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
135838896
label
[JGR/Presidential Interviews and Questionnaires] (09/16/1984-09/25/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135838896
contentType
document
title
[JGR/Presidential Interviews and Questionnaires] (09/16/1984-09/25/1984)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135838896
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d0cefb275a357681
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: [JGR/Presidential Interviews
and Questionnaires] (09/16/1984-09/25/1984)
Box: 38
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 826
SUBJECT:
Automotive Age Questionnaire
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced candidate questionnaire be sent to Mike Baroody
by noon today. The draft responses were prepared by Reagan-
Bush '84, in accordance with your memorandum on candidate
questionnaires of November 28, 1983.
The draft responses discuss continuing voluntary import
restrictions on Japanese automobiles (will depend on market
developments and progress of trade negotiations), domestic
content legislation (oppose), and deregulation. In response
to a question on anti-fleet subsidy legislation, the President
simply notes that the issue is before Congress, that no
final version of a bill has emerged, and that he can neither
support nor oppose any legislation at this time. "Anti-fleet
subsidy legislation" refers to several bills that would
prohibit auto manufacturers from granting discounts to
high-volume direct purchasers, such as Hertz or Avis. The
bills are supported by automobile dealers, who contend
(incorrectly) that they must pay inflated prices to finance
the discounts.
As noted, the draft response on anti-fleet subsidy legislation
is non-commital. In fact, however, the Administration is
clearly on record as opposing such legislation. For example,
on June 7, 1984, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
Antitrust Charles Rule noted the Administration's strong
opposition to H.R. 1415 and H.R. 5305, the leading
anti-fleet subsidy bills. The gist of the Administration
view was that the volume discounts to large, non-dealer
purchasers reflected the realities of the marketplace. I
have checked with OMB Legislative Reference and been assured
that the Administration position is unchanged.
The draft response prepared by Reagan-Bush '84 obviously
plays to the readership of Automotive Age, primarily dealers
who would benefit from anti-fleet subsidy legislation. In
light of the Administration's unequivocal opposition to such
legislation, however, the response strikes me, to borrow
- 2 -
Churchill's euphemism, as terminologically inexact. The
attached memorandum for Baroody suggests that the response
be changed to reflect the Administration's position.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Automotive Age Questionnaire
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the draft responses to the
above-referenced candidate questionnaire. The response to
question six does not accurately represent the Administra-
tion's position. The Administration is on record as being
strongly opposed to anti-fleet subsidy legislation. For
example, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
Charles Rule testified in opposition to H.R. 1415 and H.R.
5305, the leading anti-fleet subsidy bills, on June 7, 1984.
The draft response has obviously been crafted with the
readership of Automotive Age -- primarily dealers who
support anti-fleet subsidy legislation -- in mind, but I
think it is far too disingenuous in light of the Adminis-
tration's announced position.
cc: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 9/17/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Automotive Age Questionnaire
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the draft responses to the
above-referenced candidate questionnaire. The response to
question six does not accurately represent the Administra-
tion's position. The Administration is on record as being
strongly opposed to anti-fleet subsidy legislation. For
example, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
Charles Rule testified in opposition to H.R. 1415 and H.R.
5305, the leading anti-fleet subsidy bills, on June 7, 1984.
The draft response has obviously been crafted with the
readership of Automotive Age -- primarily dealers who
support anti-fleet subsidy legislation -- in mind, but I
think it is far too disingenuous in light of the Adminis-
tration's announced position.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 9/17/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
O OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Richard Darman
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Automative Age Questionnaire
(Prepared by R-013.84)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
Cutton
ORIGINATOR 84 09,14
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
D 84,09,14
SP4/09/17
Referral Note:
CMAT 17
I 84,09,14
/ /
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
I
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A . Appropriate Action
I * Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B . Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D - Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
12:00 NOON MONDAY 9/17
DATE: 9/14/84
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
SUBJECT: AUTOMOTIVE AGE QUESTIONNAIRE
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MURPHY
MEESE
OGLESBY
BAKER
ROGERS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
DARMAN
P
185
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FULLER
BAROODY
HERRINGTON
TUTWILER
HICKEY
ELLIOTT
McFARLANE
McMANUS
REMARKS:
Please provide any edits/comments directly to Mike Baroody, with a
copy to my office, by 12:00 NOON Monday, 9/17. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Richard G. Darman
1984 SEP 14 AM 11: 27
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
1984 SEP 11 III 0 13
REAGAN-BUSH'84
The President's Authorized Campaign Committee
"84 SEP 13 P5:00
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MARGARET TUTWILER
THROUGH:
ED ROLLINS
FROM:
JIM LAKE
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 7, 1984
RE:
AUTOMOTIVE AGE QUESTIONNAIRE
Per the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's
November 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am
enclosing draft responses to a set of questions from Automotive
Age.
Please advise me at your earliest possible convenience
of White House approval of the responses. We need the approval
notice by September 14 to meet our deadline.
440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984
Paid for by Reagan-Bush '84: Paul Laxalt, Chairman; Angela M. Buchanan Jackson, Treasurer
AUTOMOTIVE AGE MAGAZINE
ANSWERS TO CANDIDATE QUESTIONS
by President Reagan
1.
: a
Do you favor continuing or ending the voluntary
restrictions on the number of Japanese cars imported
by the United States? Why?
A:
The purpose of the voluntary agreement with the
Japanese limiting auto imports was to give U.S.
industry time to recover from the excessive tax and
regulatory burdens placed on it by the previous
Administration which had hindered its ability to be
competitive in the world market. Our decision on
whether to extend this temporary agreement will be
based on the strength of recovery of the U.S.
automobile industry, as well as the progress on
removing Japanese restrictions to free trade in other
areas.
2.
Q:
Do you favor or oppose domestic content legislation
for foreign cars sold in the United States? Why?
A:
I believe domestic content requirements represent a
defeatist approach that would insulate the U.S. from
world competition, and harm U.S. workers and
consumers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates
a loss of 66,000 American jobs due to retaliation by
our trading partners as well as an increase of $333 in
cost of the average car under such a plan. I favor a
more open trade policy - if trade laws are fair,
Americans can out-compete anybody.
3.
Q: What will you do to minimize the burden of government
regulations on small business?
A:
My Administration has addressed the critical issues
small businessmen and women themselves put at the top
of their list - the key recommendations of the 1980
White House Conference on Small Business. A number of
these recommendations have been addressed through the
work of the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory
Relief, chaired by Vice President Bush. The Task
Force identified 119 regulations which were
unnecessarily burdensome to small business, and
eliminated or modified 103. In addition, 300 million
hours have been cut from the federally imposed
paperwork burden on small businesses. Happily, small
business income rose 18 percent in 1983, and
employment in small business-dominated industries
increased at over twice the rate for large
business-dominated industries. We will certainly
continue our efforts to reduce the burden of
government regulation on small businesses.
4.
Q: What will you do to address the burdens the Deficit
Reduction Act of 1984 places on dealers?
A:
The purpose of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 was
to jualize the tax burden shared by Americans by
eli nating unfair loopholes in the existing tax
code. In restricting the investment tax credits and
depreciation allowable on business automobiles, the
final version was viewed by proponents and opponents
alike as most consistent with the statute's original
purpose of eliminating unfairness, while minimizing
potential injury to the American automobile industry.
5.
Q: Would you outline your import/export policy?
A:
For more than thirty years, the United States has been
and remains, the leading proponent of an open
international trading system. That's why, in the 1983
Williamsburg economic summit, we urged, and the other
nations agreed, that all of us should work together to
halt protectionism and roll back trade barriers. I
believe, quite simply, that given an open and fair
world trade system, American workers and businesses
have the talent, initiative and innovative ability to
succeed in the world marketplace. Accordingly, my
focus has been on encouraging modernization and
increasing overall efficiency as well as individual
worker productivity through the reduction of tax
rates, the reduction of the growth of government
spending, the elimination of burdensome regulations
and the stabilization of monetary policy. By getting
government out of the way of business, we stand the
best chance of recovering our share of the world
market.
Q
Do you favor or oppose anti-fleet subsidy
legislation? Why?
A:
The question of volume discounts for automobile
purchases is presently being debated in Congress.
?
Since no final version has emerged, nor all the
questions debated, I am not in a position to endorse
or oppose any legislation at this time.
7. Q:
How much freedom should government agencies have to
regulate automobile safety?
A:
The basic philosophy of my Administration is that the
states are often better equipped to set highway safety
priorities than are representatives of federal
agencies in Washington. However, I can assure you
that my Administration will continue to be guided by
the principle that we must do as much as possible to
promote highway safety.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ROUTE SLIP
Take necessary action
TO
John Roberts
Approval or signature
Comment
Prepare reply
Discuss with me
For your information
See remarks below
FROM Branden Blum
DATE 9/21/84
REMARKS
S. 2770, a bill to protect consumers
and franchised automobile dealers from
unfair price discrimination, and for
other purposes
Per your request, attached is a signed copy
of the Commerce report opposing S. 2770.
file total ml Age
OMB FORM 4
Rev Aug 70
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
UNITED
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20230
STATES
of
SEP 20 984
Honorable Strom Thurmond
Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your request for the views of the
Department of Commerce concerning S. 2770, a bill
"To protect consumers and franchised automobile dealers from
unfair price discrimination in the sale by the manufacturer
of new motor vehicles, and for other purposes."
S. 2770 would prohibit automobile and truck manufacturers from
selling or leasing any new vehicle, or offering to sell or lease
any new vehicle, to any person (including an automobile dealer) at
a price that is higher than the lowest price for which any other
new vehicle of the same model is sold or offered during a particular
sales period. The bill would provide exceptions for sales to
vehicle manufacturers, employees of the manufacturer, agencies of
the United States or any state or local government, the American
Red Cross, and sales under regional sales incentive programs. The
prohibitions in the bill would be enforceable by private action.
The Department of Commerce opposes enactment of S. 2770. The
legislation would effectively prohibit marketing practices that
vehicle manufacturers and their fleet customers have found highly
efficient and mutually beneficial. By requiring that the "lowest
price" be the only selling price for a vehicle, S. 2770 would,
despite its avowed intention to protect consumers and dealers
against "unfair price competition," be anti-competitive.
S. 2770 would eliminate or reduce competition in the fleet sales
market by prohibiting large volume fleet purchase discounts.
Large volume fleet purchasers should be allowed to negotiate with
manufacturers for lower prices. Fleet sales are an important
factor in automobile and truck manufacturing. Companies can offer
discounts on direct volume sales because such sales help reduce
the per vehicle cost of manufacturing and thereby increase overall
profits without raising prices to dealers. Fleet sales are often
made in advance of initial vehicle production and thereby encourage
the marketing of new products.
-2-
We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that
there is no objection to the submission of this letter to the
Congress from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
they 1/9/95 45
Irving P. Margulies
General Counsel
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 022
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire: Landmarc
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced candidate article be sent directly to Mike
Baroody by 2:00 p.m. September 21. The article, prepared by
Reagan-Bush '84, reviews Administration efforts concerning
coal. The article stresses the need to reduce excessive
reliance on vulnerable oil by increased development of coal
resources. It discusses the expansion of the coal leasing
program, recognition of the States' role under the Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, and the effort to
address the acid rain problem through more research rather
than immediate additional controls on sulfur dioxide emissions.
I have reviewed the draft article and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire: Landmarc
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced candidate
questionnaire, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF: JGR:aea 9/18/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire: Landmarc
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced candidate
questionnaire, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 9/18/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o - OUTGOING
JGR
H . INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Richard Darman
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Questionnaire : Landmarc
(Prepared by R-B'84)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
Cuttore
ORIGINATOR 84,09,18
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
A 8409,18
58409,21
Referral Note:
2:00
CUAT 17
I 89,09,18
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
I
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A. Answered
C Completed
C * Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D * Draft Response
S For Signature
F + Furnish Fact Sheet
X - Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference. ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
9/18/84
Friday 2:00 p.m. 9/21
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
QUESTIONNAIRE: LANDMARC
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MURPHY
MEESE
OGLESBY
BAKER
ROGERS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
DARMAN
P
SS
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FULLER
BAROODY
HERRINGTON
TUTWILER
HICKEY
ELLIOTT
McFARLANE
McMANUS
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/edits directly to Mike Baroody by 2:00 p.m.
Friday, 9/21.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Richard G. Darman
1904 SEP 18 Pll 2: 03
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
REAGAN-BUSH'84
The President's Authorized Campaign Committee
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MARGARET TUTWILER
THROUGH:
ED ROLLINS
FROM:
JIM LAKE
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 17, 1984
RE:
LANDMARC
Per the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's
November 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am
enclosing draft responses to a set of questions from LandMARC
Magazine.
Please advise me at your earliest possible convenience
of White House approval of the responses. We need the approval
notice by September 21 to meet our deadline.
440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984
Paid for by Reagan-Bush '84: Paul Laxalt, Chairman: Angela M. Buchanan Jackson, Treasurer
Coal: America's Energy "Ace In The Hole"
by Ronald Reagan
When we came to Washington almost 4 years ago, we brought a
mandate from the American people to change the course of America.
And we have brought change, including a significant change in
America's energy posture. I still believe what I articulated in
1980: "Energy is the key to a successful America."
In the era of embargoes during the 1970s, I think it is fair
to say that America's view of energy was primarily one of
pessimism.
Governmental policy appeared to be one of sharing the short-
ages, of trying to allocate the pain in an energy crisis and
learning to live with the damage that had been brought upon us.
I believed then that America had a more optimistic energy
future; that the energy situation, although serious, was not
beyond the power of Americans to cope with; that by increasing
our production of energy in all forms and by using energy more
wisely, we could greatly improve our energy outlook.
The energy policies of the 1970s were not working.
Regulations were repressing and restricting American energy pro-
duction areas -- especially coal.
At the beginning of my term, I said, "If we are to meet the
need for new energy supplies, we must move rapidly to eliminate
unnecessary barriers to efficient utilization of our abundant and
economical resources of coal.
And we have made significant progress toward that goal:
0 We have revitalized the federal coal leasing program, with
full recognition of our responsibilities to protect the
environment;
0 We have moved to implement fully the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act, permitting States to assume
responsibility for surface mine reclamation as envisioned
by the law;
0 We have designed our federal coal research programs to
advance new technological concepts that will allow coal to
be mined and burned more cleanly and efficiently; and,
0 We have continually sought to improve opportunities for
coal to take its rightful place in this Nation's energy
supply system and in international markets.
We are proud of these accomplishments. But much more remains
to be done, and I remain committed to the expanded production and
use of American coal.
Coal is currently the chief hope of achieving our National
Energy Policy goal of an adequate supply of energy at reasonable
cost. And, although we do not quantify "adequate," we do qualify
it to mean sufficient to:
0 meet our Nation's short- and long-term needs; and,
-2-
0 avoid undue dependence on any single source of supply where
an interruption of that supply would jeopardize our economy
or strategic capabilities.
Our two basic strategies for achieving the National Energy
Policy goal are:
1) to minimize federal control and intervention in the energy
market while maintaining public health and safety and
environmental quality; and,
2) to promote a balanced and mixed energy resource system.
As a Nation, we must reduce our reliance on oil -- par-
ticularly imported oil. Given the uncertainties of availability
and cost, oil cannot be counted on as an economical and reliable
source of energy. Domestically, our estimates are that only 4
percent of our known recoverable fossil fuel reserves are in the
form of liquid hydrocarbons. Yet, in 1983, oil represented 43
percent of our energy consumption. The U.S. still is a net
importer of almost 30 percent of its oil needs, and imports are
rising. As a matter of economic health and national security, we
must reduce our reliance on imported oil and achieve a more
balanced and mixed energy resource base.
We have, in this country, a tremendous and diverse energy supply
that can increase our energy non-dependence and improve our
energy security. Much of our domestic energy supply occurs on or
under federally-held lands and waters. Our estimates are that
35% of U.S. coal reserves are under public lands. With an
-3-
aggressive federal leasing program, we could expand and diversify
our current resource base.
When we first came into office, we found that the government
had been acting as a monopolist, limiting the resources leased
and in SO doing, driving up resource prices for consumers.
When the government arbitrarily limits the amount of
federally controlled oil, gas or coal made available to the
market, supplies are diminished and costs go up. Who ultimately
pays the higher prices? Corporations? Stockholders? Of course
not. In a free market system we pay, either as consumers or as
taxpayers. Citizens bear the burden of the higher costs.
This Administration has moved aggressively to reform the
leasing programs of the Federal Government. We have moved to
increase the supply of domestic energy sources and to give
industry the opportunity to make its own business decisions. We
have reversed past Administrations' policies of foreclosing
access to domestic assets. In fact, in fiscal year 1983, 105.4
million tons of federal coal were mined. This accounted for
approximately 14 percent of the total U.S. production, up from
about 9 percent in 1980. As of September 30, 1983, there were
632 federal coal leases in effect, containing 17.7 billion tons
of recoverable reserves.
-4-
My Administration is committed to an effective, predictable
and stable coal leasing program which will serve the national
interest. We will manage the program to reduce environmental
risk, to allow industry to plan confidently, and to promote
public confidence.
We have also brought change to the federal surface mining
reclamation program. In keeping with the spirit of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, my Administration has
assigned the highest priority to the approval and administration
of surface mining reclamation regulations by the States. Our
continuing commitment to States' rights and State primacy will be
advanced in the future through federal grants and technical and
management assistance. We are committed to drawing upon the
creative energies of the American people, by providing a frame-
work within which environmentally sound technological improve-
ments in surface coal mining and reclamation can be tested and
perfected.
Our efforts to move the authority and responsibility for sur-
face mining reclamation to the States have been successful.
Since 1980, we have granted program primacy to 25 coal producing
States. And regulatory grants to States under the permanent
program increased to nearly $31.5 million in 1983.
We also continue our surface mining oversight role and have
taken action to resolve problems in several States and to help
the States improve implementation of their programs.
-5-
This Administration is committed to both environmental
quality and development of our indigenous resources.
Because coal is America's most abundant fossil fuel --
accounting for 85 percent or more of our recoverable fossil fuel
reserves - - we must find ways to ensure that coal will provide
more than the 22 percent of our energy supply it now provides.
This is particularly true since, as the economy continues to
grow, electricity consumption is likely to at least match the
growth rate of the gross national product.
Last year, coal provided about 55 percent of America's
electricity. If that had been provided by oil-fired generation,
we would have had to import an additional 6 million barrels of
oil per day -- which would more than double our current imports.
At $30 per barrel, this would be $180 million per day in exported
dollars and a more than $65 billion per year addition to our
balance of payments deficit.
Some have expressed skepticism that U.S. electrical needs
will continue to grow, pointing to an actual decline in genera-
tion from 1981 to 1982 for the first time in over 30 years.
However, it now seems increasingly clear that the reduction was a
temporary phenomenon linked to the recession.
-6-
As America's economic growth has improved -- and it has
improved significantly -- electric generation has surged along
with it. In 1983, our gross national product grew by 3.7 percent
and electric generation grew by 3.1 percent. For the first half
of this year, electric generation grew by 9.3 percent over the
same period in 1983. Our experience continues to be that
electric generation will grow about as fast as our economy. With
our Nation's recent economic performance, I think few would doubt
that America can continue to achieve and advance. And, we will
need more electricity -- and therefore more coal -- to support
that progress.
We also believe that our domestic coal can and should compete
more effectively in the international market.
We recognize that foreign competition in the coal market is
coming directly from South African and Polish coal because the
strength of the dollar has made U.S. coals relatively expensive.
One way we believe your industry can better compete in this
atmosphere is through increased competition in the transportation
sector and more reasonable transportation rates.
My Administration has also tried to redirect federal research
programs to help ensure that coal can better compete in inter-
national markets as well as help meet increasing domestic power
demands.
-7-
We have a long-term commitment to the technological future of
America's coal industry. Our primary goal is to develop tech-
nologies that will allow us to mine, burn and consume coal in an
environmentally safe way.
The issue of acid rain concerns people in many areas of the
United States and Canada.
This Administration is not prepared at this time to recommend
additional sulfur dioxide controls. We must have more scientific
information before deciding to launch the country on an expensive
and potentially inequitable control program.
Already, 50,000 megawatts of electricity generated from coal in
this country are scrubbed and this is expected to be true for
about 100,000 megawatts by the year 2000.
Since passage of the Clean Air Act 13 years ago, American
industry has invested $150 billion for air pollution controls.
Sulfur dioxide emissions have decreased nationwide by 15 to
20 percent within the last 20 years. This reduction is
impressive particularly when you consider that electrical genera-
tion increased about 50 percent between 1970 and 1980, and coal-
fired electricity generation increased by 65 percent.
Projections are that around the year 2000 (even assuming a high
GNP), sulfur dioxide emissions will begin a sustained drop again
as newer, cleaner power plants replace older plants.
-8-
For fiscal year 1985, we have proposed a research program
that doubles our current funding for acid-rain related research.
And we will take additional action to restore our lakes and
develop new technology to reduce pollution that causes acid rain.
We truly believe our approach is the appropriate, responsible
and scientifically supportable way to deal with this problem.
Promising things are happening in the research area:
1. In coal combustion - where fluidized bed combustion is
capable of removing 90 percent of sulfur dioxide and
holding nitrogen oxide release to well below current
federal standards. Technology is now commercially
available and economically competitive for mid-size
industrial boiler applications. At last count, at least
70 fluidized bed systems -- including 30 or more that are
burning coal -- were operating in this country and as
many more are on order.
2. In coal preparation - where new opportunities are being
found to remove sulfur and mineral matter at or near the
mine through fine grinding, then through physical or
chemical cleaning. We have made substantial progress in
understanding coal chemistry, and, if ongoing small-scale
tests are successful, it is possible that several new
coal cleaning concepts will cross the commercial
threshold in the early 1990s.
-9-
3. In scrubbers - where opportunities exist to improve
today's scrubbers, both for new powerplants and for
retrofitting existing plants. The Department of Energy's
research focus is to develop new scrubber systems that
remove 90 percent of both sulfur dioxides and nitrogen
oxides, as well as more modest-performance lower-cost
scrubbers that can be installed on existing powerplants.
If any or all of these initiatives succeed, in the early
1990s America will be able to reduce powerplant emissions more
efficiently, with less of a solid waste problem, and at a frac-
tion of the cost that would be required today. And well before
then we should have much better research data showing the extent
to which these emissions are causing unacceptable environmental
effects.
Coal can also return to markets now dominated by oil and gas.
Promising technologies are rapidly advancing that can facilitate
this, including coal-water mixtures for industrial and utility
uses, coal-fired gas turbines and diesel engines, and onsite and
utility fuel cells.
Development of new technologies that permit expanded use of
coal also stimulates increased exports of all types of U.S.
coals. The United States has about 65 percent of the coal
reserves held by the four principal coal-exporting countries (the
others being Australia, Poland and South Africa). Since we are a
country with reserves sufficient to meet long-term world coal
demand, our influence in the world coal and energy markets should
extend beyond the amount we export in a given year.
-10-
One major issue confronting the future extent of our involve-
ment in coal R&D is how far along the technology development path
does the government continue to participate. Our view is that
the government should work with the private sector to prove the
fundamental technical concept --
Does the technology work?
Does it work well enough for the private sector to pursue it?
How we determine where the dividing line is between govern-
ment support and private initiative is an important issue -- one
that will become increasingly important as new technologies
mature into more advanced, and expensive, stages of development.
We recently confronted this issue in a review of our national
synthetic fuels program.
When Congress established the Synthetic Fuels Corporation in
1980, oil prices were projected to reach $75 to $125 per barrel
by 1990; America was dependent on imported oil for 18 percent of
its energy supply; and the memories of shortages and gasoline
lines lingered.
In the intervening years, our energy outlook has improved
dramatically. Americans have learned to use energy more effi-
ciently. The price of imported crude oil has declined more than
25 percent since 1981, and our imports are down 33 percent com-
pared to 1980 levels. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a
national stockpile of crude oil established after the 1973-74
-11-
oil embargo, now holds approximately 430 million barrels, an
amount sufficient for this Nation to withstand a disruption of
oil imports for several months.
As a consequence of these changes, the presumptions that led
to the creation of the large-scale synthetic fuels commer-
cialization program in 1980 are today at variance with the reali-
ties of the marketplace. Current estimates are that a synthetic
fuels plant constructed today would produce fuel at two to three
times the current $29-per-barrel price of conventional oil.
Developing a commercial synthetic fuels industry today at the
pace envisioned in 1980 would likely be accomplished at the
expense of substantial amounts of taxpayers' funds that would
not be offset by economic benefits.
Therefore, we proposed preserving what we believe to be an
appropriate national synthetic fuels program that involves both
the continuation of the Synthetic Fuels Corporation with at least
$5 billion in available budget authority, along with continuing
the solid core program of research and development of new, more
advanced synthetic fuel technologies which is already underway at
the Department of Energy.
-12-
Today, oil continues to power much of our industrial
establishment. But within the last decade, we have gained a more
acute recognition of the global importance of a balanced and
mixed energy resource system -- one that recognizes all of our
energy sources. We have embarked upon a new energy path -- a
path that leads toward greater reliance on those fuels we have in
most abundance and that reflects our confidence in the private
sector's ability to make the best informed decisions about the
production and use of specific fuels and technologies.
Coal is one of those resources that makes us an energy rich
Nation today and could be our greatest energy insurance policy
for the future. We are committed to overcoming the barriers to
expanded use of American coal -- at home and abroad. This is the
path to an energy secure future.
-13-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DR
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire: Independent Living Center
Statement (Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the responses to
the above-referenced candidate questionnaire be sent
directly to Mike Baroody by close of business September 27.
The responses, in the form of an article, were prepared by
Reagan-Bush '84. The article discusses Administration
efforts to increase opportunities for disabled Americans.
The fifth paragraph may be somewhat controversial. It
confirms the Administration's commitment to ensure that
handicapped infants are not denied medical care solely
because of their handicap. This, of course, refers to the
so-called "Baby Doe" situations, which have been mired in
litigation. The statement in the article is general enough,
however, to be legally unobjectionable.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire: Independent Living Center
Statement (Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced candidate
questionnaire, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF: JGR:aea 9/25/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire: Independent Living Center
Statement (Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced candidate
questionnaire, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF: JGR:aea 9/25/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
O . OUTGOING
JEIR
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Richard Darman
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Questionnaire ! Independent Living Center
Statement (Prepared by R-B'84)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
WHOU
ORIGINATOR 84,09,25
/ /
Referral Note:
-
CUAT 18
D 84/09/25
58409127
Referral Note:
COB
CUAT 17
I 84,09,25
/ /
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
I
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A . Appropriate Action
I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R. - Direct Reply w/Copy
B- - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
9/25/84
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 9/27/84
SUBJECT:
QUESTIONNAIRE: INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER STATEMENT
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MURPHY
MEESE
OGLESBY
x
BAKER
ROGERS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
DARMAN
P
SS
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FULLER
ELLIOTT
HERRINGTON
BAROODY
HICKEY
McFARLANE
McMANUS
REMARKS:
Please provide any edits/comments directly to Mike Baroody by
September 27th, with an information copy to my office.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Richard G. Darman
1984 SEP 25 AN 8: 16
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
REAGAN-BUSH'84
The President's Authorized Campaign Committee
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MARGARET TUTWILER
THROUGH:
ED ROLLINS
FROM:
JIM LAKE
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 24, 1984
RE:
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER STATEMENT
Per the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's
November 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am
enclosing our draft statement for the Independent Living Center.
Before making any revisions, please bear in mind that
the Independent Living Center has imposed a 500 word limit.
Please advise me at your earliest possible convenience
of White House approval of the responses. We need the approval
notice by September 28 to meet our deadline.
440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984
Paid for by Reagan-Bush '84: Paul Laxalt, Chairman, Angela M. Buchanan Jackson, Treasurer
THE HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN
President of the United States
Statement for the Independent Living Center
September 24, 1984
One month before I opened the Olympic games in Los Angeles,
I opened another important athletic event -- the 1984
International Games for the Disabled. I told the athletes
there that disabled Americans are proving a disability doesn't
have to stand in the way of a full and active life. They are
showing all of us just how far men and women can go if only
they have the dedication and the will.
To encourage equal opportunity for disabled citizens, I
declared 1983-1992 the Decade of Disabled Americans. My
Administration is working vigorously to remove all artificial
barriers to the education, employment and recreation of
disabled individuals.
We have strengthened private sector job initiatives, and
established a program to assist special education students
making the transition to full community integration. We
developed a national information and referral system to help
disabled Americans cut through the maze of public and private
services and gain timely access to job information and programs.
We believe in increasing the incentives for family-based
care of the disabled. So the tax credit for caring for
dependents unable to care for themselves has been increased,
and a deduction of up to $1,500 per year has been provided for
adopting a child with special needs.
And we deplore discrimination of all kinds, so we're
fighting the insidious practice of denying basic medical care
-- even food and water -- to disabled infants. There is no
basis, whether in law or medicine or ethics, for denying care
to an infant just because of the child's handicap.
All our efforts have been bolstered by two major pieces of
legislation I signed, the Education of the Handicapped Act and
the Rehabilitation Amendments of 1984. These bills increase
funding for the P.L. 94-142 block grant program, for vocational
rehabilitation programs, and for discretionary programs,
including training for special education teachers. A new
provision in the Education of the Handicapped Act also creates
a program to educate parents to work more closely with their
disabled children's teachers.
When my Administration took office, we set out to increase
independence and opportunity for disabled Americans. America's
tradition of economic opportunity and freedom, sometimes taken
for granted, is particularly important to disabled citizens --
and it is a tradition that must be protected for all Americans.
In the last four years we've made it possible for all
Americans, including the disabled, to reach as high as their
God-given talents will take them. Our's is a message of hope
for America. And for disabled Americans, it is a message of
expanding social, educational, and economic opportunity.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
ILC
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, INC.
3308 TULANE AVE. / SUITE 220 / NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119
504 821-4981 TDD 504 821-4982
September 12, 1984
President Ronald Reagan
Campaign Headquarters
440 First Street, N.W., Suite 400
Rec'd 9/19
Washington, D.C. 20001
Dear President Reagan,
Independent Living Center, Inc. publishes a monthly newsletter "INDEPENDENCE".
The purpose of this newsletter is to inform people with disabilities about major
issues that affect our community. We have enclosed a copy of last month's issue
and also a copy of our agency's brochure.
In our opinion, service needs of the disabled is a major issue we are
approaching in the 1984 Presidential Election. As one of the candidates for
President of the United States, we invite you to submit an article on your position
concerning the five questions we have prepared for you. Please see the attached
question sheet.
As stated above, we are inviting all of the registered candidates to submit
position statements on services and benefits for persons with disabilities.
These will be published in our October issue of "INDEPENDENCE" which is
scheduled to be posted by early October. The deadline for submitting your
article is September 28, 1984.
We request you observe the following:
Statements to be limited to 500 words.
Statements received by this office no later than
September 28, 1984 will be published. Others
received after this date will not appear in this
Presidential Edition.
We look forward to hearing from you and hope you'll take the opportunity
to reach our readers. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
call. We wish you the best of luck in your campaign.
Sincerely,
Jan Joan B. Meunier B. . Meunier
Lou Sincerely, H dodd
Ms. Lou H. Dodd
Executive Director
Editor
"INDEPENDENCE"
COMMUNITY SERVICES. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES. SUPPORT SERVICES. FMPI OYMENT SERVICES
ILC
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, INC.
3308 TULANE AVE. / SUITE 220 / NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119
504 821-4981
TDD 504 821-4982
QUESTIONS FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
(1) What is your position on maintaining, enforcing and strengthening
the present handicapped legislation (P.L. 95-602, P.L. 94-142,
H.R. 5490, Civil Rights Act of 1983, etc.) which affects the lives
of millions of Americans with disabilities in this country?
(2) What is your position on increased funding for community base services
(At Home Attendant Care, Independent Living Skills Training, Homemaker
Services, etc.) through the Title XIX funding source?
(3) While unemployment continues to be a major problem for persons with
disabilities (because they are often faced with discrimination and
are denied employment because of their disability), how might you
address this issue on a national level in both the private and public
sector?
(4) Persons with disabilities often have great difficulty in obtaining
appropriate and low cost housing. The Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) has a rent subsidy program. Currently,
availability often requires years of waiting and most frequently,
housing for young, disabled persons is not available except in
complexes primarily designated for the elderly. How can you
increase funding from HUD to obtain more non-elderly handicapped
housing in the nation?
(5) Will you actively seek to appoint qualified persons with disabilities
to positions of authority in your administration?
COMMUNITY SERVICES RESIDENTIAL SERVICES SUPPORT SERVICES EMPLOYMENT SERVICES