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
66328557
label
[Memos – Office of Legislative Affairs]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
66328557
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
[Memos – Office of Legislative Affairs]
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
66328557
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
58e789256834833d
ocrText
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 22, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES BAKER
ED MEESE
MIKE DEAVER
DAVE STOCKMAN
DICK DARMAN
THRU:
M. B. OGLESBY, JR.
FROM:
DENNIS THOMAS
SUBJECT:
Attached Letter
Although you may have seen this, the attached letter is
forwarded for your consideration. It gives some indication
of the approach the Democrats will take on the deficit issue.
Please note that Gillis Long (D-LA) is Democratic Caucus
Chairman, Tony Coelho (D-CA) is Democratic Campaign Committee
Chairman and Bruce Morrison (D-CT) is Freshman Class President.
Congress of the United States
Souse of Representatives
Mashington, D.C. 20515
December 21, 1983
192796
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
Towering budget deficits throughout the rest of this
decade represent an urgent, grave threat to America's
future economic strength and security.
We know you must agree. In your Inaugural Address,
you told the American people: "For decades we have piled
deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's
future for the temporary convenience of the present. To
continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social,
cultural, political and economic upheavals."
Unfortunately, in the first two years after your economic
program was enacted, that trend accelerated. In fiscal 1982,
the annual deficit reached a record $111 billion; in fiscal
1983, it reached a staggering $194 billion.
Last month, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
reported that unless economic policies are changed, by 1988,
the deficit will skyrocket to $250 billion a year. That's
$250 billion a year in unpaid bills, to use your words, "for
the temporary convenience of the present" that we will be
passing on to our children and grandchildren. What kind of
America can they hope for, saddled with such staggering debt?
Whether we tackle the deficit will tell much about our
national character -- about what kind of a people we are and
what kind we want to be. To finance our consumption today,
are we really willing to see our hungry go unfed tomorrow, our
children undereducated, our sick inadequately treated, and our
elderly unprotected because our national government -- the
force for the common interest in our society -- must devote
so many of its resources to paying interest on our debts?
Is that what the promise of America has come to?
Mr. President, we are disappointed by your apparent
willingness to look the other way while the deficit danger
escalates. We were surprised at White House efforts to
rein in your chief economic advisor when he spoke of the
urgency and enormity of the deficit crisis. We expect more
from you given your often expressed dedication to the principle
of fiscal prudence.
-2-
We need to work together to achieve meaningful deficit
reduction. For the past two years, both Houses of the Congress
have rejected the budget plans recommended by the Administration.
For the current fiscal year, Congress has passed a bi-partisan
budget that would put our nation on a realistic deficit
reduction course. But that bi-partisan deficit reduction
plan has not yet been enacted because you want to follow a
different course.
Our nation simply cannot afford another year of inaction
on deficit reduction because the Congress -- the Democratic
House and the Republican Senate -- wants to pursue one plan
and you want to pursue another. If there is no compromise,
the stalemate will continue. To avoid that outcome, we urge
you to initiate and participate in a bi-partisan effort to
reduce the deficit -- whether at a budget summit conference
or through a bi-partisan commission, jointly appointed by you
and the Congressional Leadership. The goal of such an effort
should be to come up with a proposal for putting our nation
on a deficit reduction course that all parties can accept.
We want to work with you to solve the budget crisis. But
you have to work with us.
Last month, when the House voted, 214-186, to grant your
request to increase the debt ceiling, all of us went along,
despite our misgivings about the mounting deficit. Next
April it will be necessary again to raise the debt ceiling.
Unless, in the interim, you initiate and participate in a
good faith, bi-partisan effort to solve the deficit crisis and
make it clear you are willing to do whatever is necessary --
including limiting spending for the military and for entitlements
and increasing revenue -- to reduce the deficit steadily, we
stand ready to reassess our position on the debt ceiling vote
and to urge our colleagues, on both sides of the. aisle, to do
the same.
The time for political posturing has passed. The time
for a bi-partisan response to a mounting national crisis is
at hand. In the days ahead we will propose to the leaders of
our party some stern, detailed measures to deal with the
deficit. But, as the minority in the national government,
Democrats, alone cannot stop the deficit if you resist. We
need your help and your involvement. We hope you will
provide it.
With very best wishes for a happy holiday season,
Rechard a. Submit
Sincerely, Gillis Long
Richard A. Gephardt
-3-
Tondie IV Heippo
MartinO. Gabo
RonniesG. Flippo
Martin Olav Sabo
Les Aspin
Tom Downey
1 And
Yases
Charles Schumer
Barbara Boxer
T- T Coclho
holdwine
Tony Coelho
Mel
Levine
Matthew McHugh
Dan Dan Glickman Jolickence
Since P. Morrison
Bruce Morrison
Steny Hoyer
Gander Sander Levin M. Lui
Guldine a ferrary
Geraldine A. Ferraro
MEMORANDUM
Aff
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 21, 1983
TO:
KEN DUBERSTEIN
NY
FROM:
NANCY KENNEDY
SUBJECT:
Senator D'Amato/Westway Project
Jim Cicconi and I met with staff of Senators D'Amato and Moynihan.
D'Amato came in briefly to stress the importance of this amendment
and the White House's support thereto. He wants you to call him
the first of the week (he's gone to New York for the weekend).
Attached is a copy of the amendment they want to stick on something
before Congress adjourns -- it is supported by both Senators, the
New York Governor, and the Mayor of New York City. Also find a
copy of background on the project.
During the meeting, we were alerted that Ray Barnhart had prepared
a letter for Secretary Dole's signature, dropping the level of
planning funds from $37 million to $3.5 million. Cicconi
subsequently has stopped that letter from being sent.
I've given copies to Mike Hudson who will do an OMB/Departmental
run for comments. Hudson is trying for a close of business Monday
deadline.
We are advised this amendment requires no new money, it will use
money appropriated in the 1970s when the project was funded.
That money is tied up in the court. We can assume supplemental
funds will likely be requested in future years, to replace money
used to create the new fish habitat.
CC: Pam Turner
Jim Cicconi
10/17/83
AQUATIC HABITAT REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT
SEC.
(a) This section shall apply to any project
for construction of a portion of the Interstate Highway System,
with respect to which an application for a permit for the
discharge of fill material into a navigable waterway, under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and
section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, was 1 filed
appoint proceeding
before April 1, 1977, and was pending as of October 1, 1983.
(b) As a condition for approval of any project to
which this section applies, the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers -- (1) shall require institution
or locations
of measures at a location, adjacent to the proposed fill or at
another location on the same waterway or on an adjacent
waterway, reasonable designed to enhance the value of such
location as a replacement habitat for any commercially valuable aquatic
species that may be displaced by the fill; and (2) shall require
that studies, designed to enhance the likely effectiveness of
such measures, be conducted and completed within two years of
the date hereof. Such measures shall be undertaken to enhance
the value as habitat of no less than 1.2 acres of waterway for
each acre of fill.
(c) Upon compliance with subsection (b), all
procedural and substantive requirements under laws of the United
States (including any requirement for any statement, analysis,
or study under Pub. Law No. 91-190, as amended) affecting the
permitting or funding of the project (or any segment or element
thereof) on grounds related to any potential adverse impact on
water quality or aquatic life, shall be satisfied. Pending
compliance with the requirements of subsection (b) of this
section (and without further preparation or revision of any
statement, analysis, or study under Pub. Law No. 91-190, as
amended), the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to fund,
may
and the Secretary of the Army shall issue any permits for, the
following activities with respect to the project: (1) planning,
design, and institution of measures or studies referred to in
subsection (b) of this section; (2) (a) replacement facility
construction and utility relocation work not affecting aquatic
habitat, and necessary property acquisition related thereto, (b)
demolition and removal of existing structures in or over the
waterway bottom, (c) construction of tunnel protection
structures, and; (3) continued engineering, planning, and design
work; and (4) construction of a prototype fill section not to
exceed 39 acres.
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
October 21, 1983
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION OF THE OUTSTANDING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ON WESTWAY
BENEFITS WESTWAY PROJECT WILL PRODUCE:
1) JOBS: Westway will mean 100,000 man-years of employment
over the life of the project (to be completed in 1990's).
It will yield 7,330 man-years of permanent employment. The
Building Trades Unions strongly support the additonal
employment the project will bring to the area.
2) During construction, Westway and related project develop-
ments will stimulate $5.985 Billion increase in total
production in the Region. It will add $3.394 Billion to the
GRP - building Westway represents 1% of the GRP. Total pro-
duction willbe expanded by $487 million in 1983 dollars and
$32 million will be contributed to Gross City Product.
3)
Westway will rehabilitate the derelict areas of Manhattan's
Westside in a planned fashion. It will generate new housing
and commerical development; provide a much-needed auto link
between midtown and downtown; produce one eighth the air
pollution of any surface road; provide 93 acres of State owned
and maintained parkland along the Hudson River; pay for a new
solid waste disposal plant and a new bus garage - all at no
cost to N.Y.C.
(2)
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
4) The project will simply bring a better quality of life to
people, who live, work, visit, travel in the region.
5)
President Reagan recognized the magnitude of Westway's
economic impact when he came to NYC to present a check for
$85 Million for the project.
6)
Trade-in of Westway would be unrealistic: Under a best-case
scenario, it would take 7 years to exchange the project and
would achieve only 57% of total economic effect of construction
and only 47% of the entire construction benefit of project.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION OF THE OUTSTANDING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ON WESTWAY
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTWAY PROJECT WILL BE DELAYED FOR OVER
TWO YEARS:
Processing and planning of the proposed Westway project, a
4.2 mile Interstate highway segment to replace the West Side High-
way in Manhattan, has been underway since 1971. In 1977, the
Secretary of Transportation approved the project. The project
requires some landfill to the Hudson River and, in 1981, the Army
Corps of Engineers issued the fill permit required by Sec. 404
of the Clean Water Act. In 1981, the Corps, New York State, and
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
Page 3
the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.D.O.T.) were sued in
Federal Court in two actions challenging the adequacy of the
envrionmental processing of the project. The District Court
(later upheld on appeal) found that the Corps and U.S.D.O.T.
failed to consider information on the impact of the 234 acre land-
fill on striped bass and other fish and vacated the project
approvals and the Corps permit, pending preparation of a supple-
mental environmental impact statement (EIS). This is the remaining
environmental issue that must be resolved before the Corps may
issue the fill permit and the U.S.D.O.T. may approve the project
for federal funding.
On September 13, 1983, the Corps' NY District Engineer notified
Governor Cuomo that the supplemental EIS could not be prepared
without further fish field studies conducted over two winters.
Governor Cuomo then wrote to the President and to the Secretary of
the Army requesting that he review the decision and render a
decision on the fill permit. On October 17, the Army directed
the Corps Chief Engineer to review the need for the study within
60 days, to provide a schedule for the review by October 21, and
to continue work on the fish studies in the interim.
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
Page 4
WHY LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS ESSENTIAL TO RESOLVE THE WESTWAY CONTROVERSY
AND ENSURE ITS COMPLETION
The Governor and both of New York's Senators are concerned
that if the Corps reverses itself with respect to the fish studies,
the ensuing litigation will delay the project still further making
it impossible to meet the statutory deadlines that the Congress has
established to force completion of the Interstate system. These
deadlines require that: 1) all proposals for the trade-in of
interstate segments currently under jurisdiction must abe submitted
to U.S.D.O.T. by September 30, 1985, 2) all interstate projects
must be under substantial construction 1986, and 3) all reimbursable
project expenses must be incurred by 1990.
NEW YORK'S LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
In order to save the Westway Project by resolving the out-
standing environmental issues we seek Administration support of the
attached draft amendment proposed by the State of New York. It would
be added to a bill pending before the Congress. The amendment
would satisfy all remaining questons about Westway's impact on fish
by requiring, as a condition to Corps approval of the fill permit,
that 1.2 acres of waterway suitable as fish habitat be provided for
each acre of fill, that measures be undertaken to enhance the
effectiveness of the habitat, and that studies be conducted to find
ways to further enhance that effectiveness.
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
Page 5
Compliance with these mitigation measures would satisfy
all statutory requirements for permitting or funding the project
related to its impact on water quality or aquatic life and would
allow various construction related activities to proceed.
This last provision, contained in subsection (c) of the proposed
amendment may raise questions since it requires the issuance of
a permit and mandates compliance with all other environmental issues
related to water quality. For this reason, it may be necessary to
explore other ways in which this action forcing provision might
be more effectively drafted.
Legis Aff memos
3/30 JC - NS
MEMORANDUM
(Fyi . Warner + Jackson
met W/RR today)
THE WHITE HOUSE
JAB memo R.F.
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1982
TO:
JAMES BAKER III
EDWIN MEESE III
MICHAEL DEAVER
WILLIAM CLARK
THRU:
KENNETH M. DUBERSTEIN
KD.
FROM:
PAMELA J. TURNER
SUBJECT:
Arms Control Resolutions in the United States Senate
On March 10, Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Mark Hatfield
(R-Oregon), along with 18 of their Senate colleagues, introduced
S.J. Res. 163 which provides for an immediate mutual (U.S./USSR)
nuclear weapons freeze, followed by major reductions in the nuclear
arsenals of both nations. (A copy of the Kennedy/Hatfield resolution
is attached.) This approach is undesirable because it would freeze
the U.S. at a substantial disadvantage compared to the Soviets and
would prevent the U.S. from rectifying our present vulnerabilities,
thus depriving us of negotiating leverage in any arms reductions talks.
Senators John Warner (R-Virginia) and Scoop Jackson (D-Washington)
have prepared an alternative resolution, calling for a mutual and
verifiable nuclear forces freeze at equal and reduced levels. Warner,
Jackson, et al., view this as more palatable than the Kennedy/Hatfield
approach because it maintains the freeze at equal levels rather than
allowing the existing Soviet advantage. A copy of the Warner/Jackson
resolution is attached, as is a list of the 49 co-sponsors who will
join Warner and Jackson in introducing their resolution.
Senators Warner and Jackson are scheduled to meet with the President
at 4:15 on Tuesday, March 30, to discuss these arms control resolu-
tions. We have asked Senator Warner to hold off introduction of his
resolution until after they talk with the President. Warner and
Jackson did agree to hold introduction from last week until this
week, but it appears that they may refuse to wait any longer and put
the resolution in on Tuesday prior to their meeting with the President.
Although Senator Warner has not given us his final answer on this
question, there are three circumstances which appear to be motivating
the Senators to go ahead:
(1) There is strong lobbying against Warner/Jackson from the
American Security Council, and Jackson is afraid they will
start losing co-sponsors;
2
(2) there is some concern that the President may not endorse
their resolution, even if they wait to discuss it with
him before introduction; and
(3) there is an inherent hesitancy on the part of the
Democratic co-sponsors to allow the President to have
first crack at the issue.
In view of the widespread Senate support for this resolution, it
is anticipated that Senate action could move quickly once the
resolution is introduced.
Attachments:
A. Kennedy/Hatfield Resolution
B. Warner/Jackson Resolution
C. List of Co-sponsors for Warner/Jackson Resolution
ATTACHMENT A
1912
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
March 10, 1982
It does not mean acceptance of
and which speak too casually of nucle-
livery systems is needed to halt the nuclear
Soviet misdeeds in other areas. I reject
ar exchanges in Europe. The fastest
arms race and to reduce the risk of nuclear
the proposition that a firm stand on
way to fray the Western Alliance, and
war;
Poland will set back the cause of arms
to encourage the disastrous course of
Resolved by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of
control. We do not enter a freeze or re-
unilateral disarmament in Europe, is
America in Congress assembled
ductions of nuclear arms because we
to permit the perception that the
1. As an immediate strategic arms control
like the Soviets or they like us-but
United States is a barrier to mutual
objective, the United States and the Soviet
because both of us prefer existence to
arms control. We must be the nation
Union should:
extinction.
that clearly proposes, not opposes,
(a) pursue a complete halt to the nuclear
Nor does the Kennedy-Hatfield reso-
progress on this issue. Ours must be
arms race:
lution require trust by one side for the
the government that pursues common
(b) decide when and how to achieve a
other. Every measure we would take
approaches to defense and arms con-
mutual and verifiable freeze on the testing.
depends on strict verification. Not
trol in concert with, instead of in isola-
production, and further deployment of nu-
only must the two sides decide when
tion from our allies.
clear warheads, missiles, and other delivery
It has been more than a third of a
systems; and
and how to implement the freeze, but
(c) give special attention to destabilizing
they must give special attention to de-
century since the first nuclear cloud
weapons whose deployment would make
stabilizing weapons and insure that re-
spread its grim shadow across the face
such a freeze more difficult to achieve.
ductions occur in a manner that en-
of the Earth. I do not believe that we
2. Proceeding from this freeze. the United
hances stability and reduces the risk
can go on as we have for another third
States and the Soviet Union should pursue
of nuclear war.
of a century, without setting off the
major, mutual and verifiable reductions in
Our joint resolution does not call for
spark that could ignite that cloud
nuclear warheads, missiles. and other deliv-
unilateral action but for mutual agree-
again and consume the Earth in nucle-
ery systems, through annual percentages or
ar fire.
equally effective means. in a manner that
ment. The Soviet Union is now in the
midst of a dangerous arms build-up-
We do not have the time to wait, to
enhances stability.
which can be slowed down and turned
temporize, to escalate, even as we pre-
SENATE COSPONSORS
around only with a freeze followed by
tend to be for restraint.
Now is the time, perhaps the last
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA).
reductions. And the policy of this reso-
Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR).
lution will not weaken, but strengthen
period of time we shall have, to insure
Lowell P. Weicker (R-CT).
our defenses. Some of the resources
that the world God made shall not be
Claiborne Pell (D-RI).
that are freed can be reallocated to
incinerated by weapons we have made.
Paul E. Tsongas (D-MA).
our conventional military forces,
As President Kennedy said at Ameri-
Alan Cranston (D-CA).
which is where we do need to do more.
can University nearly 20 years ago, it
George J. Mitchell (D-ME).
Just as important, when the overall
is time "to examine our attitude
Thomas F. Eagleton (D-MO).
burden of military expenditures on
toward peace itself. Too many of us
Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT).
think it is impossible. Too many think
Robert T. Stafford (R-VT).
the budget is lessened, our economy
it is unreal. But that is a dangerous,
Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI).
will improve. We will have resources
defeatist belief. It leads to the conclu-
Walter D. Huddleston (D-KY).
for the revitalization of our industry
Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT).
and the restoration of our competitive
sion that war is inevitable-that man-
Dale Bumpers (D-AR).
position in the markets of the world.
kind is doomed-that we are gripped
Carl D. Levin (D-MI).
That is one of the great national secu-
by forces we cannot control."
John H. Chafee (R-RI).
rity challenges for America in the
Twenty years later, it is time to
Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY).
1980's, an area where our strength is
break the deadlock that defeats ef-
Donald W. Riegle (D-MI).
forts at arms control. It is time to take
Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD).
being tested now.
The Kennedy-Hatfield resolution
the first decisive step back from the
calls for "major, mutual, and verifi-
brink, to put a freeze on the produc-
HOUSE COSPONSORS
able" reductions "through annual per-
tion, deployment, and further testing
Edward Markey (D-MA).
centages or equally effective means."
of nuclear weapons, and to negotiate
Silvio Conte (D-MA).
major reductions in the massive arse-
Thomas Tauke (D-IO).
Both George Kennan, our distin-
Michael Lowry (D-WA).
guished former Ambassador to the
nals on both sides-which is what the
Edwin Forsythe (R-NJ).
Soviet Union and Policy Planning Di-
Kennedy-Hatfield resolution calls for.
Anthony Moffett (D-CT).
rector under General Marshall and
It is time, perhaps the final period of
Robert Kastemeier (D-WI).
Dean Acheson, and Adm. H. G. Rick-
time we shall have, to move away from
Anthony Belienson (D-CA).
over, Director of Naval Nuclear Pro-
a strategy of annihilation and move
Henry Waxman (D-CA).
pulsion under seven Presidents, have
forward to a strategy of peace.
Shirley Chisholm (D-NY).
Let us take what may be our last
Bob Edgar (D-PA).
argued eloquently and compellingly
real chance to avert the last great war.
John Conyers (D-MI).
for deep cuts of at least 50 percent in
Let us resolve to make the world safe
Tom Foglietta (D-PA).
the nuclear armories of both sides.
for human survival.
Walter Fauntroy (D-DC).
These cuts could be achieved if we mu-
Nick Mavroules (D-MA).
tually agree to 7 percent annual reduc-
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
Fred Richmond (D-NY).
tions over 7 years under the percent-
sent that the full text of our joint res-
Joe Moakley (D-MA).
age annual reduction approach-or al-
olution, a list of original cosponsors in
William Clay (D-MO).
ternative, equally effective ap-
the Senate and the House, and a list of
Berkely Bedell (D-IO).
proaches-proposed in our resolution
individual and organizational endorse-
William Lchman (D-FL).
ments for the Kennedy-Hatfield initia-
Donald Albosta (D-MI).
and endorsed by the Senate Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations in 1979.
tive be printed in the RECORD.
Lee Hamilton (D-IN).
I am pleased to report that Ambassa-
There being no objection, the mate-
James Oberstar (D-MN).
dor Kennan has expressed to me his
rial was ordered to be printed in the
George Brown (D-CA).
Les AuCoin (D-OR).
strong support for this initiative:
RECORD, as follows:
Nick Joe Rahall (D-WV).
Progress along the lines of the Kennedy-
S. J. RES. 163
Michael Barnes (D-MD).
Hatfield resolution is absolutely imperative
Joint resolution on nuclear weapons freeze
Barney Frank (D-MA).
and urgent. It can no longer be delayed and
and reductions
Lawrence DeNardis (D-CT).
it. should supersede all partisan and self-
Whereas the greatest challenge facing the
Robert Carcia (D-NY).
serving considerations.
earth is to prevent the occurrence of nucle-
Tom Lantos (D-CA).
The course defined in the Kennedy-
ar war by accident or design:
Sidney Yates (D-IL).
Whereas the nuclear arms race is danger-
Matthew McHugh (D-NY).
Hatfield resolution can also strength-
ously increasing the risk of a holocaust that
Romano Mazzoli (D-KY).
en the NATO alliance. which has been
would be humanity's final war: and
Edward Boland (D-MA).
strained by administration policies
Whereas a freeze followed by reductions
David Evans (D-IN).
that appear hostile to arms control
in nuclear warheads, missiles, and other de-
William Ford (D-MI).
ATTACHMENT B
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION
To express the sense of the Congress that the United States and
the Soviet Union should engage in substantial, equitable, and
verifiable reductions of their nuclear weapons in a manner which
would contribute to peace and stability.
Whereas, a nuclear war would kill or injure millions and
millions of people and threaten the survival of the human race;
Whereas, there can be no assurance that a nuclear war, once
initiated, would remain limited in scope;
Whereas, there exists the ever-present risk that nuclear
weapons might be employed through accident or miscalculation;
Whereas, the American people who are a people of peace,
maintain nuclear armaments only in the defense of freedom and
yearn for world conditions in which they could do far more to
lift the burdens of human privation and despair;
Whereas, the current nuclear force imbalance is destabilizing
and could increase the likelihood of nuclear war;
Whereas, sizeable and verifiable mutual reductions of Soviet
and United States nuclear forces to an equal and far lower level
would enhance stability and the maintenance of peace;
Whereas, President Reagan, on November 18, 1981, stated that
the United States "will seek to negotiate substantial reductions
in nuclear arms which would result in levels that are equal and
verifiable;"
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
1 - The United States should propose to the Soviet Union a
long-term, mutual and verifiable nuclear forces freeze at equal
and sharply reduced levels of forces.
2 - The United States should propose to the Soviet Union
practical measures to reduce the danger of nuclear war through
accident or miscalculation and to prevent the use of nuclear
weapons by third parties, including terrorists.
3 - The United States should challenge the Soviet Union to
join in this historic effort to channel the genius of our two
peoples away from the amassing of nuclear armaments and to focus
the energy and resources of both nations on attacking the ancient
enemies of mankind -- poverty, hunger and disease.
4 - The United States should continue to press month after
month, year after year, to achieve balanced, stabilizing arms
reductions, looking, in time, to the elimination of all nuclear
weapons from the world's arsenals.
ATTACHMENT C
CO-SPONSORS OF THE WARNER/JACKSON RESOLUTION
Republicans
Democrats
Abdnor
Bentsen
Andrews
Boren
Baker
Bumpers
Boschwitz
Burdick
Cochran
Byrd, H.
Cohen
Byrd, R.
D'Amato
Cannon
Dole
Chiles
Garn
Cranston
Goldwater
DeConcini
Grassley
Dixon
Hatch
Exon
Hayakawa
Ford
Humphrey
Hollings
Jepsen
Inouye
Lugar
Johnston
Mattingly
Long
Murkowski
Melcher
Nickles
Moynihan
Quayle
Nunn
Rudman
Proxmire
Specter
Pryor
Stevens
Sasser
Thurmond
Stennis
Tower
kinds aff
3/12
JAB
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
To JAB memo file
March 12, 1982
BKFAST
ITEM
Discussed.
3-18-82
MEMORANDUM TO:
Jim Baker
frie
Ed Meese
Mike Deaver
Ed Harper
Fred Fielding
School
FROM:
Ken Duberstein Kor Ker A.
issue
SUBJECT:
Anti-busing forces developing
House strategy
Republican Members in the House of Representatives are
developing a strategy to bring anti-busing legislation
to the floor. During consideration of the Department of
Justice authorization in the Senate, an anti-busing
amendment to the bill was adopted. That bill is now
at the Speaker's Desk.
Some Republicans have drafted a rule providing that
the bill be taken from the Speaker's Desk and immediately
considered in the House. That rule will be introduced,
referred to the Rules Committee and a discharge petition
will then be filed to discharge the Rules Committee from
further consideration. If the strategy is successful it
will expedite consideration of the bill and the busing
provision.
*
I recognize OPD is doing some study on "the social issues,"
but we may need an Administration position on busing before long.
124"
2/17 JC:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Imprivith
this also we need
February 17, 1982
an update on
clean air.
Please schedule
MEMORANDUM TO:
Jim Baker
FROM:
Ken Duberstein
(ash mb) me for mon.
SUBJECT:
Legislative Strategy Group
& one (Splitting for Tun. Thanks. the topics)
I'd recommend a legislative strategy meeting Monday or
Tuesday of next week to discuss the following issues:
JABI
(1) Voting Rights legislation - status of hearings,
follow-up on Administration position, what steps
necessary.
(2) Regulatory Reform - bill scheduled for Senate con-
sideration within 10 days.
A) Legislative Veto - tactics for our opposition to
the Schmitt amendment (passive statement of our
position or heavy lobbying.)
B) Bumpers Amendment - Justice objects to compromise
worked out between Vice President, OMB and Bumpers/
Laxalt. We need an Administration position.
(3) Tax Exempt Status of Private Institutions legislation -
status and additional steps.
(4) Administration position on constitutional amendment
requiring a balanced budget:
-- In Senate, Hatch has 54 co-sponsors and has been
reported for Floor consideration.
-- In House, Conable has 180 co-sponsors.
-- Howard Baker, at Hatch's request, has requested
a formal, written Administration position.
-- Conable believes our support or acquiesence will
be a useful negotiating tactic for the impending
debt ceiling fight.
Justice certainly needs to be included in the meeting;
Boyden Gray for #2, Treasury for #2 and #4 and OMB for #4.
CC: Dick Darman
Main,
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
2/15
WASHINGTON
February 9, 1982
wifed
on the background
hase.
w/Shage? what
TO:
JIM BAKER
should follow.
ED MEESE
MIKE DEAVER
PEN JAMES
need count this before
FROM:
KEN DUBERSTEIN Ken D.
midd Personal
mtg.
SUBJECT:
Federal Communications Commission Appointment Thanks
The Republican members of the Senate Commerce Committee are
JAB
committed to support Marv Weatherly for the next vacancy on
the FCC. Weatherly's chief sponsor is Senator Ted Stevens.
Chairman Packwood has stated that as long as Senator Stevens
insists on the nomination of Weatherly the Republican
members of the Commerce Committee are committed to stay
with Stevens. Accordingly, no hearings would be held on
another nominee unless Stevens acquiesced.
Senator Stevens' arguments in support of Weatherly are
twofold: (1) In view of the AT&T settlement there is an
increased need for a "rural communications" representative
on the FCC. It should be noted that this viewpoint is
supported, regardless of Weatherly's candidacy, by many
Republican members of the Commerce Committee. (2) It is
time to nominate a non-Washingtonian for the FCC. Nomination
of Steve Sharpe would result in a continuation of "Washington
prejudices" in the agency rather than in an infusion of new
blood and practical understanding of the "real world" effects
of FCC regulation.
Guidance, please.
THE white HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date Feb. 16, 1982
TO: Jim Cicconi Incr
FROM: J. MICHAEL FARRELL
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL
ROOM 145 X7577
SUBJECT: Federal Communication Commission
COMMENTS: Pursuant to your request on
behalf of Jim Baker I have attached
the Discussion Memorandum that was
reviewed by Senior Staff. Please let
me know if I can be of further
assistance.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 6, 1982
DISCUSSION MEMORANDUM
FOR:
James A. Baker III
Chief of Staff
Assistant to the President
Edwin Meese III
Counsellor to the President
Michael K. Deaver
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
THROUGH:
E. Pendleton James
Assistant to the President
for Presidential Personnel
FROM:
Dennis Patrick DRP
Associate Director
Office of Presidential Personnel
SUBJECT:
Candidates for Prospective Vacancy on
Federal Communications Commission
The seat of Republican Abbot Washburn will be vacant on
June 30, 1982. We have received letters of support and
telephone communications with respect to a number of
candidates:
1) Ronald B. Frankum
a) Background: Deputy Director, Office of Policy
Development.
b) Note: On December 30, 1981, I spoke to Dr. Godwin,
assistant to Jerry Falwell. He advised that they had seen
a copy of Ron's resume and that he looked "O.K. at this
point". He did not mention Steve Sharp.
DISCUSSION MEMORANDUM
January 6, 1982
Page 2
2) Steven A. Sharp
a) Background: Currently General Counsel, Federal
Communications Commission; Special Communications Counsel
to Reagan-Bush Committee (1980) ; legal assistant to FCC
Commissioner White (1976 - 1978) ; attorney in office of the
General Counsel, FCC (1973 -- 1976). (See Tab A.)
b) Letters of Support: Senator Goldwater
Senator Thurmond
Senator Helms
Senator East
Senator Laxalt
Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority
In addition, Richard Wylie and Mark Fowler, present
Chariman of the FCC, endorsed Mr. Sharp in telephone
conversations.
c) Note: On December 16, 1981, we received a letter from
Jerry Falwell, addressed to Helene von Damm. The letter
recommends Steve Sharp for the position, noting his "personal
interest in protecting civil liberties in television and
radio". (See Tab B.) aloo rec'd litter support from Ben armstrong -
Nate By Relegaous Broadcasters 1/6/82
dro rec'd like support from Brandt Gustouson
3) Marv Weatherly
rp sever to Branch, moody Back Insulance
a) Background: Currently Commissioner of the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission; formerly held various positions
in private industry as communications engineer. (See Tab C.)
b) Letters of Support: Senator Stevens
Senator Packwood
Fowler belowes Packwood
Senator Kassebaum
more moderateon
Senator Pressler
*
dereg ; shy also may
Senator Goldwater
appose Fowler efforts reduce
Senator Gorton
7CC control on broadcast
Senator Murkowski
journalesm (ie, Fowler opposes
on commutee.
fairers der, equal time )
4) Stephen Halloway
a) Background: Currently Associate General Counsel,
Department of Commerce; formerly Counsel to Senator Kasten
(1981) and to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation (1976 - 1981) (See Tab D.)
b) Support: Secretary Baldrige
TW much Fowler 2/8/82
Halloways a also supported by
Pockwood.