Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "135838900",
    "label": "[JGR/Presidential Interviews and Questionnaires] (10/21/1984-03/31/1985)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135838900"
}

{
    "id": "135838900",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135838900",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[JGR/Presidential Interviews and Questionnaires] (10/21/1984-03/31/1985)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135838900",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-038-007-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-038-007-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-038-007-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135838900",
    "naId": 135838900,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-038-007-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "ec62812fbdec9866",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: [JGR/Presidential Interviews\nand Questionnaires] (10/21/1984-03/31/1985)\nBox: 38\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection.\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 23, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR MARGARET D. TUTWILER\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL 8762 TO THE PRESIDENT\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nCandidate Questionnaire From\nLegion of Estonian Liberation\nThe Legion of Estonian Liberation has prepared a letter to\nthe President that concludes with five questions addressed\nto Mr. Reagan \"as a candidate for President of the United\nStates.\" At Frank Fahrenkopf's urging, that letter, as well\nas a separate letter to Mr. Fahrenkopf from Y. Anson of the\nLegion, were referred to Linas Kojelis of the Office of\nPublic Liaison. Mr Kojelis has in turn referred the corres-\npondence to this office.\nBoth letters from the Legion are in the nature of candidate\nquestionnaires. They are accordingly referred to you for\nappropriate transmittal to Reagan-Bush '84, pursuant to the\nestablished procedures for handling such questionnaires. I\nrecognize that it may not be possible to prepare a timely\nreply to the Legion, but the correspondents should be\nadvised in some fashion that their concerns have reached the\ncampaign.\nMany thanks.\nCC: Linas Kojelis\n267402\nID #\nCU\nJV\nWHITE HOUSE\nF6017\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no . OUTGOING\nH - INTERNAL\nI - INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\ny.anson\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nConserns Meagarding the Justice\nDepartment's office of special Investigation\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nDD\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCultreland\nORIGINATOR 84,10,23\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nCUAT18\nR DD,, 84110.23\n58/11/103\nReferral Note:\nPL KOJE\nS DD, 84,10,17 LK A84,10117\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA - Appropriate Action\nI . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC . Comment/Recommendation\nR. . Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD - Draft Response\nS . For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX * Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference. ext. 2590.\n5/81\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 17, 1984\nDear Mr. Anson:\nPaul Zumbakis recently forwarded to me a copy of your letters to\nme and the President with your concerns regarding the Justice\nDepartment's Office of Special Investigations. As the Presi-\ndent's liaison with America's ethnic communities, and having\ntravelled in this capacity to many cities for meetings and\nconferences on ethnic issues, I, too, know of the many concerns\nof the East European-American communities regarding OSI. I have\nbrought these concerns to the attention of appropriate government\nofficials in the past and will continue to do so in the future.\nI have forwarded your letters to the White House General Coun-\nsel's office and have asked that they reply to the five specific\nconcerns outlined in your letter to the President.\nSincerely,\nLines Linas Kojelis Kojels\nAssociate Director\nOffice of Public Liaison\nMr. Y. Anson\nChairman\nLegion of Estonian Liberation, Inc.\nEstonian House\n243 E. 34th St.\nNew York, NY 10016\nbcc: John Roberts, GC\nLEGION OF ESTONIAN LIBERATION, INC.\nEesti Vabadusvöitlejate Liit\nEstonian House\n243 East 34th Street\nNew York, N.Y. 10016\n12 October 1984\n267402 a\nMR. Linas Kojelis\nAssociate Director, Office of Public Liason\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Kojelis:\nWhile Mr. Fahrenkopf was visiting Connecticut, I had the honor to meet\nhim personally and to offer my remarks on a particular issue - some aspects\nof the voter registration (and also voting).\nMy letter to Mr. Fahrenkopf and his reply are enclosed for your information.\nHe specifically suggested that contact be established with you directly.\nMeanwhile, a member of our veterans organization had also prepared a\nletter to the President, addressing the problem with a different point of\nview; amplifying the background, giving reasons and also raising some\ninteresting questions and issues about the citizenship. This gentleman\nis very active in the republican politics; and since I also happen to\nbe a republican town chairman in a small town, I decided to forward the\nletter (to the President) to your attention.\nWould you kindly consider pursuing the matter further. I would very much\nappreciate a reply covering, in particular, the five questions at the\nvery end of this letter.\nRespectfully yours,\nY. freend Anson, chrn\nRepublican\nNational\nCommittee\nFrank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.\nChairman\nJuly 6, 1984\nYlo Anson\nBoston Hill Road\nAndover, CT 06232\nDear Mr. Anson:\nThank you for your letter of June 27 concerning voter registration\nefforts in Connecticut.\nCertainly, Euro-Ethnic-American greatly impact the political\ndecisions made in the Northeast. However, my responsibilities\nas Chairman of the Republican National Committee preclude me\nfrom interfering in alleged policies of the Administration.\nMay I suggest that you bring your concerns to the Mr. Linas\nKojelis who handles Ethnic concerns for the White House.\nAgain, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.\nVery truly yours,\nFrank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.\nFJF/mjh\nDwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6700\n27 June 1984\nMr. Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., chairman\nRepublican National Committee\n310 First Street, SW\nWashington, D.C. 20003\nDear Mr. Fahrenkopf:\nOn June 7, I had the pleasure and honor to meet you personally\nin Hartford, Connecticut.\nDuring the conversation I mentioned two aspects of the \"crash\"\nvoter registration drive. One source is the disenchanted (mostly\nrelatively young) potential voter group; the other is in the area\nof ethnic groups.\nIn the past the voter registration program has been sporadic.\nThe National Heritage Groups as Dart of your organization, has\nmade some efforts. The success has been variable from my Ders-\npective.\nAs I indicated to you, there is concern among the ethnic voters\nand potential voters, especially with the Eastern European back-\ngroung or heritage. And that concern is over the Office of Spe-\ncial Investigations (Dept. of Justice) and KGB (Soviet Police\napparatus) collaboration, This matter has been covered well by\nvarious ethnic newspapers in the States and also in Canada. The\nbasis is a special documented report (140 Dages) compiled by an\nattorney in Chicago, Mr. Paul Zumbakis. I have also read this\nreport and I must agree with its contents.\nThe collaboration issue is on many minds; I have personally\nnoticed that in Cleveland, Ohio (in May) and in Buffalo, NY\n(also in May), and in New Jersey-New York area as well.\nUnless something meaningful will happen about the OSI activities\n(apparently overstepping their mandate), the ethnic voter regis-\ntration drive will be only partially successful, Further, the\npotential voters may see something more likeable with the other\nparty and their candidates. Is this what we want?\nAbout a year ago I addressed some remarks to Mr. R. Richards,\nthen our national chairman; he forwarded my communication to the\nHeritage Groups, where the issue never was addressed properly,\nRespectfully,\nY, Anson\nBoston Hill Road\nAndover, CT. 06232\nLEGION OF ESTONIAN LIBERATION, CONNECTICUT POST INC\nEesti Vöitlejote Uhing Connecticutis\n200 Maple Street\nManchester Connecticut 06040\n12 October 1984\nThe President of the United States\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. President:\nBetween June 17 - 20, 1940, the Soviet Union forcibly subjugated the\nBaltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. This initial takeover was\nabetted by small groups of local communists. As a result, the legitimate\ngovernments of these nations were toppled and replaced by regimes loyal to\nand subservient to the Soviet Union. By available evidence, it has been\nestimated that some 200,000 Baltic people were either murdered, forcibly\nremoved or sent to Siberian labor camps within the one year following.\nBy nations, the human losses were as follows: Estonia -60,000 persons;\nLatvia - 65,000 persons; Lithuania - 75,000 persons.\nUpon the forced withdrawal of the Soviet forces in the summer of 1941,\nlocal organs of Baltic self-government - administrative, police and defense\n- quickly reappeared. In reality, the nations of Estonia, Latvia and\nLithuania were in a state of war with the Soviet Union between the years\nof 1941 to 1945. Many desperate battles were fought on a number of fronts.\nAt the same time, the Baltic home front was being secured by local police\nand defense units. Simultaneously, the shifting tide of battle between\nNazi Germany and the Soviet Union effectively turned the Baltic area into\na smoldering battleground between those two superpowers. Added to this\nconventional warfare was the constant threat of communist-inspired guer-\nrillas and saboteurs directed at the Baltic area. In response to this mur-\nderous threat, the local police and defense units were ordered to take\nappropriate counter-measures, consistent with the legal systems of those\nnations.\nAt the time of the second Soviet conquest in the fall of 1944, some\n300,000 Baltic citizens managed to escape to a number of western antions,\nprincipally Sweden and Germany, and later, to the United States, Australia,\nCanada and elsewhere. Having settled in these lands, the Baltic refugees\nthere quicky organized informational services to enlighten the world's\npeoples to the reality and incredible brutality of the Soviet threat to\nall mankind. Governments-in-exile and other organizations were formed -\nall of them avowedly anti-communist. Naturally these groups became and still\nvery much are thorns in the sides of Muscovite overlords. Consequently,\nthey have stopped at absolutely nothing to try to smear and to try to\ndiscredit these anti-communist forces in the outside world.\n- 2 -\nAnd, tragically, it appears that the Soviets may realize their goal.\nThis is due, in large measure, to a law passed by the 95th Congress in\n1978, whereby entry visas and rights to American citizenship are denied\nto any person who \"collaborated\" with the German authorities between the\nyears 1933 to 1945 and/or \"persecuted\" people for racial, religious or\nnationality reasons. As a follow-up, a year later, the Office of Special\nInvestigations (0.S.I.) was set up as an off-shoot of the Justice Depart-\nment. Their mission: to weed out Americans of Eastern European heritage,\ndeprive them of American citizenship, and to deport them to the U.S.S.R\nor Isreal. Since then, the O.S.I. has engaged in intensive investigations\nregarding many former Eastern Europeans who allegedly aided or abetted the\nGerman occupation forces during those years, especially in the persecution\nof Jews. The charge has been levelled against these individuals that they\nhad not disclosed their World War Two-era activities to the U.S. Immigration\nand Naturalization afficials upon their entry into this country. Based\nlargely on the testimony and \"evidence\" provided by the Soviet Communist\nauthorities, a number of American citizens have already been deprived of\ntheir citizenship and face deportation.\nOne of the great human tragedies of the whole thing is that patriotic\nAmericans whose only crime was to oppose the onslaught of the Soviet tyranny\nin their earlier homelands, are now being harassed in American courts, with\nthe primary \"evidence\" being provided by a ruthless totalitarian power -\nthe Soviet Union. Yet, it is obviously true that these persecuted Americans\nhad to and did adhere to the legitimate national defense policies and laws\nof their homelands vis-a-vis the Soviet invaders. What laws, then, have\nbeen violated? Obvoiusly - none!\nBy the law of all civilized nations - and this is steeped in the ancient\nRoman legal code - ex post facto provisions are not admissible in court. So,\ntoo, is it in the American legal system. With all Americans, that is, except\nthose who most bitterly resisted Soviet tyranny. What a colossal miscarriage\nof justice is now taking place in the Land of the Free. Patriotic Americans\nare being prosecuted under laws that did not exist at the time, with the\nevidence provided by their hated foe - Communist Russia. Is it really pos-\nsible that this could be occurring in America in 1984 ?\nIn summation: The right of self-defense against foreign invasion is\nguaranteed by international law to all nations, to all peoples. Between the\nyears of 1940 to 1945, the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian peoples among\nothers waged a desperate fight for national self-presrvation against Soviet\nattack. In doing so, they followed the established law of their nations.\nJustice cries out here - wherein lies their crime ? The answer appears\nridiculously self-evident. There is none.\nTherefore:\n(a) In that the U.S. Justice Department has revoked the citizenship of a\nnumber of Americans based on highly-questionable \"evidence\" supplied\nby Soviet sources, and\n(b) In that most of the accused are aged, are little-versed in American\njurisprudence, and of limited financial means for meaningful self-\ndefense, and\n(c) In that illegal ex post facto provisions to the law have been used\nagainst these individuals for crimes that were allegedly committed\nover forty years ago, and\n- 3 -\n(d) In that is virtually impossible for these accused to provide\nauthentic witnesses or evidence on their own behalf after all these\nyears, and\n(e) In that the charges are being made in American courts by prosecutors\nwho are not cognizant of/do not recognize the Roman Law upon which\nthe Esonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian legal codes were based -\nas a candidate for President of the United States, you are respectfully\nbeing asked to respond to the following :\n(1) Do you consider the methods, tactics and mode of operations being\nused by the Office of Special Investigations to be within the spirit\nof the American law ?\n(2) Do you consider O.S.I. collaboration with the Soviet K.G.B. in these\ncases to be appropriate ?\n(3) Are the present activities of the O.S.I. serving American national\nor humanitarian interests ?\n(4) What do you propose to do to protect the rights of these Americans\nwhose liberties are being trampled on by the O.S.I. in full cooperat-\nion with the Soviet Secret Police ? Will you help to protect their\nrights or will they be turned over to the jurisdiction of a totali-\ntarian state ?\n(5) Did the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians have a legitimate right\nto defend their homelands against Soviet invasion as the laws of\nthese nations had spelled out ? Were they first supposed to acquaint\nthemselves with the intricasies of the American legal system before\nthey manned their defensive positions against the Soviets from 1941\nto 1945 ? Can these Americans now be prosecuted through laws which\nwere written many years after the fact, forty years removed in time,\ndealing with confusing events in a war-torn part of the world,\nthousands of miles away ?\nWe respectfully request your thoughts and answers to the above issues.\nSincerely,\nEnn Koiva\nEduard Raig\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 31, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY\nDEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nDIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS 825R\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nQuestionnaire: Knight-Ridder Newspapers\n(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the responses to the\nabove-referenced candidate questionnaire, and finds no\nobjection to them from a legal perspective.\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\n0 * OUTGOING\nH . INTERNAL\nJGR\nI . INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nRichard / Darman\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Questionnaire knight -Ridder.\nNewspapers (Prepared by R/B '84)\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCutton\nORIGINATOR 84,10,31\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 18\nR 84,10,31\n584111101\nReferral Note:\nnoon\nCUAT 17\nI 84,110,31\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA - Appropriate Action\nI . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC * Comment/Recommendation\nR * Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD - Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE: 10/31/84\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: NOON TOMORROW, 11/1\nSUBJECT: QUESTIONNAIRE: KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nMURPHY\nMEESE\nOGLESBY\nBAKER\nROGERS\nDEAVER\n>\nSPEAKES\nSTOCKMAN\nSVAHN\nDARMAN\nP\nSS\nVERSTANDIG\nFIELDING\nWHITTLESEY\nFULLER\nELLIOTT\nHERRINGTON\nBAROODY\nHICKEY\nMcFARLANE\nMcMANUS\nREMARKS:\nPlease provide any edits/comments directly to Mike Baroody, with a copy\nto my office, by Noon tomorrow, 11/1. Thank you.\nRESPONSE:\n1984 OCT 31 AM II: 19\nRichard G. Darman\nAssistant to the President\nExt. 2702\nREAGAN-BUSH'84\nThe President's Authorized Campaign Committee\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nMARGARET TUTWILER\nTHROUGH:\nED ROLLINS\nFROM:\nJIM LAKE\nDATE:\nOCTOBER 30, 1984\nRE:\nKNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS QUESTIONNAIRE\nPer the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's\nNovember 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am\nenclosing draft responses to a set of questions from\nKnight-Ridder.\nPlease advise me at your earliest possible convenience\nof White House approval of the responses. We need the approval\nnotice by November 1 to meet our deadline.\n440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984\nPaid for by Reagan Bush 84: Paul Laxalt. Chairman: Angela M. Buchanan Jackson Treasurer\nKNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS\nWASHINGTON BUREAU\n1319 F Street, NW\nSuite 600\nWashington. DC 20004\n(202) 637-3600\nOct. 29, 1984\nJohn:\nHere are the six questions we would like you\nto answer. As I mentioned on the telephone,\nthe same questions are being posed to both\ncandidates, and the responses can be kept\nrelatively brief, 150 to 200 words each.\nThanks for expediting this on short notice\nso we can have them back by Thursday. If\nthere is anything I can do to help speed\nthings up, let me know.\nImagine, only eight days and counting.\nSincerely,\nOwen Owen Ullmann\nJohn Buckley\nReacan- Bush Campaign\n440 1st St. N.W.\n4th floor 388-1970\nKNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS\nWASHINGTON BUREAU\n1319 F Street, NW\nSuite 600\nWashington, DC 20004\n(202) 637-3600\nLEADERSHIP. The president has been described as sometimes being\n3503\nill-informed on important issues, and many have expressed concern\nthat he may lack the physical and mental capacity to complete a\nsecond term. Mr. Mondale has been criticized as being too pessi-\nmistic, too beholden to special interest groups, too close to being\na wimp. Could you justify why the American people should entrust\nyou to be their leader for the next four years?\nTERRORISM. Secretary Schultz indicated in a recent speech that the\nAmerican public must support the government in taking action against\ninternational terrorists. Do you feel that it's time to get tough--to\ntake the best intelligence available and then use military force, if\npossible, for acts of reprisal against, or prevention of, terrorism?\nIf that time hasn't arrived, what will you do to more effectively\ncombat terrorism as a political weapon?\nTAXES. What specific assurances can you offer the American people\nthat your tax policies are fair and in the best interests of the\nnation at large, given the strong desire to continue economic\nrecovery and at the same time reduce the federal deficit? Do you\nfavor major reforms of the income tax system or would you rather\nsee another tax, such as a national sales or value added tax?\nINDUSTRY. For the past several years, under both Republican and\nDemocratic administrations, America's industrial power has been\ndeteriorating as more and more foreign goods are being used in the\nUnited States. Is this a danger not just to jobs but to the basic\nsecurity of the nation? Aside from promises that you can make this\nsituation better, what specific actions will you take to bolster\nbasic industry?\nSOCIAL SECURITY. Both candidates have promised not to touch Social\nSecurity benefits--either now or for future recipients. Can this\nposition be maintained since Social Security is certain to consume\nan increasingly large share of the federal budget and national wealth?\nWhat will you do to ensure that Social Security will be healthy in\nthe next century?\nDEFENSE. President Reagan says a space-based missile defense, which\nsome people have called \"Star Wars, could end the peril of nuclear\nwar. Mr. Mondale says it would simply extend the arms race into a\nnew arena, at great cost and without making the world safer. Which\nis right, and why?\nRESPONSE BY THE HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN\nPRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES\nTO A QUESTIONNAIRE BY\nKNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPERS\nOctober 30, 1984\nLEADERSHIP\nQ: The President has been described as sometimes being\nill-informed on important issues, and many have expressed\nconcern that he may lack the physical and mental capacity\nto complete a second term. Mr. Mondale has been criticized\nas being too pessimistic, too beholden to special interest\ngroups, too close to being a wimp. Could you justify why\nthe American people should entrust you to be their leader\nfor the next four years?\nA: Those statements you cite arise from a different view of\nthis job. I don't believe a President should get so bogged\ndown in details that he is reviewing the schedule for the\nWhite House tennis courts. We saw that kind of government\nunder our predecessors. They said to the American people.\n\"trust me,\" and now my opponent admits they let the people\ndown. But my opponent is saying \"trust me\" again.\nIn 1980. I said that my view of government places trust not\nin one person or one party, but where it belongs: in the\npeople. But the responsibility to live up to that trust is\nalso where it belongs: in their elected leaders. Unlike\nmy opponent, we have lived up to that trust. Through our\nfaith in the people. we have kept our promise to reduce\ninflation and interest rates, to put Americans back to\nwork, and to rebuild America's defenses. We haven't solved\nall our problems yet. But unlike my opponent, who would go\nback to depending on bigger government financed by higher\ntaxes, we plan to meet the challenges still facing us by\ncounting on the people to keep America growing and going.\nTERRORISM\nQ. Secretary Schultz indicated in a recent speech that the\nAmerican public must support the government in taking\naction against international terrorists. Do you feel it's\ntime to get tough -- to take the best intelligence\navailable and then use military force, if possible, for\nacts of reprisal against, or prevention of, terrorism? If\nthat time hasn't arrived, what will you do to more\neffectively combat terrorism as a political weapon?\nA. Secretary Schultz's speech, while an important statement,\npresented little new in terms of U.S. policy. From the\nstart of our Administration, we placed great emphasis on\nimproving our ability to defend ourselves against\nterrorism. Last year, we began implementing a three-part\nplan: legislation to make prosecution of terrorists\neasier, increased cooperation with fellow democracies, and\nimproved security at U.S. installations. And of course, we\nhave worked to rebuild our intelligence capabilities to\nanticipate terrorist activities better. While the\nparticular response to any terrorist threat depends on the\nsituation involved -- including the ability to determine\nthe specific identity of the responsible parties, and the\neffectiveness of the response in deterring future activity\n-- those considering terrorists acts can be assured of two\nthings: first, every means at our disposal will be used to\ncounter the scourge of terrorism wherever it threatens U.S.\ncitizens, and second, the threat of terrorism will not\ndeter the United States from carrying out its\nresponsibilities, diplomatic or otherwise, nor from\nprotecting and defending U.S. interests around the globe.\nTAXES\nQ. What specific assurances can you offer the American people\nthat your tax policies are fair and in the best interests\nof the nation at large, given the strong desire to continue\neconomic recovery and at the same time reduce the Federal\ndeficit? Do you favor major reforms of the income tax\nsystem or would you rather see another tax, such a national\nsales or value-added tax?\nA. I get a little tired of hearing from my opponents about\nfairness in taxation. It seems their idea of fairness is\nto raise everyone's taxes. Our idea of fairness is to\nreduce everyone's taxes. To keep his promises, my opponent\nwould be required to raise taxes at least $1,800 for the\naverage American family. He said a few weeks ago that he\nwould totally repeal our indexing reform, which keeps\ninflation from pushing working families into higher\nbrackets. The Treasury Department revealed recently that\nindexing will save the typical family of four $84 in taxes\nnext year -- and nearly $700 a year by 1989. A family\nearning $10,000 could pay $231 more a year in income taxes\nby 1989 if indexing is repealed. That's not my idea of\nfairness and compassion.\nWe intend to go on from our 1981 reforms to make the entire\ntax code simpler and fairer for all taxpayers. Such a plan\ncould help bring the underground economy into the sunlight\nof honest tax compliance and broaden the tax base, so\npersonal rates could go down, not up.\nINDUSTRY\nQ. For the past several years, under both Republican and\nDemocratic Administrations, America's industrial power has\nbeen deteriorating as more and more foreign goods are being\nused in the United States. Is this a danger not just to\njobs but to the basic security of the nation? Aside from\npromises that you can make this situation better, what\nspecific actions will you take to bolster industry?\nA. Dr. Charles Schultze, the Carter-Mondale Chairman of the\nCouncil of Economic Advisors, recently debunked this\n\"de-industrialization\" notion. Over the last decade, he\nsaid, America produced more jobs than any other industrial\nnation, our manufacturing production grew faster than any\ncountry except Japan, and exports of American manufactured\ngoods doubled.\nIn 1980, American industry did face high inflation and\ninterest, overtaxation and overregulation. We've lowered\ninflation and interest rates, instituted pro-growth tax\nincentives, reduced regulation, enforced trade laws and\nprovided relief in a few instances, as in the auto and\nsteel industries, where it's been warranted. Now we're\nseeing productivity rising, the highest levels of business\ninvestment in decades, and a record number of business\nincorporations. If we keep inflation and interest rates\ndown and keep these pro-growth incentives in place (instead\nof boosting the tax and regulatory burden on businesses, as\nmy opponent proposes), and if Americans work together to\nimprove quality, become more productive, hold down costs,\nand invest in tomorrow and tomorrow's technology, then we\ncan out-compete, out-perform, and out-sell anybody.\nSOCIAL SECURITY\nQ. Both candidates have promised not to touch Social Security\nbenefits -- either now or for future recipients. Can this\nposition be maintained since Social Security is certain to\nconsume an increasingly large share of the federal budget\nand national wealth? What will you do to ensure that\nSocial Security will be healthy in the next century?\nA. When we came to office, Social Security was headed for\nbankruptcy, even though the Carter-Mondale Administration\nhad enacted benefit cuts and the biggest tax increase in\nhistory just a few years before. We ignored the attacks\nfrom those who would have turned the system into a\npolitical football, and worked with our opposition to find\na long-term solution -- not just another quick-fix. Under\nthis solution, benefits have continued to rise, and they\nwill rise another 3.5 percent in January.\nBecause of the work we've done, the Social Security\nTrustees have reported that the system will be safe well\ninto the next century. In fact, one of the trustees called\nthat report \"an understatement.\" That's why I can make the\npledge that I will never stand for a reduction of Social\nSecurity benefits, for the people now getting them or for\nthose who will receive them in the future.\nBy the way, I believe my opponent's attacks on this issue\nare becoming increasingly irresponsible. He's trying to\nscare senior citizens depending on Social Security. He\nought to be ashamed of himself and it ought to stop now.\nDEFENSE\nQ. President Reagan says a space-based missile defense, which\nsome people have called \"Star Wars,\" could end the peril of\nnuclear war. Mr. Mondale says it would simply extend the\narms race into a new arena, at great cost and without\nmaking the world safer. Which is right, and why?\nA. I have asked the Department of Defense to begin research on\na Strategic Defense Initiative, investigating the\npossibility of a weapon to defend us from incoming nuclear\nmissiles. The goal of such a search is not to expand the\nnuclear arms race, but to end it for all time by making\nthese horrible weapons obsolete. We would not turn nuclear\nwar over to computers, as my opponent -- who seems confused\nabout the issue -- has charged. Instead we would regain\ncontrol over our own destinies rather than counting on the\nthreat of total annihilation that is the basis of his\npolicy.\nWhen we began this effort, there was no guarantee of\nsuccess. There remains no guarantee of success today. But\nneither was there a guarantee of success when President\nJohn Kennedy accepted the challenge of putting a man on the\nmoon. Just as that attempt proved worthwhile in its\nexpansion of man's horizons, wouldn't it be worthwhile if\nwe could develop such a defensive weapon and free mankind\nfrom the threat of nuclear weapons once and for all?\nWouldn't it be more humanitarian to destroy missiles\ninstead of slaughtering millions of innocent people?\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 27, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS DDR\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nFinal Version of Questions and Answers\nfor National Wildlife Magazine\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced questions\nand answers, and finds no objection to them from a legal\nperspective.\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no . OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nDavid Chew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nFinal version an Q/A for national\nwildlife magazine\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUITOLL\nORIGINATOR 85/02/27\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 18\nR 85,02,27\n5 85,02,27\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/ /\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\n-\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA - Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR . Direct Reply w/Copy\nB . Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX * Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE:\n2/27/85\nc.o.b. TODAY\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:\nSUBJECT:\nFINAL VERSION OF Q&A FOR NATIONAL WILDLIFE MAGAZINE\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nMURPHY\nMEESE\nOGLESBY\nREGAN\nROGERS\nDEAVER\nSPEAKES\nSTOCKMAN\nSVAHN\nCHEW\nP\nSS\nVERSTANDIG\nFIELDING\nWHITTLESEY\nFULLER\nKINGON\nBUCHANAN\nTUTTLE\nHICKEY\nROLLINS\nMcFARLANE\nFRIEDERSDORF\nMcMANUS\nBAROODY\nREMARKS:\nAttached is the cleared version of the Q&A for National Wildlife Magazine,\nwhich we plan to send to the magazine. Please let me know by c.o.b. today\nif you have any problems.\nThank you.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\n1985 FED 27 All 9: 11\nExt. 2702\nFebruary 26, 1985\nQuestions & Answers for National Wildlife Magazine\nby President Ronald Reagan\n10: You've often spoken eloquently of the \"shining city on a\nhill\" when talking about the future you see for America.\nIsn't clean air and water, better stewardship of the land,\na sane energy policy, and safeguarding our precious\nwildlife resources an essential part of the picture?\nA: Absolutely. America's tremendous economic recovery has\nbeen achieved while preserving the wildlife, scenic\ngrandeur and other environmental treasures we Americans\nhold dear.\nIn fact, these values have been enhanced through such\ninitiatives as the billion dollar park restoration and\nimprovement program, the great surge in private sector\ncontributions of time, land, money and equipment to the\nparks and wildlife refuge systems, several exciting\nfishery restoration projects, and the Chesapeake Bay\nrecovery effort -- just to name a few.\nDuring my second Administration, we're going to continue\nto be good stewards of all these priceless resources.\n2Q: Of all the major environmental problems facing us in this\ncountry today, which do you consider the most pressing?\nAnd how will your Administration address the issue?\nA: Well, there are several -- and we are addressing each of\nthem. Certainly we are going to keep working on identify-\ning and cleaning up toxic waste sites. Of equal importance\nis implementing the recently-enacted changes to the\nResource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates\ncurrently operating toxic waste disposal sites. A strong\nRCRA program is insurance against the mistakes that led to\nthe need for the Superfund.\nWe also must continue our aggressive effort to identify\nthe factors that contribute to acid deposition so that we\ncan determine whether our existing air pollution controls\nare sufficient.\n-2-\n3Q: Of the thousands of toxic dumps listed by the EPA as\ndangerous, only a handful are being cleaned up, in spite\nof Superfund. Both Bill Ruckelshaus, former EPA Admini-\nstrator, and Lee Thomas, your present Administrator, feel\nmuch more money is going to be needed. Will you support a\n$10 billion fund in order to get the job done faster and\nhelp people feel safer?\nA: First of all, it's not true that only a handful of the\ntoxic dumps are being cleaned up. Work has been done at\nhundreds of sites, including emergency cleanup and engineer-\ning studies. Keep in mind that each site is different,\nand with groundwater or deep soil contamination, you can't\njust bring in a bulldozer and be done with it. Some sites\nwill take years to clean up.\nWhen we took office the Superfund had just been authorized.\nWe had to start from scratch on a problem that had been\nignored for decades. Our cleanup record is a good one,\nand we'll keep moving ahead on this.\nIn my last two State of the Union Addresses, I committed\nour Administration to support Superfund reauthorization.\nOn February 22, I sent to the Congress proposed legislation\nto keep that commitment. The bill would more than triple\nthe size of the Superfund program -- from $1.6 billion to\n$5.3 billion over the next five years. The EPA has\nestimated that it cannot prudently spend more than\n$1 billion per year, so our proposal sets the best funding\nlevel for getting the job done.\nIn addition to the expansion of Superfund, we have asked\nfor increased enforcement authority to make responsible\nparties either do the cleanup or pay for it. We also want\na larger role for affected citizens and the States, and\nexpanded authority to respond to emergencies.\nThere's no doubt we have to move forward aggressively\nto eliminate the dangers caused by years of past waste\ndisposal practices. It takes time, but we're getting it\ndone.\nI have instructed EPA Administrator Lee Thomas to make\nreauthorization of the Superfund his highest priority.\n-3-\n4Q: Many of your Administration's environmental policies seem\ndirected toward changing the role of the Federal government\nin protecting the environment. What do you believe is the\nappropriate role of the government in environmental\nprotection?\nA: I believe one of the most important responsibilities of\ngovernment is protection of the environment -- air, water,\nwildlife, parks and so forth. But let's remember that in\nour country there are several levels of government. What\nwe have tried to do is restore the partnership of the\nFederal government with the states in protecting the\nenvironment.\nSome of these protections require Federal leadership\nbecause, if a problem is not dealt with adequately in one\nstate, the problem \"flows,\" so-to-speak, into neighboring\nstates.\nBut there are many environmental and resource protection\nmeasures that are better and more effectively handled by\nstates or localities.\nWe have been trying to restore the principle that the\nFederal government should take the lead in environmental\nprotection and managing natural resources where the\nnational interest is involved, and that the states and\nlocalities should shoulder the responsibilities where\nthey can and should be doing the job.\nThat Federalist principle is a sound one and a very\nAmerican one. Overly restrictive, overly costly and\ninappropriate Federal regulations too often have done\nmore harm than good.\n5Q: If states are given the responsibility for setting\nenvironmental standards, isn't there a possibility that\nmany will enter into competition for new or relocated\nindustry by reducing stringent environmental controls?\nA: That is a legitimate concern in some cases. We support\nand are enforcing the laws that require states to establish\nand police environmental standards.\nFor example, surface mining regulation is one instance\nwhere Congress says the states must meet certain standards,\nand the Federal government must intervene if they don't.\nWe have intervened -- we've taken over two state programs\n-- when they failed to live up to the standards established\nunder the Federal strip mining law.\n-4-\nBut we think in most instances the states should enforce\nenvironmental protection programs, and should have reason-\nable flexibility to tailor regulations to adjust to the\nsituations within each individual state.\n6Q: The Endangered Species Act requires that the habitat\nneeds of certain troubled species take precedence over\nFederal authorized development. Do you believe that water\ndevelopment projects, as one example, should be modified\nor even cancelled when necessary to protect the habitat of\nan endangered species?\nA: As you know, the Endangered Species Act provides for\nFederal activities to be carried out so that endangered\nspecies are not jeopardized. Under the conditions you\nstate in your question -- where it is the only alternative\nto protect an endangered species -- modification of the\nproject or, if necessary, cancellation may be appropriate.\nAs you also know, the Act as amended does provide for\nCongressional consideration of waivers in cases of unresolv-\nable conflict. This provision has been little used. When\nit has, satisfactory alternatives have usually been found\nto protect endangered species and let the project go\nthrough. We believe that sound planning and active public\ninvolvement can minimize conflicts and, in most cases,\nresolve them.\n70: When you go to Canada next week to meet with Prime Minister\nMulroney, the number one topic may be acid rain. What\nwill you say when he asks what Uncle Sam is going to do?\nA: Acid rain is a serious environmental concern and one that\nmy Administration has taken significant measures to\naddress.\nWhat many people do not realize is that the United States\nleads the world in air pollution control. Since 1973, the\nU.S. has reduced sulphur dioxide by 26%. New automobiles\nare equiped with pollution controls that almost eliminate\nemissions of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide. As a\npeople, we have spent over $150 billion in higher fuel\ncosts and electric power rates to achieve these\nreductions.\nThis year, I have asked Congress for a 33% increase in\nfunds, $88 million, to conduct research on the causes of\nacid rain and ways which its damage may be corrected.\n-5-\nIndependent of acid rain controls, the EPA has proposed\nnew regulations which will reduce the suspected pollut-\nants. These include new controls for tall stacks at\nutility plants and reductions in lead added to gasoline.\nUncle Sam has been doing his part to make our common\nenvironment better.\n8Q: Mr. President, your ranch and your visits there provide\nfor you a respite from the tough job in the White House.\nOur readers would be interested in how you manage your\nranch and what you enjoy most about the land and wildlife.\nDo you attempt or manage the land for any particular type\nof wildlife, such as songbirds or deer?\nA: I'm not at the ranch as much as I'd like -- and never for\nmore than a few days at a time. So I'm not able to run\ncattle there or actively manage it at all, any more. But\nNancy and I maintain the ranch as open land and we enjoy\nseeing the hawks, the blacktailed deer, the raccoons and\npossums, and the other animals that live there.\nI think it's important for us to keep open lands in the\nUnited States. There's something about the wide open\nspaces that gives you a real feeling of freedom, and I\nthink the pioneers who settled the West felt that. That's\none of the things I enjoy most about the ranch. It brings\nme back to a sense of history, of remembering where we\ncame from, how our country grew, and what kind of people\nmade it. The open lands, the wild lands, are an important\npart of our heritage, and I think every American should\nhave the opportunity to experience that.\n9Q: About 50 years ago, another President convened a White\nHouse conference to address fish and wildlife protection\nissues. Out of that grew the National Wildlife Federation.\nNow half a century later, how do you feel about the\npossibility of calling another White House conference to\naddress conservation and environmental issues?\nA: Well, a lot of good came out of that first North American\nWildlife Conference called by President Roosevelt in 1936.\nNot only did it foster the birth of the General Wildlife\nFederation, which later became the National Wildlife\nFederation, but it set in motion the annual series of\nNorth American conferences as a way for professionals\nin the fields of fish and wildlife and natural resource\nmanagement to meet and discuss current issues and directions.\n-6-\nRegarding the origins of Presidential involvement in the\nprogress of natural resource management in this country,\nI think you can look back even further, when another\nRoosevelt, Theodore, established the tradition of involve-\nment with the natural resources community. I'd like to\nhelp carry on that tradition.\n10Q: The present problems of the deficit have focused increasing\nattention upon wasteful programs and government subsidies.\nIn light of this, should the Federal government continue\nto hold sales of public timber that lose money and charge\nranchers less than the market rate for grazing livestock\non public lands?\nA: First, let me answer your question about grazing fees.\nThis is a topic that Congress will be addressing soon. As\nyou know, Congress established a formula for determining\nfair market value for grazing livestock on public lands\nand directed that the formula be used and studied on a\n7-year trial basis. We are nearing the end of that test\nperiod and will be making recommendations to the Congress\nin the near future. I'm not ready yet to say what our\nrecommendations will be, but, I think it is important that\nthe public receive a reasonable return for use of the\npublic resources.\nWith regard to public timber sales, this is an important\nrevenue source and is the economic livelihood of many of\nour small towns and communities. Our budget for this year\nproposes that we change the calculation of receipt sharing\nto reflect the annual costs of sales, which will probably\ndiscourage sales that lose money. There are many things\nthat must be considered in deciding whether or not to\nharvest. Cost is one that has to be weighed heavily in\nthe decision process.\n11Q: You have signed legislation creating more Wilderness than\nany other President. There are those who argue that we\nhave already established enough Wilderness and that any\nmore designations should stop. Others hold that we need\nadditional Wilderness areas. What is your position?\nA: America is blessed with abundant land, water and wildlife\nresources that provide excellent opportunities to our\ncitizens for outdoor activities. We are fortunate that\nour predecessors in this government had the foresight to\nestablish great national parks, Wilderness, and wildlife\nrefuge systems to protect the best of these national\ntreasures.\n-7-\nProtection of the Nation's park, Wilderness and wildlife\nresources has been and continues to be a high priority of\nthis Administration. It is a goal I stressed to Secretary\nHodel when I nominated him to be Secretary of the Interior.\nWith regard to the question of whether we have enough\nWilderness already, the Congress established a procedure\nfor inventorying and studying our resources to determine\ntheir suitability for designation as Wilderness. We\ncontinue to study lands to determine which areas possess\nWilderness characteristics and should be protected and\npreserved. The system provides for input from all\ninterested parties, with the final designation decision\nresting with the Congress, following recommendations from\nthe Executive Branch.\nWhile there is no absolute answer to your question on how\nmuch Wilderness is needed, I think the process established\nby Congress provides for proper consideration in reaching\nwise decisions.\n12Q: The National Wildlife Federation believes the private\nsector must take the lead in solving many environmental\nproblems. With this in mind, we have established the\nCorporate Conservation Council as a forum in which these\nissues can be discussed. Would you offer your views on\nthe role you see for the private sector and the value of\nthis kind of exchange?\nA: Well, I'm tempted to say, \"Welcome to the team!\" The\nNational Wildlife Federation isn't alone, by any means, in\nbelieving that we need to tap the vast talent and know-how\nthe private sector can offer in dealing with the Nation's\nnatural resource issues. I'm for using the broadest array\nof expertise we can put together to address these matters.\nWe've always believed that this was the way to go, and\nthat government can't do the job alone. That's the\nmotivation behind our private sector initiative effort.\nWe've been trying to open up the avenues by which business\nand industry can tackle some of these issues that are\ngrowing beyond the means of any one organization or\ngovernment agency to solve.\nIf your Corporate Conservation Council can support these\nventures and provide a forum for ideas on how best to\nbuild these sorts of partnerships, it will be doing a real\nservice. I can assure you that any recommendations coming\nout of the council or any similar body will get a fair\nhearing in this White House.\n-8-\nWe've pioneered a number of private sector projects at the\nInterior Department. For example, the new National Fish\nand Wildlife Foundation will help promote even greater\nprivate sector involvement in fish and wildlife issues.\nThe Foundation, as you know, is designed to encourage\ndonations of funds and property to support the activities\nof the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.\nSo we've got the ball rolling, and I welcome the Federation's\nCorporate Conservation Council to help us keep it going\nwith your ideas, your direction, and your support.\n13Q: Many studies have concluded that pollution controls\nactually provide economic benefits through increased\nemployment and business profits. Isn't this a strong\nargument for pollution cleanup?\nA: Let's just say that I don't need that argument to convince\nme of the need for pollution prevention and pollution\ncleanup. The strongest economic argument for pollution\nprevention and cleanup is the fact that excessive pollution\nlevies some very heavy costs -- costs in terms of added\nhealth care problems, avoidable injury, deterioration of\nstructures and equipment, and harm to tourism and recreation\nattractions.\nPollution abatement and cleanup do provide opportunities\nfor some new businesses, and more employment. Of course,\nwe also have to recognize they add to the final cost of\ngoods and services. Consumers either pay the higher costs\nfor the U.S. made goods, or perhaps switch to cheaper\nimports, adding to our international balance of trade\ndeficit. This same process also can price U.S. goods out\nof international markets, with the same consequences.\nI think the point here is that pollution control has both\nbenefits and costs, and that a wise government learns to\nweigh both carefully as it protects the public interest.\n-9-\n14Q: Mr. President, your ranch and being out-of-doors obviously\ngive you a great sense of well being for renewal. For the\nvast majority of Americans, their ranch is found in parks,\nwilderness areas, refuges -- public lands. When you head\nfor your ranch, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Citizen pack up the kids\nand visit parks, go fishing, camping, hiking, and backpack-\ning. Would you support investments in parks, natural\nareas, etc., to protect this outdoor heritage? Many of\nour readers might wonder if deferral does not mean loss of\nthese lands.\nA: Yes, I support investments in parks, natural areas and\nother portions of our outdoor heritage, and our track\nrecord shows it.\nFrom 1981 through 1984, the National Park Service spent\nover $365 million to acquire nearly 64,000 acres of new\nparkland. More than 10,000 acres were acquired by dona-\ntion or transfer. Another $66.8 million is available for\nacquisition in the National Park System in 1985.\nAs you know, we have recommended a three-year moratorium,\nbeginning in 1986, on purchase of new Federal parklands in\nlight of our national need to do something about the\nbudget deficit. But our commitment to protecting our\noutdoor heritage has not diminished. In fact, even our\n1986 budget request includes $11.3 million for emergency\nland acquisitions so that truly threatened areas will not\nbe lost. We will continue to seek creative alternatives\nto Federal purchase, such as land exchanges, donations,\nand easements, until our Federal budget situation allows\nus once again to buy additional lands.\nIn addition, as many of your members know, we have just\ncompleted -- one year ahead of schedule -- a historic park\nrestoration and improvement program which provided more\nthan $1 billion for restoration and improvement of facil-\nities in the National Park System. For too long those\nparks had been left to deteriorate. Now, they've been\ncleaned up.\nWe'll keep working with individuals and businesses to\nencourage private initiatives to benefit the Nation's\noutdoor heritage. It's a birthright of all Americans.\n-10-\n15Q: Finally, Mr. President, what would you like to leave as\nthe environmental legacy of your terms in office?\nA: Early in this century, President Theodore Roosevelt said\nthat we should treat the natural resources as assets which\nwe must turn over to the next generation increased and not\nimpaired in value.\nThat's the legacy I want to leave -- fewer toxic waste\nhazards, cleaner air and water, identification of causes\nand a framework for reduction of acid rain, better main-\ntained and managed national parks, improved protection for\nwetlands, effective fishery restoration, more recovery\nprograms for endangered species, additional wilderness,\nand a new spirit of partnership in the stewardship of the\nland and its resources.\nThis legacy would include the promise of a future free\nof international conflict that would bring the ultimate\nin environmental disaster. And the legacy would include\nan America that has the economic vitality to maintain and\nprotect the environmental ethic so well stated eight\ndecades ago by Teddy Roosevelt."
}