua Muss called Max
Peterson, the chief of the Forest Service, to ask about it.
Peterson said he did not know the accuracy of such information,
but would check. At this point, Muss also called Mike Baroody
to make him aware that the question had come up. Later on
March 16, Peterson called Muss back and confirmed that
property abutting the President's ranch was indeed included
in the study area. Muss relayed the information to Ed Harper
in a March 17 memo (Tab 2). At that time, however, the
Property Review Board did not have a clear picture of the
actual tracts involved since they had only been supplied
with large-scale maps. The detailed map attached to this
memo was forwarded by the Forest Service just last week, and
on their own initiative.
To the best of my knowledge, the White House received no
information in advance of the Forest Service announcement
that property near Rancho del Cielo would be included in the
study area. Further, to the best of my knowledge, the
President has not yet seen a detailed map of the tracts in
question.
Memorandum for James A. Baker, III
March 29, 1983
Page 2 of 2
As part of its intensive study of the six million acres of
forest land, the Forest Service will also evaluate public
and congressional reaction. They will then develop legis-
lation to allow the sale of tracts which are isolated or
inefficient to manage. It should be noted that the Forest
Service has no authority to sell tracts of land: such
authority can only come from the Congress.
CC: Fred Fielding
T.E.N.
40100
LOWS
3006
CAUCES
b
T.5N.
+
NUESTRA
SENORA
DEL
REFUGIO
of
I
calum
on
KA
Map I
p2of3
FIGUEROA RECREATION AREA
Birebont
can
P A
Dollard a
(
VISTA POINT
Willow Spr
Figueroa
CUMBRE
PICNIC AHEA
Mtn
F"
PINO AL TO
(i)
HATURE TRAIL
CATWAY
AREA
PICNIC ARC
SHIP
FIGUEROA
STA
FIGUEROA
(THOT)
F
G
H
R 30 #
1521
STUDY AREA
5
BOUNDARY
R314
MOEN
P343
Ranch Boundary N
Gavisia Omni
A'
kedio Honge
Ste
OTIP K Top Ranch
Bald Mtn
12
Yisle,
7
2.0C-
INS IDE OF STUDY AREA
0
S
P-A
D
R C E
N
A
T
1800
STATE
Beuy
14
VABM 353
LIFER
TRAIL
N.F.
24
voluey
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
March 17, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR ED HARPER
FROM:
JOSHUA MUSS
SUBJECT:
FOREST SERVICE STUDY AREA NEAR
RANCHO DEL CIELO
The attached map indicates that the Forest Service
intends to further study forest property that abuts
the President's ranch in Santa Barbara County. We
learned this late yesterday and alerted the
Communications staff. The selection of this property
is consistent with the nationwide criteria established
and applied by the Forest Service.
After the regional press briefing in San Francisco
yesterday, Chronicle reporter Dale Champion pointed
out the location of the President's ranch to the
regional forester. He confirmed the location.
A story on Page 11 of today's Chronicle leads off
with "Wild Mountain Country Bordering President
Reagan's Santa Barbara County Ranch is
part
of
6,000,000 acres the Administration is studying for
sale."
If the Forest Service gets some follow-up, I will
let you know. They told us today's phones were
ringing with calls from "buyers" around the country.
Attachment
CC: Mike Baroody
+
+
+
Hills
"
3005
CANADA
DE
Los
PINOS
OR
can
Don Ond
CARLOS
DE
JONATA
71
THE
COLLEGE
RANCHO
i
XOI
Happy
SAN
SLAS
MARCOS
Demands
Sent
You
Valley
-
Santa Yours
P,to
8
246
the
3
Alexander
3
can
F
Pk
Solvang
RIVER
TEQUEPIS
NEW
Loma
-
Alta
or CACHUMA
were
/
8:
e
-
YNEI
RECREATION
san
Date
AREA
NOW OQUI
LOMAS DE
LA
PURIFICACION
CACHUMA
Singe
anderd
3006
01
-
BakMen Bald
Santa
Your
M"
U.N
T
A
Z
$
10
Brush Pt
il
CondorPt.
(Mill
ra
t.
154
the
o
of
CAÑADA
DEL
CORRAL
&
Γ.
101
&
2
LOS
DOS
PUEBLOS
1
I
PULBLO
LAYOLETA
Louietal
Cost O4
STUDY AREA INSIDE
PL
Golate PL
RECREATION AREA
Black LINE
P
A
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi JUL ANC
SUBJECT:
Amendments to the Generalized System of
Preferences
According to the OMB Counsel's Office, the President has the
authority to strike the Peru and Zambia copper provisions in
the GSP amendments if he so chooses. Bill Brock, of course,
should have an opportunity to explain his point of view before
any final decision is made. The added factor of President
Kaunda's visit must also be weighed.
Several facts might be noted on the copper provisions. First
of all, the duty this would waive amounts to only 0.8%.
Second, we have the discretion to waive the duty because both
Zambian and Peruvian copper imports fell below $51 million last
year. (Between 1981 and 1982, Zambian emports fell from $80 million
to $19 million; Peruvian imports fell from $60 million to $12 mil-
lion.)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
JNC
SUBJECT:
Amendments to the Generalized System of
Preferences
According to the OMB Counsel's Office, the President has the
authority to strike the Peru and Zambia copper provisions in
the GSP amendments if he so chooses. Bill Brock, of course,
should have an opportunity to explain his point of view before
any final decision is made. The added factor of President
Kaunda's visit must also be weighed.
Several facts might be noted on the copper provisions. First
of all, the duty this would waive amounts to only 0.8%.
Second, we have the discretion to waive the duty because both
Zambian and Peruvian copper imports fell below $51 million last
year. (Between 1981 and 1982, Zambian imports fell from $80 million
to $19 million; Peruvian imports fell from $60 million to $12 mil-
lion.)
TALKING POINTS - EDWIN MEESE III
GSP FOR ZAMBIAN AND PERUVIAN COPPER
Issue
Ambassador Brock has recommended to the President that Zambia
and Peru be redesignated to GSP eligibility on unwrought copper
(TSUS 616.06). Domestic copper producers have expressed concern
about this recommendation in recent days, culminating in Senator
Dominici's call to the President asking for a reversal of the
recommendation.
USTR has spoken to Senator Dominici's staff, expressing Ambassador
Brock's assurance that USTR will initiate a review to consider the
removal of copper from GSP in the event an import surge were to
develop. The Senator's office indicated that this arrangement
was satisfactory and that Dominici would call the White House
shortly after 12:00 to withdraw his opposition to the redesigna-
tion of Peru and Zambia.
It is important that Peru and Zambia be redesignated to GSP
eligibility on copper for the following reasons:
The President has never denied GSP redesignation
to countries at SO low a level of development
as Zambia ($500 per capita GNP) and Peru ($930
per capita GNP) ;
Imports of copper from Zambia and Peru dropped
precipitously in 1982 (the combined total
dropped to $31 million, from $140 million in
1981);
Zambia and Peru account for only 8 percent of
total U.S. imports of unwrought copper;
The GSP margin of preference is extremely small,
with the MFN rate of duty less than one percent;
Ambassador Brock will grant assurances that
USTR will monitor imports of copper and will
initiate a review to consider removing the
item from the GSP if an import surge develops.
President Reagan is meeting with President Kaunda
of Zambia today March 30.
Therefore you should proceed to sign the
redesignation of PERU and ZAMBIA for GSP
elizibility Em
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1983
TO: JAB III
RE: Motorcycle Imports
Following a report by the ITC
that import relief is warranted,
USTR has recommended to the
President that he impose sharp
tariff increases on imported
heavy motorcycles. These will
start at 45% ad valorem, and
decline over the next 5 years.
In addition, USTR has also
recommended tariff-rate quotas
of
5,000 units for Germany
6,000 units for Japan
4,000 units from all others
The above quotas will also increase
each year over the next 5 years.
This import relief was requested
by Harley-Davidson, which has been
severely hurt by imports. They plan
to use the relief period to retool
their operation to become more
competitive. (Needless to say,
this would also be a "shot across
the bow" to the Japanese.)
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1983
TO: JAB III
RE: Student LOans
At yesterday's Cabinet meeting,
Secretary Bell mentioned that
he will soon send to all agencies
a printout of their employees
who still owe money on Guaranteed
Student Loans.
Under new provisions in the law,
the government can withhold up
to 25% of an employee's wages to
help pay off such loans.
Bell asked all Cabinet members
to cooperate in the effort.
(Weinberger said DOD was already
on top of the situation.)
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1983
TO: JAB III
FYI, the filing deadline in the
New Orleans Police "promotion
quota" case has been extended
until April 15.
You'll recall that this is the
case where EEOC was threatening
to file in opposition to Justice's
views. Meese is still trying to
work it out; also, Fielding is
now involved in the discussions,
and he and I have already talked
about the preferred method of
handling this problem.
JC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 5, 1983
TO: DICK DARMAN
RE: Clean Water Act
As I understand it, Ruckelshaus
does not have a problem with this
legislation going forward now
provided that Option I is chosen
(and that Options II and III are
rejected).
The memo does not make clear that
CCNRE not only favored Option I,
but vigorously objected to including
a BAT waiver or changes in 404.
As I recall, the only support for
Option II was from Niskanen, and
Option III was pushed only by the
Corps of Engineers.
Inclusion of a BAT waiver and changes
in 404 would cause this bill to be
portrayed as a "Dirty Water Bill".
Also, as I understand it, Howard
To : JAB III
Baker helped write current 404
provisions, and would strongly
TYI
oppose any change.
gc
Jim Cicconi
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 5, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
SUBJECT:
Reauthorization of Civil Rights Commission
As you know, the President has indicated his support for
reauthorization of the Civil Rights Commission. To accomplish
this, Mike Uhlmann and Mike Horowitz have drafted a proposed
Administration bill which would be introduced by Representa-
tive Sensenbrenner in time for tomorrow's House committee
hearing. Meanwhile, Representative Don Edwards has already
introduced his own version, and the Civil Rights Commission
has submitted its proposal to OMB for clearance.
Our current proposal differs from the others on three key
points:
1.
Length of Extension: Our current draft suggests a ten-
year extension, while the others opt for fifteen years.
We seem to have settled on ten years as a compromise
between previous, shorter extensions and the fifteen
years proposed by Edwards and the Commission. The legis-
lative tactics do not seem to have been considered. It
can be argued, though, that the fifteen to twenty-year
extension we are now considering would allow us to remove
the distinction between our bill and Edwards' version
on the point most susceptible to liberal demagoguery.
This will also allow us to focus on the other, more im-
portant policy points. A twenty-year extension would,
I feel, be the best because it would put us "one up" on
Edwards; further, it can be argued that more frequent
extensions have led, and will in the future lead, to
more powers for the Commission because of the civil rights
lobbying pressure (similar to what has happened over the
years with extensions of the Voting Rights Act).
2.
Terms of Office: We advocate staggered six-year terms
with the President retaining his power to replace members
at will. The Commission has suggested the same thing
except removal would be "for cause" only. Edwards is
preparing to add a provision on this issue that will no
doubt attempt to tie the President's hands on removal.
Memorandum for James A. Baker, III
April 5, 1983
Page 2 of 2
As I understand it, we are on defensible legal ground
here in arguing that the President's constitutional
authority as chief executive allows removal at will;
that authority might, however, be restricted if the
Commission's status as an executive branch agency is
altered.
3.
Subpoena Power: The Commission now has subpoena power
within a fifty-mile radius of its hearing location,
and our draft would make no change. The Commission
wants nationwide subpoena power, and Edwards may also
take that position. This is probably not as critical
an issue as it has been portrayed. The Commission has
recently shown it can apply its power to the entire
federal government, and it can conceivably apply it
anywhere in the nation by choice of hearing location.
Thus, it may make little difference if we concede the
point.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 11, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR PATSY SKIDMORE
FROM:
Aileen Anderson
AA
SUBJECT:
Correspondence Person
I will be out of the office Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday,
April 13, 14, and 15, and would like to get a correspondence
person for Jim Cicconi for typing and phone. In the event
that Jim's wife gives birth during any of those days (Jim
will leave to be with her), only the phone will need to be
covered.
Thank you for your help.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 11, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
yin
SUBJECT:
Issues Briefing Lunch
Two brief comments on items that will be raised at today's
lunch:
1. Civil Rights Commission: the only really critical issue
in this legislative battle will be the terms of office.
We are out in front on the extension issue by having de-
cided on twenty years. Also, despite what OPD's paper
implies, the subpoena power is not critical. We should,
of course be where we are, because it makes the Commission
prove the need for expanded powers; however, if necessary,
we can fold on this issue since the Commission's power to
subpoena is virtually nationwide now, anyway.
2. FmHA Loans: as I mentioned to you this morning, this is
a potential political disaster unless we resolve it soon.
OMB seems intent on not letting such a problem develop
again, but there is a premium on speed right now. Farmers
in 17 states are waiting to hear our decision, and many
could go broke if we wait too long. One other point--
failure to address this problem soon will give impetus to
FmHA bailout legislation which we strongly oppose as un-
necessary.
CC: Richard Darman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 11, 1983
TO: ED MEESE
MIKE DEAVER
DAVE GERGEN
JAB asked that I forward to you a
copy of the attached article from
the L.A. Herald Examiner. It was
given to him by the President.
Jim Cicconi
please
Ale memos
1
Monday, April 4, 1983. Los Angeles Herald Examiner A11
-
A man who
keeps his
promises
BEN
STEN
uppose that a man cam-
abroad by abandoning friends and
paigned for president on
embracing enemies, and turned
the following platform:
dreams into nightmares at home by
Rebuild America's de-
wrecking the currency.
fenses;
Honestly and truly, dear read-
Stop inflation;
ers, what president since Eisen-
Get government off the peo-
hower has basically kept all of his
ple's backs.
most important promises? Ronald
Suppose that man were elected
Reagan and only Ronald Reagan.
and within the first two years he
Alas, instead of the gratitude of
accomplished the following:
the citizenry, Ronald Reagan gets
Rebuilt America's defense
endless guff from uninformed and
readiness to the point where expe-
sometimes not very well-meaning
rienced military men felt that
people. Certainly, we are all free to
America was no longer helpless;
make fun of the president's idio-
Reduced inflation from 13
syncrasies and inconsistencies. Cer-
percent to about 3 percent;
tainly I enjoy doing it as much as
Drastically lowered govern-
the next guy. But at the end of the
ment interfèrence in the citizenry's
day, who else would have had the
lives by lowering taxes, cutting
courage to screw down the infla-
regulations and creating a climate
tion, even at the cost of real
of respect for private effort.
suffering, so that the nation would
Suppose, in other words, that
emerge stronger? Who else would
the president had basically
have been able to stand up to all
achieved his goals and had done
the whining about defense and
what he promised. Shouldn't we
demand that America defend it-
appreciate him? Shouldn't we feel
self? What other president would
thankful that we have a president
stand up and be counted about
wbo does what he tells us he will
where anger lies in the world, and
do?
would have had the serenity and
Well, of course we should, and
confidence to brave the mockery
of course we don't. That is a pity,
that resulted?
because Ronald Reagan is the first
When I look across the political
president since Dwight Eisenhower
landscape and see the debris which
to do what he promised he would
passes for leaders, I can hardly
do, and he gets very little credit for
believe we have a president who
it.
actually behaves like a leader,
First, look at the record of
believes in something and will
presidents and promises. Kennedy
fight for something.
promised to close the missile gap
This is a confused age. Grown
and to get America moving again.
men and women demand that free
He tragically died prematurely, of
countries turn over their freedoms
course, but he really accomplished
to dictatorships. Supposedly well-
precious little except for starting
educated men and women stand up
up the money machine. Lyndon
in Congress and say that by making
Johnson promised a war on pov-
ourselves weaker, we enlarge the
erty and victory in Vietnam. In-
chances for surviving the mortal
stead, we got inflation, a full-scale
struggle with people who hate us.
war in Asia and a large bureauc-
College presidents and bishops tell
racy stuffing their faces at the
their flocks that murder is some-
public trough. Richard Nixon
thing noble if it is done in the name
promised peace with honor in
of establishing despotism in Africa
Vietnam and full employment
or Latin America. Scientists an-
without inflation. Of course, Nixon
nounce that they will not use their
was hamstrung by his critics, but
talents and energy to defend their
be still fell far short of his goals.
country.
Gerald Ford was and is a fine
Businessmen beg for handouts
man, but he allowed the forced
for themselves and deny any obli-
metamorphosis of Southeast Asia
gation to the larger society. Media
into a vast prison camp, mocking
barons and baronesses refuse to
young America's sacrifice, and
understand the imperatives of his-
wrung his hands while his enemies
tory.
gutted the Defense Department
In a word, no one understands
and the CIA. As for Jimmy Carter,
that a free society is precious,
he purposefully disarmed America,
fragile, and needs nurturing and
kissed Brezhnev while Brezhnev
defense in a hostile world, except
was ordering the use of poison gas
for our president. I think we are
in Laos, and made the Federal
lucky to have him. I wish he could
Reserve create the worst inflation
receive the thanks he deserves, and
since the Civil War. After promis-
I suggest we all start to think about
ing a return to decency and
what our chances are if we get a
morality, Carter virtually de-
president in 1985 as confused as the
stroyed the credibility of America
America he will have to lead. A
clear-thinking leader can rescue a
dizzy society. A wandering country
Ben Stein writes a weekly column for
with a wandering leader has dark
the Herald.
days in store.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 12, 1983
TO: JAB III
RE: Judgeships
FYI, among the judges agreed on
at our last meeting was a woman
supported by Gov. Kean for a
NJ District Court bench. Also,
yesterday we announced a woman
nominated by Howard Baker for
a district bench in Tennessee.
Our intention to nominate Ricardo
Hinojosa to the S.D.-Texas judge-
ship was also announced yesterday.
Finally, we agreed on Steve Trimble
for a vacancy on the DC District
Court. Trimble is a conservative
vouched for by Fielding and DOJ,
but he is also a Democrat. Meese,
however, concurred in his selection
(I said nothing-- frankly we need
at least a couple Demos to make our
overall figures comparable to pre-
vious presidents).
JC
2:15
THE WHITE HOUSE
Today
WASHINGTON
April 14, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
Air
SUBJECT:
Today's CCEA Meeting with the President
The CCEA will meet with the President at 2:15 today to dis-
cuss two important issues: reauthorization of general rev-
enue sharing, and health insurance for the unemployed. I
would urge that you try to personally attend this meeting.
The issue is whether to opt for a five-year reauthorization
at existing levels (preferred by OMB), or go for a one-year
extension while pressing for adoption of a block grant prop-
osal for the remaining four years (preferred by Rich Williamson).
Rich argues that this may be the best shot we have at getting
this part of our Federalism initiative, and that without this
as a bargaining chip the whole effort may collapse. I have
asked that Rich give you a short note on his arguments before
the meeting.
OMB, in turn, argues that a five-year extension now will
relieve pressures to increase funding in future years, since
the extension would be at existing levels of funding.
Regarding the issue of health insurance for the unemployed,
the Cabinet Council will consider recommendations of its
working group on the subject. In short, they strongly oppose
creating any new entitlement, even if it is temporary. They
recommend that, if we must appear to be addressing the problem
(and I feel we must so appear), they suggest confining our-
selves to regulations designed to improve access by the unem-
ployed to continuation of whatever coverage they have while
working. Obviously, the considerations discussed the other
day in LSG should be brought to bear on consideration of the
issue today, though I'm not sure it is wise to do SO in the
meeting itself.
I made sure that Ed Rollins knew the health insurance issue
had been added to the agenda, and he said he would attend.
Papers on both the above issues are attached.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CABINET AFFAIRS STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 13, 1983
NUMBER: 118628CA
DUE BY:
SUBJECT: Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs with the President
April 14, 1983 2:15 P.M. Cabinet Room
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
ALL CABINET MEMBERS
Baker
Deaver
Vice President
State
Clark
Treasury
Darman (For WH Staffing)
Defense
Attorney General
Harper
Interior
Jenkins
Agriculture
Commerce
Labor
Q
HHS
HUD
Transportation
Energy
Education
Counsellor
OMB
CIA
UN
USTR
CCCT/Gunn
CCEA/Porter
CCFA/Boggs
CEA
CCHR/Carleson
CEQ
OSTP
CCLP/Uhlmann
CCMA/Bledsoe
CCNRE/Boggs
REMARKS: The President will chair a meeting of the Cabinet Council on
Economic Affairs Thursday, April 14, 1983 at 2:15 P.M. in the
Cabinet Room. Agenda and paper are attached.
AGENDA: Reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing CM 357
(paper attached)
RETURN TO:
Craig L. Fuller
Becky Norton Dunlop
Assistant to the President
Director, Office of
for Cabinet Affairs
Cabinet Affairs
456-2823
456-2800
CABINET COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
April 14, 1983
2:15 p.m.
Cabinet Room
AGENDA
1. Reauthorization of Revenue Sharing (CM#357)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 12, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
THE CABINET COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
SUBJECT:
Administration Position on the Reauthorization of
the Revenue Sharing Program
The current authorization for the $4.6 billion Revenue
Sharing Program expires at the end of FY 1983. The Congress is
pressing for the Administration's position on legislation reau-
thorizing the Program.
A five-year reauthorization is implicit in your Federalism
Initiative. However, it is virtually certain that the Congress
will reauthorize the Program before it completes its delibera-
tions on the Initiative. This suggests that the Administration
must either proceed with a five-year reauthorization before
Congress acts on the Initiative or propose a one-year reauthoriz-
ation and press the Congress to consider the longer-term future
of revenue sharing in the context of your overall Initiative.
Background
On February 24, the Administration transmitted legislation
providing for including the Revenue Sharing and Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) (Entitlement Portion) programs in
a Local Block Grant, one of the four block grants in your Feder-
alism Initiative. The Administration's bill would authorize the
new Block Grant for five years, with both programs funded
throughout the period at their current levels. The message
transmitting the legislation noted that "implicit in the
federal-local block grant is the assumption that revenue sharing
would be reauthorized for 5 years at the current funding level. "
Administration spokesmen have characterised the Administra-
tion's position as support for a five-year reauthorization of
Revenue Sharing at the current funding level "in the context of
the Federalism Initiative. 11
The current authorization for the CDBG Program, the other
element in the Local Block Grant, expires at the end of FY 1983.
HUD has already transmitted a bill to the Congress that would
reauthorize the Program for three years at the current funding
level.
-2-
The Treasury Department has drafted legislation that would
reauthorize the Revenue Sharing Program for five years at the
current funding level. Senator Heinz's Subcommittee of the
Senate Finance Committee and Representative Weiss' Subcommittee
of the House Government Operations Committee have held several
days of testimony on the nearly dozen reauthorization bills that
have been introduced in both Houses. Both chairmen have been
talking of moving to markup in April.
Given the pace of Congressional action on Revenue Sharing, it
is almost certain that the Program will be reauthorized before
consideration of your Federalism Initiative is completed.
Indeed, such consideration might be delayed until the next
session of the Congress.
Options
The Council has considered two basic options.
Option 1: Support a five-year reauthorization at current funding
levels.
Advantages
A five-year reauthorization would avoid opening a renewal
of general revenue sharing during 1984 and the potential
for congressional efforts to increase the funding level.
A chart describing alternative cost options that some in
the Congress might press for is attached at Tab A.
The Congress is virtually certain to reauthorize the
Program for at least three years. (Senator Dole observed
in a speech to local officials on March 6th that "Revenue
Sharing is the safest thing in town;" and Senator Duren-
berger has 69 cosponsors for a three-year reauthoriza-
tion.) The five-year option can help defuse Senator
Durenberger's other proposal (S.700), which would perman-
ently reauthorize revenue sharing and increase funding.
Many State and local officials and supporters of revenue
sharing in the Congress are suspicious of the Adminis-
tration's intentions with respect to the Program. Support
for a five-year reauthorization would allay those suspic-
ions. A proposal for a one-year reauthorization, in light
of the Administration's bill for a three-year reauthoriza-
tion of the CDBG Program, might be interpreted as a signal
that the Administration's professed commitment to both
programs is asymmetrical. It might well be interpreted as
indicating that the Administration will not support
Revenue Sharing if the Local Block Grant is not approved.
-3-
Option 2: Propose a one-year reauthorization that would keep the
program alive while Congress considers the Local Block
Grant.
Advantages
A one-year reauthorization would provide time for serious
consideration of the Local Block Grant proposal, which is
not likely to occur until late in the current session or
next year, without risking expiration of the Revenue
Sharing Program before that debate is concluded. If a
one-year extension could be enacted, it would preserve the
Administration's option to oppose a further reauthoriza-
tion of Revenue Sharing if the Local Block Grant were not
enacted.
The Federalism Initiative has not received a notably
enthusiastic reception on the Hill. Support for the
reuthorization of Revenue Sharing is strong in the
Congress and Administration support for a five-year
extension of the Program could result in a reauthorization
without serious attention being given to the Block Grant
proposal.
Local officials have largely ignored the Federalism
proposals in favor of reauthorizing Revenue Sharing. A
proposal for a one-year reauthorization of Revenue Sharing
would demonstrate that the Administration intends to take
the Initiative seriously -- that its support for the
reauthorization of Revenue Sharing is contingent upon
enactment of the Local Block Grant, and that it is
prepared to deal with the controversy that such a strategy
would provoke.
Decision
Option 1
Support a five-year reauthorization at
current funding levels.
Supported by: Treasury, OMB, CEA, OPD,
Commerce, Labor, HUD, USDA, Interior, State
Option 2
Propose a one-year reauthorization that
would keep the program alive while Congress
considers the Local Block Grant.
Supported by: Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs, USTR
NIR
Donald T. Regan
Chairman Pro Tempore
April 11, 1983
General Revenue Sharing Renewal Alternative Cost Options
(Budget Authority, $ in billions)
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Total
I.
Extension at current dollar level
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
23.0
II. Extension at real dollar maintenance
(Real 1983 dollar level GNP deflator)
Cost
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
26.4
Difference with I
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.2
3.4
III. Extension indexed to 1983 share of
individual income tax (1.6%)
Cost
4.7
5.3
6.0
6.5
7.4
29.9
Difference with I
0.1
0.7
1.4
1.9
2.8
6.9
IV. Extension including state share at
real dollar maintenance (Real 1983
dollar level of $6.9 billion--GNP
deflator)
Cost
7.2
7.5
7.9
8.3
8.7
39.6
Difference with I
2.6
2.9
3.3
3.7
4.1
16.6
V. Durenberger Proposal
Cost
11.8
13.2
14.9
16.4
18.4
74.7
Tax Expenditure Offset
0.7
4.8
4.1
4.4
4.8
18.8
Net Cost
11.1
8.4
10.8
12.0
13.6
55.9
Difference with I
6.5
3.8
6.2
7.4
9.0
32.9
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CABINET AFFAIRS STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 13, 1983
NUMBER: 118628CA
DUE BY:
SUBJECT: Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs with the President
Thursday, April 14, 1983 2:15 P.M. ROOSEVELT ROOM
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
ALL CABINET MEMBERS
Baker
Vice President
Deaver
State
Clark
Treasury
Darman (For WH Staffing)
Defense
Attorney General
Harper
Interior
Jenkins
Agriculture
Commerce
is
Labor
HHS
HUD
Transportation
Energy
à
Education
Counsellor
N
OMB
NJ
CIA
UN
USTR
CCCT/Gunn
CCEA/Porter
CCFA/Boggs
CEA
CCHR/Carleson
CEQ
OSTP
CCLP/Uhlmann
CCMA/Bledsoe
CCNRE/Boggs
REMARKS: As previously announced, the President will chair a meeting
of the Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs Thursday, April 14, 1983.
The meeting will be held in the Roosevelt Room, not in the Cabinet
Room as previously announced.
Revised Agenda and paper are attached.
AGENDA: General Revenue Sharing
CM # 357 paper distributed
April 13, 1983
Health Insurance for the Unemployed
paper attached
RETURN TO:
Craig L. Fuller
Becky Norton Dunlop
Assistant to the President
Director, Office of
for Cabinet Affairs
Cabinet Affairs
456-2823
456-2800
CABINET COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
April 14, 1983
2:15 p.m.
Roosevelt Room
AGENDA
1. General Revenue Sharing (CM#357)
2. Health Insurance for the Unemployed
April 12, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR: Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs
FROM:
Working Group on Health Insurance for the
Unemployed
SUBJECT:
Administration Position on Health Insurance for
the Unemployed
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
Congress is considering a number of proposals to finance health
insurance for the unemployed. During the debate on the Social
Security bill, Senator Dole offered an amendment for Federal
payments of $1.8 billion for the period June 1, 1983-June 1, 1985
to States establishing programs to cover the unemployed. Dole
agreed to withdraw his amendment in return for the
Administration's commitment to make a good faith effort to
determine if there were a relatively low cost proposal for health
insurance for the unemployed that it could support. This
memorandum presents the Cabinet Council with the results of the
Working Group's study of this issue.
THE PROBLEM
Even in good economic times, substantial numbers of people--
perhaps 30 million--lack health insurance coverage. This reflects
the fact that some employers do not provide it or that many of the
unemployed are unable or unwilling to purchase coverage on their
own. This includes:
-- those who are employed, but lack health insurance;
-- those unemployed, receiving UI, who never had employer-based
health coverage;
-- those long-term unemployed whose health insurance, if any,
and UI have ceased; and
-- a narrower group of relatively short-term unemployed
receiving UI who have lost employer-based health insurance.
Establishing coverage for everyone, i.e., national health
insurance, would be extremely costly and inconsistent with
Administration philosophy.
In the fourth quarter of FY83, the unemployed are estimated at
11.1 million, of whom 3.7 million are estimated to be receiving
UI; of this group, an estimated 2.8 million had employer-based
health insurance.
The length and depth of the recession has focused public and
Congressional Republican attention on the narrower uninsured
group, i.e., those who received UI and lost employment-based
health insurance as a result of involuntary unemployment. These
unemployed workers can be exposed to significant short-term
financial risks if they are unable to replace employment-based
health insurance with other coverage or if they are not reemployed
before extended employer health benefits expire. Health insurance
linked to the temporary nature of unemployment reflects the
changing nature of compensation to include health insurance and
would be consistent with the partial replacement of compensation
inherent in UI.
In his press conference of April 6, the President stated:
"
several states already, have taken it upon themselves to
resolve this problem, and we're looking at that and where the
federal government can cooperate on that.
"Also, there has been a movement on the part of the private
sector -- doctors and hospitals, to get together and provide
medical care for the unemployed.
"Now, there's a limit to how much or how far they can go
without help and we're going to look at that for where we can
cooperate with them in that. But we're certainly not going
to stand by and see that people, because of the misfortune of
unemployment, are going to be denied necessary medical care.
So we will find an answer to that.
"
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS--Inventory of Possibilities
Regulatory. A regulatory approach could be accomplished through
direct Federal intervention in State health insurance regulation
of employer plans, a Federal mandate of State health insurance
regulations, or Federal tax incentives. Alternative regulatory
approaches include mandatory:
conversion options. Employers could be required to include a
conversion option in health insurance plans for those who
become unemployed. Most plans have conversion options at
individual rates. Conversion could be mandated at either the
group rate obtained during employment or at individual plan
rates. Conversion plans are required in 11 States.
continuation of coverage. Employer plans could be required
to offer continuation of the current health insurance benefit
package to those becoming involuntarily unemployed for a
specified period of time. An estimated 80% of the health
insurance plans provide the unemployed continuation coverage
through end of the month in which they become unemployed.
Continuation requirements have been mandated in 12 States.
-- spouse open enrollment. Employers of those whose spouses/
dependents became unemployed and lost employment-based health
insurance coverage could be required to provide an open
enrollment period during which a family plan could be
elected. Such elections by the employed spouse could be
required. An estimated 40% of UI recipients have working
spouses.
-- catastrophic coverage. Employers offering health insurance
could be required to provide catastrophic health insurance
coverage to employees who become involuntarily unemployed.
New Federal Entitlements. Perhaps the opposite extreme of the
regulatory approach would be a new Federal entitlement program for
the unemployed. Various proposals being discussed in Congress are
characterized by their reliance on large, if not total, Federal
financing and/or administration and standard-setting. The
President has publicly indicated his opposition to such
approaches.
-- Riegle (S.307), Walgren (H:R. 1823) would require the
establishment of reinsurance pools in each State to make
health benefits available to unemployed workers and their
dependents. Before either a State sponsored, private or
Federal reinsurance pool is established in a State,
unemployed workers would be able to purchase Medicare
coverage.
Dole (S.951) would fund a temporary two year program
providing hospital and physician coverage through Title XX.
Federal costs would be authorized at $1.8 billion over two
years. Federal matching would be set at 80% and 95%
depending on unemployment rate. All regular EB and FSC
unemployment insurance beneficiaries would be eligible.
-- Heinz (S.811) would fund block grants to States for health
insurance or health care benefits to unemployed workers.
Federal costs would be authorized at $3 billion over three
years.
-- Durenburger is considering a proposal that would link the
revenues from the tax cap to financing health insurance for
the unemployed.
Waxman (to be introduced) would fund State Medicaid agency
administration of a health insurance program for unemployed
workers tied to UI eligibility at approximately the S2.7
billion 1984 expenditure figure in the House Budget
Resolution.
Federal Leverage/ State Actions. More States could be given
incentives, e.g., through a special, Federal tax to adopt a
program that makes available health insurance for the unemployed.
States and employers could be responsible for all elements of the
program. A Federal role could be confined to developing minimum
standards and designing an appropriate incentive system, possibly
including tax deductions for Federally qualified plans, tax
penalties, and limited Federal transition funding.
Elements of a State program that could qualify under a Federal
incentive system could include:
-- conversion options. States could mandate that employer-based
health insurance plans provide a çonversion option for those
becoming unemployed.
continuation of coverage. States could mandate that plans
continue health coverage for a period of time. This approach
could allow States to specify continuation of current
benefits, or at a minimum, catastrophic coverage.
spouse open enrollment. States could mandate that plans
allow an open enrollment period for conversion to family
plans if one spouse loses health insurance by reason of
involuntary unemployment, and/or a re-enrollment option of
the other spouse securing this benefit.
linkage of health insurance for the unemployed and
unemployment compensation. States could mandate that
eligibility for unemployed health insurance benefits be
linked to States' unemployment compensation programs.
insurance pools. States could establish, or require carriers
to establish, insurance pools financed by State payroll or
other taxes or health insurance industry premiums.
Rely on States and Private Employers. All of the foregoing can,
of course, be done without Federal action. To date, 23 States
have taken steps to assure health insurance coverage. Moreover,
virtually all employment-based health insurance permits conversion
at individual plans.
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
No federally mandated coverage is cost-free. Even pure regulatory
solutions will impose some expense on the private sector due to
expansion of the insured risk pool.
The Impossibility of Containing a Federally-Financed System. The
Working Group, as part of its deliberations, considered a draft
proposal to establish a State-financed entitlement system modeled
on the unemployment insurance system, to provide minimal
"catastrophic" insurance coverage to those on unemployment
insurance who had previously had employer-financed health
coverage.
A FUTA-like penalty tax would have been established to encourage
States to establish systems to provide such coverage. Federal
"bridge" financing would have been provided July 1 to December 31,
1983, at an OMB estimated cost to the Federal Government of S532
million. This relatively low cost figure, however, resulted from
the unrealistically stringent criteria--from a political
perspective--applied to both eligibility and benefits.
It became clear to the Working Group, however, that this proposal
could not be feasibly contained at this level during the
legislative process. This was due to:
-- Huge Universe of Potential Claimants. As noted earlier, the
target eligibility group would have comprised only one
quarter of the unemployed without health insurance. This
restrictive definition of eligibility would have been
impossible to hold during Congressional deliberations.
Dropping the "prior employer coverage" criterion, for
example, would expand eligibility by 33%, Dropping the "UI
eligible" criterion could double or triple program costs.
-- Restrictive Benefit Package. Restricting the health care
package to "catastrophic only" is the only way to hold costs
down. Yet the Congress would inevitably sweeten the benefit
package past affordable levels. The package considered by
the Working Group provided coverage (other than for emergency
care and maternity benefits) only after the unemployed family
had paid $1,500 out-of-pocket. Simply dropping this
threshold down to $500 -- even without adding in other
benefits -- would increase costs by at least 120%. Providing
coverage equivalent to average employer coverage, on the
other hand, could raise program costs per beneficiary from
S22 per month to S115 per month -- a 410% increase in program
costs.
Short Start-Up Time. The Working Group study package assumed
that States could start up systems by July 1, 1983, and that
only six months of Federal bridge financing would be
necessary. In reality, the vagaries of State legislative
session scheduling and the administrative start-up time
needed implies continued Federal participation -- if not
outright Federal operation -- for as long as two years. Such
an extension would undoubtedly triple or quadruple Federal
cost exposure.
Persistent Unemployment. Even if all of these objections
could be met, persistent high unemployment would create heavy
pressure for a continuing Federal financing presence. Even
under the revised April economic forecast, the number of
unemployed will not fall below .9 million before 1987. In
this environment, given the poor fiscal posture of the
States, political reality would dictate a continuing Federal
stake.
A Policy/Political Ouagmire
In all, once the decision is made to inject direct Federal
financing into a program of health insurance for the unemployed,
there is absolutely no prospect of keeping the commitment limited
or temporary.
WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION
The Working Group strongly recommends that the Administration
oppose all efforts to create any new entitlement at any level of
Government even if only temporary Federal financial support is
implied.
If it is necessary to put forward proposed solutions in the
present legislative environment, however, the Working Group
recommends that the Administration restrict its consideration to
regulatory efforts designed to improve the access of the
unemployed to continued health insurance coverage. A universe of
options that the Working Group believes can be considered
includes:
-- continuation/conversion alternatives. Employers could be
required to offer continuation of health coverage or
conversion to individual coverage to be financed by
unemployed workers. Sub-options include requiring employers
to offer:
continuation or conversion of existing plans at group
rates;
continuation or conversion of existing plans at individual
rates; or
a major medical plan at special rates.
spouse open enrollment alternatives. Employers could be
required to offer their family plan coverage to spouses. of
unemployed workers. This requirement could be:
limited to spouses who already have single coverage; or
broadened to allow spouses that option whether or not they
had elected coverage previously.
Tax Qualification. To give employers an incentive to offer
extended coverage and spouse open enrollment, Federal tax
deductions for employer-paid health insurance premiums would be
limited to plans that include those provisions.
Reach Back. For the "reach back" group of unemployed workers,
i.e., those unemployed before the effective date, similar options
would have to be offered by employers for unemployed workers
receiving UI who were previously covered by employer-based health
insurance plans. Individuals in the "reach back" group would be
responsible for identifying themselves to, and obtaining coverage
from, their former employers.
ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL ANNUAL COST EXPOSURE
(billions of dollars)
Population Eligibility
Type of Coverage
Previous Coverage
All UI
All Unemployed
All Uncovered
Catastrophic Benefits
1
1
(1) $1,500 Deductible
$1.1
$2.6
$6.2
$6.5
1
(2)
$500 Deductible
2.4
5.7 1
13.6
14.3
2
Comprehensive Coverage
(3) Average Employer Plan
2.2
5.2
12.4
13.0
(4) High Option Plan
3.5
8.3
19.8
20.8
1/ Estimate includes cost of covering those who exhausted benefits prior to July 1, 1983.
2/ Estimate does not include benefits for those ineligible after July 1, 1983.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 18, 1983
TO: JAB III
FYI, I took calls to you from both
Sen. Gorton and Cong. Sid Morrison.
Both were hot about the proposed
change in marketing orders policy.
Morrison said that he would be
especially hard hit by it in his
district.
I have explored with Joe Wright
the possibility of "stretching
out" the changes proposed by OMB.
Instead of an abrupt end next year,
there would be a more gradual,
scheduled phase-out. It would
accomplish our policy objective,
and might be more saleable.
(Sen. Corton's main objection, he
said, was the abruptness of the
cut-off, and not the cut-off itself.)
Will keep you posted if you wish.
Plastayan
JC
top f w/ these 2 Congressmen.
talk again w/ Joe wright of DeMur
of JC mis)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 20, 1983
Jim Cicconi
I appreciate your original note regarding
our nominee for the INTELSAT position
and your more recent followup (attached).
I have talked to Larry Eagleburger who
shared your concern. He has now been in
touch with Bill Schneider (who handles
it at State) and has been assured that
Bill will get behind our candidate and
get it done. I will keep in touch.
Bud
Bud
CC: Ken Cribb
MEMORANDUM
4-18-83 fai
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 18, 1983
TO:
BUD McFARLANE
FROM:
JIM CICCONI
June
SUBJECT:
Intelsat
As an addendum to the memo Ken Cribb and I sent last week on Intelsat, I
wanted to let you know that we have since gotten a call from Ward White,
chief staffer of the Senate Commerce Committee. He expressed concern
about State's handling of the Intelsat election, and cited some specific
examples. White seems to feel that, in general, the issue is being
given a low priority and is being handled at too low a level.
There is also a rumor, though nothing concrete, that the Committee is
considering oversight hearings on this issue.
CC: Ken Cribb
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
5 May 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR BUD MCFARLANE
FROM:
KENNETH CRIBB, JR. Ken
The attached is for your further infor-
mation concerning allegations that the
State Department failed to act on
behalf of the U.S. candidate for
director general of INTELSAT.
CC: Jim Cicconi
AA file Intelsat. w/ memos
pl to Bud re
Thank
ye
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20554
May 4, 1983
OF
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
Mr. William Schneider, Jr.
Under Secretary of State for Security,
Assistance, Science and Technology
Department of State
Room 7208
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Secretary Schneider:
I would like to commend you for the efforts you personally
undertook in April to meet with representatives of the Embassies
of Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Norway,
and Denmark on behalf of Mr. Richard Colino in his effort to be
elected director general of INTELSAT.
Your efforts here in Washington, however, have not been
duplicated by American Embassies abroad, with rather grave
implications for Mr. Colino's nomination. I have been informed
of the following developments on this score.
1. On April 26, Ms. Andrea Malater, on behalf of our
INTELSAT representative, COMSAT, told Mr. William Salmon of the
Department that timing of Department efforts will be critical to
Mr. Colino's election. In particular, contacts from U.S.
Ambassadors in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway,
Switzerland, and Austria to their nations will be crucial to
electing a U.S. candidate. These countries were singled out
based on information obtained during the Bangkok meeting of
INTELSAT. Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg as well as
Norway are leaning in favor of the U.S. candidate. Switzerland
and Austria, COMSAT believed, can be persuaded to support a U.S.
candidate.
2. Later that day, Ms. Maleter informed Mr. Salmon that Dr.
McLucas of COMSAT had visited the American Embassy in Japan and
was told that the U.S. Ambassador had not as yet made an approach
to the Japanese foreign ministry. This nation too is critical to
securing the election of a U.S. chairman.
3. After months of requests, Ambassadors at U.S. Embassies
in key Arab countries, including Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and the
United Arab Emirites (all of which maintain a seat on the board
of INTELSAT) had not as yet contacted their host governments.
Such contacts, COMSAT believes, are critical.
Mr. William Schneider, Jr.
2
4. COMSAT's request for messages to be sent to the U.S.
Embassies in Argentina and Chile have gone unanswered.
5. No responses from U.S. Embassies in Mexico and Spain to
make contact at the highest level on an immediate basis have been
received. I have been informed that COMSAT gave to Mr. Salmon
the name of the appropriate official to be contacted at the
Spanish foreign ministry on this score.
6. No follow-ups by the Department to U.S. Embassies in
Peru and Columbia have been made, this despite receipt of
information by those Embassies of negative trends concerning
election of a U.S. director general.
Two other examples sum up the state of affairs. COMSAT was
informed by Mr. Salmon that the United Kingdom, our close ally,
has not been contacted on this issue as yet by the Department of
State. The explanation was that the Department has not figured
out its "strategy" yet. Mr. Salmon further informed COMSAT that
he has no knowledge of any Department plans to take the matter up
with Prime Minister Thatcher or her delegation during her visit to
Williamsburg later this month. This oversight is unacceptable.
In Brazil, the situation is as bad. The U.S. Embassy failed
to send its Ambassador to visit the Minister of Foreign Affairs
in a timely way. Instead, the scientific attache was sent to visit
the personal assistant to the Minister for Communications. But
this very Minister, I am informed, has been behind Brazil's
support of a Canadian candidate. Rather than instructing the
Ambassador to call on the President of Brazil or the Brazilian
Foreign Minister weeks ago as had been suggested, your
Department, by sending the scientific attache to visit the
Communications Minister's office, may have made it harder to turn
Brazil around on this question.
The situation is perilous. It is urgent that we move
rapidly. The information contained in this letter is current up
until April 29; there may be developments beyond those contained
in this letter.
I know that you are in the eye of the storm in matters
relating to Central America. In comparison, the election of a
U.S. representative as director general of INTELSAT may seem
minor. But its long-range impact cannot be underestimated. I
hope you will be able personally to see to it that the right
individual is assigned to this issue and that the Department
undertake an immediate review to insure all appropriate actions
necessary to enhance the election of Mr. Colino.
Mr. William Schneider, Jr.
3
I will be happy to assist in any way I can. Time is short
and the need is great.
Sincerely,
Mark Mark S. Fowler
Chairman
THE WHITE HOUSE
Bake + Jaxaht
WASHINGTON
wearby.
April 20, 1983
JC-UFW
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
+MB
hum
details
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
fin
Done
SUBJECT:
Helen Marie Taylor
ge
As you know, Helen Marie Taylor's nomination to the Board of
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been held up by
Sen. Barry Goldwater. To date, all efforts to persuade the
Senator to release her nomination have failed.
Pressure from conservative groups has not moved the Senator,
and he has consistently refused to see Mrs. Taylor. After
the President's recent meeting with Jerry Falwell, Ken Duber-
stein called Sen. Goldwater, again to no avail. (This was in
addition to our other, repeated legislative contacts.) We
also asked if Sen. Goldwater would be willing to speak with
Mrs. Taylor if she was accompanied by Senators Warner and Trible,
and former Senator Harry Byrd; Goldwater apparently said he did
not care what kind of delegation was sent, he still would not
meet with her. As a footnote to this particular effort, Senator
Warner talked with Mrs. Taylor and reported that she spoke of
Senator Goldwater in such intemperate terms that he would not
consider taking her in to see Goldwater.
Our efforts on this are clearly going nowhere. Unless Senator
Goldwater can be persuaded-- perhaps through a call from the
President-- we will be forced to consider withdrawing Mrs. Tay-
lor's nomination. Given Mrs. Taylor's long record of support
for the President, and her standing among conservatives, he
may want to make such a call in one last attempt to salvage her
nomination.
If such a call fails, Personnel would, of course, make every
effort to find a comparable position for Mrs. Taylor-- and one
that would not have to go through Sen. Goldwater's subcommittee.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 21, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
Personnel Am Meeting
SUBJECT:
1.
Reminder that you wanted to stress importance of placing
Henry Zuniga in a job soon. We are getting lots of
heat from Hispanics and Tower's office. I asked Per-
sonnel to coordinate a series of interviews after sit-
ting down with Henry, and now understand that Joe Ryan
is helping Henry re a job at Commerce.
2.
Re Charles Cox, who has been OK'd for the SEC, I have
heard that Jake Garn just stated that he felt Cox's
nomination would be "another Adelman." This is very
surprising coming from Garn, and we may want to check
it further. Cox apparently has written and spoken a
lot on the subject of securities regulation, and the
general theme seems to be that securities regs should
be greatly loosened. I assume we have taken a close
look at his record, but if we have not, suggest that
we should go into this with our eyes open and not just
in reliance on John Shad's recommendation.
FYI, Faith Whittlesey has some background in this area,
and also has strong feelings on this.
3.
As you know, former Congressman Paul Findley is under
consideration for BIFAD, a board dealing with inter-
national agriculture in conjunction with A.I.D. Bob
Michel and others are supporting Findley; however (as
I understand it), Mike Gale has argued that Findley's
appointment would greatly upset the Jewish community
due to his past support for a Palestinian homeland, and
for what is perceived as a generally pro-Arab attitude.
BIFAD is a part-time, low-level, low visibility board
which Findley helped create when he was in Congress.
We have a general commitment to help defeated Republi-
cans, and it is hard to see how such a minor appointment
can cause an uproar in the Jewish community. To make
certain, though, I would hope someone would check with
David Brody (B'nai B'rith) and Tom Dyne (American-Israeli
PAC) and assess the degree of opposition before deciding
against Findley.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 22, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR DENNIS PATRICK
FROM:
Jim Cicconi
it
SUBJECT:
Jeff Wentworth
It is my understanding that Jeff Wentworth has expressed an
interest in an Administration position. Jeff is an attorney
and served for years as the only Republican on the Bexar
County (San Antonio) Commissioners' Court. He resigned to
run for Congress against Chick Kazen in 1982 and, in a very
difficult district, gave Kazen the toughest reelection fight
he's had for many years.
Jeff would be a real asset to the Administration, and I am
sure his appointment to some position would be well-received
among Republicans in South Texas.
Thanks for your consideration.