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
118566394
label
11/13/1981 (case file 046922) (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118566394
contentType
document
title
11/13/1981 (case file 046922) (2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
439
collections
Records of the Office of the President (Reagan Administration)
Presidential Briefing Papers
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118566394
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1988-12-31
year
1988
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
71ba2ec0d54caf15
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: President, Office of the: Presidential
Briefing Papers: Records, 1981-1989
Folder Title: 11/13/1981 (Case File: 046922)
(2)
Box: 9
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
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 10, 1981
LUNCH WITH RICHARD RICHARDS AND LYN NOFZIGER
DATE:
November 13, 1981
LOCATION: Oval Office
TIME:
FROM:
Lyn 12:00 Nofziger Noon C
I.
PURPOSE
To discuss current political issues.
II.
BACKGROUND
Update of New Jersey election results and 1982 RNC
plans will be reviewed.
III.
PARTICIPANTS
Richard Richards
Lyn Nofziger
IV.
PRESS PLAN
No press coverage.
CABINET COUNCIL ON HUMAN RESOURCES
PARTICIPANTS
November 13, 1981
The President
The Secretary of Health and Human Services
The Attorney General
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Secretary of Labor
The Secretary of Education
The Counsellor to the President
The Deputy Secretary of Transportation
The Deputy Secretary of Energy
Martin Anderson
Bob Carleson, Executive Secretary
For Presentation:
Ed Harper
Hal Steinberg
Don Moran
Gary Jones
Brad Reynolds
Richard Darman
Max Friedersdorf
Craig Fuller
Jim Cicconi
Jim Jenkins
Alan Holmer
Pete Roussel
Kenneth Cribb, Jr.
Ed Gray
Rich Beal
Dan Murphy
Lyn Nofziger
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 12, 1981
"PM MAGAZINE" TAPING WITH KATHY OSBORNE
DATE:
Friday, November 13, 1981
LOCATION:
The Oval Office
TIME:
2:30 p.m. (five minutes)
FROM:
Karna Small IS
I. PURPOSE
To provide television footage for feature story on Kathy
Osborne, being produced by the "PM Magazine" crew of KXTV,
Sacramento. The idea is to show Kathy on the job with her
boss, so the crew will want shots of the two of you talking,
Kathy bringing papers to your desk, taking notes, and so on.
II. BACKGROUND
"PM Magazine" producer David Mozes is planning to tell a
story about a Sacramento women with one of the most inter-
esting jobs in the country. He wrote to Kathy asking if she
would be willing> to be his subject, and she agreed. The story
will center around an interview with Kathy about her work,
and will likely be picked up by "PM Magazine" outlets across
the country.
III. PARTICIPANTS
The President
Kathy Osborne
David Mozes
Gary Labrie
Roger Lindberg
George Davis
Paul Shain
Sue Mathis
IV. PRESS PLAN
TV crew from KXTV
V. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
The President will enter the Oval Office and proceed to his
desk. Kathy Osborne will bring papers to him, chat with him
and take notes for the cameras. The President will be asked to
comment on his secretary's performance.
VI. REMARKS
No formal remarks are necessary, but it would be most appreciated
if the President could make reference to any amusing story about
Kathy and her work he may recall.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Schedule Distribution List
FROM:
Gregory JS Newell
DATE:
November 13, 1981.
SUBJ:
The President's Schedule
Please note the following change in today schedule:
3:40 pm Depart for Texas for events in Houston and
South Grounds
San Antonio (see separate schedule)
November 12,198
5:00 pm
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULE
Friday, November 13, 1981
9:00 am
Staff Time
Oval Office
(30 min)
9:30 am
Senior Staff Time
Oval Office
(15 min)
9:45 am
Personal Staff Time
Oval Office
(45 min)
10:30 am
Meeting with Sen. John Stennis : (D-Miss)
Oval Office
(15 min)
(Max Friedersdorf)
10:45 am
Meeting with the UN High Commissioner for
Oval Office
(15 min)
Refugees, Poul Hartling
(Richard V. Allen)
11:15 am
Brief Meeting with Cong. James Hansen (R-Utah) Oval Office
(5 min)
(Max Friedersdorf)
11:30 am
Meeting with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa)
Oval Office
(15 min)
(Max Friedersdorf)
12:00 m
Lunch with Mr. Richard Richards and Mr.
Oval Office
(60 min)
Lyn Nofziger
(Lyn Nofziger)
1:30 pm
Meeting with the Cabinet Council on Human
Cabinet Room
(60 min)
Resources
(Craig Fuller)
2:30 pm
Photo with Kathy Osborne
Oval Office
(5 min)
2:35 pm
To the Residence for Personal Staff Time
Residence
(1hr45min)
4:20 pm
Depart for Texas for events in Houston
South Grounds
and San Antonio (see separate schedule)
(Stephen Studdert)
Sunday, November 15, 1981
7:20 pm
The President returns from Texas trip
South Grounds
UNPUBLISHED
November 12,198
5:00 pm
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULE
Friday, November 13, 1981
9:00 am
Staff Time
Oval Office
(30 min)
(Baker, Meese, Deaver)
9:30 am
Senior Staff Time
Oval Office
(15 min)
9:45 am
Personal Staff Time
Oval Office
(45 min)
10:30 am
Meeting with Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss)
Oval Office
(15 min)
(Max Friedersdorf)
(TAB A)
10:45 am
Meeting with the UN High Commissioner for
Oval Office
(15 min)
Refugees, Poul Hartling
(Richard V. Allen)
(TAB B)
11: 15 am
Brief Meeting with Cong. James Hansen (R-Utah) Oval Office
(5 min)
(Max Friedersdorf)
(TAB C)
11: 30 am
Meeting with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa)
Oval Office
(15 min)
(Max Friedersdorf)
(TAB D)
12:00 m
Lunch with Mr. Richard Richards and Mr.
Oval Office
(60 min)
Lyn Nofziger
(Lyn Nofziger)
(TAB E)
1:30 pm
Meeting with the Cabinet Council on Human
Cabinet Room
(60 min)
Resources
(Craig Fuller)
(TAB F)
2:30 pm
Photo with Kathy Osborne
Oval Office
(5 min)
(TAB G)
2:35 pm
To the Residence for Personal Staff Time
Residence
(1hr45min)
4:20 pm
Depart for Texas for events in Houston
South Grounds
and San Antonio (see separate schedule)
(Stephen Studdert)
(TAB H - DRAFT REMARKS)
Sunday, November 15, 1981
7:20 pm
The President returns from Texas trip
South Grounds
A
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEETING WITH SENATOR JOHN C. STENNIS (D-MISSISSIPPI)
DATE:
Friday, November 13, 1981
LOCATION:
The Oval Office
TIME:
10:30 - 10:45 a.m. (15 minutes)
FROM:
Max L. Friedersdorf
mf
I. PURPOSE
To respond to a request from Senator Stennis for this
meeting and to gain his cooperation in connection with
Senate review of your strategic decisions.
II. BACKGROUND
Senator Stennis requested this meeting as a follow-up
to your conversation with him last weekend. You spoke
to him last Friday to encourage his support for the
MX Missile and B-1 Bomber in the Defense Subcommittee
of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He promised
to call you back for additional discussion of these
subjects, but was unable to because he was admitted to
Walter Reed Army Medical Center with a high fever and a
virus. He was back in the office on Thursday when he
requested this meeting.
He has expressed concern over the reception your
strategic decisions are having on the Hill and he
would like to speak to you about them. His support is
important because of current indications that some
Democrats could make the MX and the B-1 a partisan issue.
You will recall that Senator Tower said at the leadership
meeting today that it would be difficult to count as
many as a half-a-dozen Democratic votes in the Senate
supporting the B-1 and Senator Garn expressed his concern
that these issues are receiving partisan treatment by the
Democrats.
Senator Stennis has been a strong supporter on national
security issues of Republican Presidents with whom he
has served (Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford). His support
was particularly crucial when Presidents Nixon and Ford
were here because he was Chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee. During this period he led the fight
against members of his own party, who were trying to
restrict the ability of Presidents Nixon and Ford to deal
with the situation in Southeast Asia.
-2-
Funding for the MX and B-1 will be before the Senate
Appropriations Committee next Tuesday. Senator Stennis
is this committee's senior Democrat and ranking minority
member of its Defense Subcommittee and his support is
needed. Stennis' support as ranking minority member of
the Senate Armed Services Committee will also be
extremely important when this committee considers a
resolution of disapproval concerning the MX and the B-1.
III.
PARTICIPANTS
The President
The Vice President
Senator Stennis
Staff
Richard Allen
Max Friedersdorf
IV.
PRESS PLAN
White House photographer only. Comments by Senator Stennis
on the driveway following the meeting.
V.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Senator Stennis enters the Northwest Gate and proceeds to
the West Lobby and then to the Oval Office.
Attachment: Talking Points
TALKING POINTS FOR MEETING WITH
SENATOR JOHN STENNIS
-- Express concern about his recent illness and wish him a
speedy and complete recovery.
-- This meeting is at his request and you should primarily
listen to his views on the B-1 and MX.
-- Discuss prospects for Senate action on your strategic
decisions including consideration by the Armed Services
Committee, the Appropriations Committee and the full Senate.
-- Encourage his advice on legislative strategy.
B
MEMORANDUM
6266 add-on
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 12, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
RICHARD V. ALLEN
Dark
SUBJECT:
Your Meeting with Mr. Poul Hartling, UN
High Commissioner for Refugees, Friday,
November 13 at 10:45 A.M., Oval Office
Mr. Hartling -- UN High Commissioner for Refugees and former
Prime Minister of Denmark -- will meet you and express
thanks for US support ($133.5 million in FY 81) He may
note his recent trip to Pakistan. Mike Guhin of my staff
will also sit in.
Hartling is attending the UN General Assembly in New York.
Earlier this month he met with Attorney General Smith,
Ambassador Stoessel and your recent nomination for US Coordinator
for Refugee Affairs, Eugene Douglas. You sent Hartling a
message of congratulations when his office received the 1981
Nobel Peace Prize.
Talking Points
--
I am pleased to congratulate you in person and your
office for the 1981 Nobel Peace Prize. Your office
deserved this recognition for the outstanding efforts
it has made for refugees everywhere.
We are pleased to be able to provide this support for
your refugee programs ($133.5 million in FY 81).
--
We appreciate your leadership, particularly for refugee
programs in Southeast Asia, Pakistan, and Africa.
State's memo with additional background information is avail-
able upon request.
C
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEETING WITH CONGRESSMAN JIM HANSEN (R-UTAH)
DATE:
NOVEMBER 13, 1981
PLACE:
THE OVAL OFFICE
TIME:
11:15 a.m. (5 minutes)
FROM:
MAX L. FRIEDERSDORF
mb
I. PURPOSE
To have a photo opportunity and to receive a letter from
Congressman Hansen (R-Utah), signed by 160 Members of
Congress, urging the appointment of a Presidential
Commission regarding the drinking driver.
II. BACKGROUND
During this first year as a Member of Congress, Jim Hansen
has suffered two serious automobile accidents involving
drinking drivers. In the second accident, his wife, daughter,
and son were injured. Hansen has spearheaded a Congressional
effort to force federal and state governments to take strong
measures to solve the problem of drinking drivers.
Approximately 160 Members of Congress have signed a letter
asking that the President appoint a Presidential Commission
to develop a realistic national master plan to help curtail
the drinking driver epidemic and to encourage every Governor
to establish a task force to deal with this issue at the
state and local levels.
This year, 26,000 people are expected to be killed by drinking
drivers, thousands more injured. Solving the drinking driver
problem requires an integrated effort by all levels of govern-
ment and society. Establishment and enforcement of drunk driving
laws is a State prerogative. The Federal role, administered by
by the Department of Transportation, (National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration) is an indirect and supporting function.
Congressman Jim Hansen represents the eastern half of Utah,
including Ogden and Provo. He has been a strong supporter of
the Administration and serves on the Interior and Insular
Affairs and Standards of Official Conduct Committees. His
experience as an insurance executive and as a member of the
Utah House has also heightened his awareness of the drinking
driving problem.
2
III. PARTICIPANTS
The President
Congressman Jim Hansen
Staff
Kenneth M. Duberstein
IV. PRESS PLAN
White House Photographer only.
V. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
No specific agenda.
Attachment: Talking Points
ATTACHMENT
SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS FOR MEETING
WITH CONGRESSMAN JIM HANSEN
-- Acknowledge that the drinking driver is a serious problem.
-- Express your concern that Jim Hansen was this year involved
in two automobile accidents involving drinking drivers. His
wife, son, and daughter were injured in one of the accidents.
-- Recognize that solving this problem requires an integrated
effort by all levels of government and society.
-- Point out that establishment and enforcement of driving laws
is a State prerogative -- but that the Department of
Transportation provides strong support for State and local
efforts.
-- Indicate that you will talk with Drew Lewis about the Congressional
letter calling for a national commission.
D
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEETING WITH SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA)
DATE:
Friday, November 13, 1981
LOCATION:
Oval Office
TIME:
11:30 a.m. (15 minutes)
FROM:
Max L. Friedersdorf mb
I. PURPOSE
To discuss Senator Specter's views on crime and in particular
his approach to the "Career Criminal" problem.
II. BACKGROUND
Senator Specter is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Juvenile
Justice of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As a former
District Attorney in Philadelphia he had experience in the
career criminal problem and has introduced legislation,
(S. 1688 The Career Criminal Life Sentence Act) which
articulates his position in correcting this problem.
As drafted S. 1688 creates federal jurisdiction for the
prosecution of persons charged with committing a robbery
or burglary with the use of a firearm where such persons have
at least two prior felony burglary and/or robbery convictions.
The bill provides for the application of more restrictive bail
provisions for persons charged under this Act, and requires
the imposition of a mandatory, non-suspendible life sentence
upon conviction of such "career criminals." The bill
expresses the Congressional intent that federal criminal
prosecutions should be undertaken pursuant to this Act only
where the Attorney General or a United States Attorney
determines, after consultation with appropriate state and
local authorities, that there is a significant federal
interest in the case and that state authorities are unlikely
to secure a life sentence.
A number of your staff, including Ed Meese and Fred Fielding,
have discussed the bill at length. They have reservations and
would recommend that you oppose its enactment as it is
currently drafted.
-2-
Senator Specter and his staff have actively been seeking
support for the bill on the Hill and elsewhere. In this
meeting the Senator is expected to want to get into
more than a superficial discussion of the issues.
III.
PARTICIPANTS
The President
Attorney General William French Smith
Senator Arlen Specter
Staff
Ed Meese
Fred Fielding
Max Friedersdorf
Regrets
The Vice President
IV. PRESS PLAN
White House Photographer
V. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Sentor Specter will enter the Northwest Gate into the
West lobby and be escorted into the Oval Office.
SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS FOR MEETING WITH
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER
-- I appreciate the work that you are doing in this area. Your
past experience as a big city (Philadelphia) district attorney
certainly qualifies you as an expert on the career criminal
problem. I am proud that we have a Republican Senator who is
willing to invest his efforts in correcting this considerable
problem.
-- I want to assure you that I support the goal of using existing
resources to target the career criminal and prevent him from con-
tinually disrupting and endangering the lives of innocent citizens.
-- I want to tell you as well, though, that I have some concern
about the budgetary impact on the Federal penal system because of
the cumulative effect of the life sentences that would be imposed
under your bill.
-- I am also advised that some of our people have some technical and
substantive problems with your bill as it is currently drafted.
-- I would also hope that your proposal would be coordinated with the
effort over at the Department of Justice to reform the Federal
Criminal Code and to implement the recommendations of the Attorney
General's Task Force in Violent Crime.
-- I would hope that we could continue to work to resolve those
differences. I would like very much to eventually be able to
enthusiastically support your bill.
E
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 10, 1981
LUNCH WITH RICHARD RICHARDS AND LYN NOFZIGER
DATE:
November 13, 1981
LOCATION: Oval Office
TIME:
FROM:
Lyn 12:00 Nofziger Noon C
I.
PURPOSE
To discuss current political issues.
II.
BACKGROUND
Update of New Jersey election results and 1982 RNC
plans will be reviewed.
III.
PARTICIPANTS
Richard Richards
Lyn Nofziger
IV.
PRESS PLAN
No press coverage.
F
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 9, 1981
MEETING WITH THE CABINET COUNCIL
ON HUMAN RESOURCES
DATE:
November 13, 1981
LOCATION:
Cabinet Room
TIME:
1:30 (60 min.)
FROM:
CRAIG L. FULLER
I.
PURPOSE
The Cabinet Council on Human Resources is meeting to
review the plan for dismantling the Department of Education.
II.
BACKGROUND
A Task Force has been working on the details of dismantling
the Department of Education for several weeks. The plan
presented is one developed jointly by OMB and Education.
The basic dismantling options considered were:
1. form a National Education Foundation
to provide selected school-based programs;
2. disperse functions, programs and personnel
to other departments and agencies;
3. merge the Department of Education back into
the Department of Health and Human Services.
Those within the Administration working on this project
have tended to favor the Foundation approach. The Foundation
would report to the President and retain responsibility for
school-based progams and financial assistance programs such
as: enacted block grants; compensatory programs for disad-
vantaged children; developing colleges (particularly black
institutions) ; student assistance (grants and loans) ; research;
and, civil rights activities.
A number of other responsibilities would be transferred to
other departments and agencies (see page 6) and still other
responsibilities would be terminated (see page 7).
2
The decision memo prepared for this meeting asks you to
approve or reject:
1.
the creation of the Foundation,
2.
the proposed transfer of programs,
3.
the proposed termination of programs.
Because these recommendations were finalized over the
weekend, most of the White House staff as well as Cabinet
members have had little time to react to the proposal.
While Education and OMB are ready to move forward on this
proposal, it is desirable to refrain from making a final
decision at the meeting to allow time for review by your
Cabinet and your staff as well as to allow for the appro-
priate congressional consultations.
III. PARTICIPANTS (to be provided)
IV.
PRESS PLAN (White House photographer only)
V.
SEQUENCE
Once the meeting is called to order, Education Secretary
Ted Bell will be prepared to present the proposal.
STATEMENT OF EDUCATION ATION
THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
November 9, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
As was agreed last January, I am pleased to transmit
my recommendations for dismantling of the Department
of Education. The attached options paper outlines the
rationale for our recommendations and provides an evalu-
ation of the various options that we considered.
I look forward to discussing our proposals in more
detail at the Cabinet Council on Human Resources
meeting scheduled for November 10.
The
T. H. Bell
Attachment
DISMANTLING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Material for Review
by the
Cabinet Council on Human Resources
Tuesday, November 10, 1981
BACKGROUND
The genius of American education is defined by local and popular control,
diversity, open access, and pragmatic adaptation to problems. These
principles, to which the American people are deeply attached, have served
our country well. Nonetheless, the Federal Government, concerned about
the Nation's research capabilities, the lack of equal educational
opportunities and for other reasons, intruded into the educational arena.
While this imposition started slowly with the providing of aid and
assistance and a distant involvement in curriculum, it soon grew into the
intrusiveness of establishing educational requirements and supplanting
local priorities. The establishment of the Department of Education in 1980
marked the zenith of the intrusiveness.
The Federal Government's role in education should be limited. It should
recognize that education begins in the home and that even state and local
officials exist only to help families fulfill their responsibility to
provide for the education of their children; that excellence demands
competition and, while we have an obligation to help those that fall
behind, without a race there is no winner; and that diversity is absolutely
essential to the American way of life and is one of our strengths.
The issue is how do we achieve this nonintrusive role for the Federal
Government in education and fulfill the President's pledge to dismantle the
Department of Education.
DISMANTLEMENT OPTIONS
The two most viable options for abolishing the Department of Education are
to:
(1) establish a National Education Foundation to include selected
school-based programs or
(2) disperse all functions, programs and personnel to other
Departments and Agencies.
Two other options are possible, but they have been dropped from considera-
tion following further consideration by Secretary Bell, OMB, and others.
They are to merge the Department of Education functions with the Department
of Health and Human Services or create an independent line agency to house
the education functions.
-2-
OPTION 1 NATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION
Legislation would be proposed to abolish the Department and replace it with
a sub-Cabinet entity to be called the National Education Foundation (or a
similar name). The responsibilities assigned to the Foundation would
involve school-based programs and assistance.
The Foundation would administer the following:
-- Block grants for state and local education agencies.
-- Student grants and loans.
-- Support for equal educational opportunity (compensatory) programs.
-- A core of continuing information, statistical, and research services
for education.
One of the Foundation's major responsibilities would be to identify
programs that are more properly the responsibility of state and local
governments. The remaining programs would be dispersed to other Federal
agencies or terminated.
The Foundation would have a head appointed by the President and responsible
directly to him. The Foundation would also have a nongoverning board,
appointed by the President, and limited by statute to an advisory capacity.
Evaluation
The advantages of the Foundation are:
Fulfills the President's commitment to abolish the Department of
Education.
Makes clear that the Federal role is support and assistance, not
enforcement and intrusion in state and local affairs.
Provides a central unit to administer existing statutes until
they are changed and which is flexible enough to implement future
policy changes and contraction of functions.
Maintains strong direction and coordination for Administration
initiatives to reform Federal involvement in education through a
Presidentially appointed agency head directly accountable to the
President.
Is easy to implement imposing minimum costs in terms of dollars,
program disruptions, and burdens to other departments.
May be an acceptable alternative for 21 Senators (6 R., 15 D.)
and 176 Representatives (32 R., 144 D.) up for re-election this
year who voted to establish the Department.
-3-
Provides a potentially acceptable alternative for other committee
leaders and Members of Congress who voted for the Department.
Will meet less resistance from education profession and interest
groups than the other options.
Makes transfer of selected programs to other agencies possible
where there is a compelling case for doing so without damaging
the underlying concept of having a non-Cabinet successor to the
Department.
The disadvantages of the Foundation are:
It would continue a centralized Federal presence in the education
field with potential for future expansion by statute.
Critics of the Department, including conservative legislators,
might claim the Department has not really been eliminated only
changed in name and dropped from Cabinet status.
A legislative proposal to create a Foundation with an advisory
board, rather than a governing board, risks an amendment which
would substitute a governing board with members whose term of
office extend beyond that of the President.
OPTION 2 -- DISPERSE ALL FUNCTIONS, PROGRAMS AND PERSONNEL
Legislation would be proposed to abolish the Department and transfer its
functions to other Federal departments and agencies. There would no longer
be a major Federal agency whose central purpose is education.
Evaluation
The advantages of the dispersal option are:
Dismantles the Department completely.
Emphasizes that the Federal role is in the service educational
institutions can provide in support of other Federal purposes.
Facilitates coordination of education programs with other
government programs providing related benefits for similar
populations or purposes.
The disadvantages of the dispersal option are:
It is more difficult to enact than other options because it would
arouse the most intense opposition by education interests and
their supporters in Congress.
-4-
Results in no Presidential appointee to continue and lead the
Administration's, initiative of reducing the Federal intrusion
into education or to oversee the interpretation, application and
progressive reduction of existing regulatory and enforcement
activities.
Results in the absence of coherent and politically responsive
leadership for the dispersed education functions and would
enhance the ability of special interest groups to influence
decisions and pursue their goals at lower levels of decision-
making.
Would be more difficult to defend because so many segments of the
Federal structure, and their related interests, would be
involved.
Entails substantially more disruption and transition costs once
enacted because of the transfer of associated personnel and other
resources to new locations.
OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED
The merger of the Department of Education with the Department of Health and
Human Services was dropped because a merger would diminish momentum toward
streamlining the education functions; result in a large department with a
broad span of Secretarial control encompassing many programs, issues, and
congressional committee relationships competing for the Secretary's atten-
tion; increase layers of organization and perhaps confuse lines of
authority and communication; prejudge the central mission of the education
programs skewing budgets toward the mission of the receiving department and
making coordination with agencies having other missions more difficult;
create a very large and heterogeneous department confronting a wide range
of highly controversial issues; and mix large entitlement programs includ-
ing much of the income security net, with smaller programs supporting human
development.
The creation of an independent education agency was dropped because it
would signify that the Federal Government will continue to pursue its own
objectives in education rather than become less intrusive. This option
could be attacked as a no-real change option.
SUMMARY
The Foundation option is a more rational course to follow than the disper-
sal option. It is more viable in political terms because the amount and
intensity of opposition will be less. It is more practical in terms of
operational considerations, due to a relatively minor amount of disruption.
A majority of present incumbents in both Houses, including Chairmen Brooks
and Roth of the House and Senate committees that will have jurisdiction,
voted to establish the Department. They will be in a far less difficult
position if they are asked to support a Foundation as opposed to total
dispersal.
-5-
A Foundation, whose head would be accountable to the President, would be an
effective vehicle for continuing to move to a more restricted Federal role.
Achieving this goal will require knowledgeable and disciplined direction
over the bureaucracy by a key appointed official who operates with direct
support from the White House. These requisites would be very difficult to
obtain under dispersal.
THE FOUNDATION OPTION
If the Foundation option is selected, there is a second set of decisions to
be made regarding which responsibilities should be assigned to the Founda-
tion and which should be transferred or terminated. Attachment A on
page 9 compares the responsibilities of a Foundation with the Department of
Education.
Responsibilities to be assigned to the Foundation
The responsibilities assigned to the Foundation would include
school-based programs and financial assistance to students. They are:
-- Enacted block grants: These programs include 42 categorical assist-
ance programs now blocked in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1981.
-- Proposed block grants and consolidations: These programs enhance
vocational skills and basic skills for secondary students and adults;
provide special education for handicapped persons; support recruit-
ment, counseling and other special services for disadvantaged college
students; and support institutionally administered college work study
assistance, loans and grants for postsecondary students.
-- Compensatory programs: These include compensatory education
assistance for disadvantaged students and children with limited
English speaking ability.
-- "Developing colleges": This provides Federal funding for historically
Black and other institutions struggling to survive.
-- Student assistance: These programs provide grants to needy
postsecondary students and loans to students and their parents to help
meet postsecondary costs.
-- Statistical and research functions: These programs support research
on educational problems, collection of educational data, and improve-
ment of postsecondary programs and services.
-- Civil rights activities: These activities involve race, sex, age and
language discrimination statutes.
-6-
Responsibilities to be Transferred
The following responsibilities should be transferred to the
indicated departments or agencies:
Rehabilitation services to Health and Human Services since in
28 states rehabilitation agencies are separate from education
agencies, the programs are categorical in nature similar to
social services in HHS, and the services are provided on an
individual basis involving strong counseling functions.
International education to International Communications Agency
since the rationale for the program is long-term foreign
relations.
Special institutions, e.g., American Printing House for the
Blind; National Technical Institute for the Deaf; and Gallaudet
College, to Health and Human Services since they are non-Federal
agencies providing services for handicapped individuals, the
Federal support is provided as a permanent subsidy, they were
located in HEW prior to the creation of the Department of
Education, and are associated with other assistance for
handicapped individual's programs.
Impact Aid
for operation payments and LEAs construction to Treasury
since the payments are based on a formula for Federal aid in
lieu of taxes and the transfer is similar, in type, to
general revenue sharing, also administered by Treasury.
for construction on Federal lands, to DOD since payments are
almost entirely for construction of schools serving military
facilities.
for construction on Indian lands, to Interior since payments
are entirely for construction of schools on Indian lands
and Interior administers other assistance to schools on
Indian lands.
College housing and higher education facilities to Treasury since
these are minor fund transfers involving repayments and continu-
ing subsidies for previous awards. There is no new assistance.
Minority institutions science improvement program to the National
Science Foundation since it can be administered in conjunction
with other science education efforts.
Indian Education to Interior would complement BIA programs for
education of Indians living on or near reservations with programs
now in ED serving urban Indians. Would be a move toward
consolidation of Indian programs Government-wide.
-7-
Responsibilities to be Terminated
The following programs would be eliminated:
- Veterans Cost of Instruction
- Aid to Land Grant Colleges
- Institute of Museum Services
- Ellender Fellowships
- Educational Outreach
- Public Service Grants and Fellowships
- Mining Fellowships
- Wayne Morse Chair for Law and Politics
- College Library Resources
- Telecommunications Demonstrations
- Law School Clinical Experience
The above programs are zero funded in the Administration's
revised 1982 budget and the budget outlook does not suggest any
changes in these decisions for the foreseeable future.
Termination would clear these authorities from the statutes.
- National Academy of Peace and Conflict Resolution
The above program is already terminated.
- State Student Incentive Grants
The above program is an ineffective incentive for additional
state student aid.
- Library Support
The above programs provide support primarily for public libraries
that are a responsibility of general-purpose state and local
governments. Public library expenditures were well over $1
billion in 1974; Federal assistance is not a major factor in
funding.
- Fellowships for Graduate and Professional Training and
Legal Training for the Disadvantaged
The above programs provide graduate level support of professional
training for minorities (in engineering, physical and life
sciences, as well as law). Graduate support is a low priority;
self-financing is traditional at that level.
- Cooperative Education
The above program should be supported by joint
university-business agreements, rather than Federal grants.
-8-
- Migrant High School Equivalency and Migrant College
Assistance
Responsibilities for the above programs should be met by States
through use of Title I migrant funds or through regular student
assistance program, rather than separate categorical grants.
"
DECISIONS
1. STRUCTURE:
FOUNDATION (Department of Education
and OMB recommendation)
DISPERSAL
2.
RESPONSIBILITIES TO BE TRANSFERRED:
AGREE
DISAGREE
3.
RESPONSIBILITIES TO BE TERMINATED:
AGREE
DISAGREE
-9-
ATTACHMENT A
Responsibilities of a Foundation
Compared with
the Department of Education
Type of Responsibility
Number of
1982
1981
Programs
September
Program
in ED
Budget Level
Employment
Jan.20, 1981
($ in millions)
1
Ceiling
A.
Existing Block Grants
(begin July, 82)
42a
$ 518.6
342
B. Block Grant and Consolidation
Candidates (begin FY 1983)
32b
2,640.9
504
C.
Compensatory Programs
24
2,875.8
206
D. Student Assistance
2
4,597.4
650
E. Research and Statistics
4
75.3
470
F. Office for Civil Rights
(excluding enforcement
1098
procedures)
1
43.5
Subtotal, proposed National
Education Foundation
105c
$10,751.5°
3270e
G. Transfers to other agencies
31
1,465.1
528
H.
Terminations
23
147.4
145
Total, Existing Department
of Education
159
$12,363.8ᵈ
3943e
-10-
a When in full effect, 42 existing programs will be reduced to 1 block
grant plus the Secretary's set-aside discretionary fund.
b If enacted as planned, 32 existing programs would be reduced to 4
block grants and consolidations.
c Block grants and consolidations, enacted and proposed, would reduce
number of programs in the Foundation to 37.
1982
d
Excluded from this list are:
Office of the Inspector General
$ 11.4
Departmental Management
216.8
Proposed Refugee Transfer from HHS
-
e Direct program staff only. Excludes:
o
employees in program assistant secretaries' offices (216) and
o
central Department staff -- Secretary, Under Secretary, General
Counsel, Management, OPBE, Legislation and Public Affairs, and
Intergovernmental Affairs, (1849 FTP employees).
These exclusions cover some "overhead" staff who work directly on ED
programs (e.g., budget, contracts, finance, legal, etc.) but who
cannot be identified at the level of detail of individual programs.
Figures are FTP ceilings for FY 1981 and total 6008 for the Department.
By comparison, actual on board FTP employees totaled 5459 on October 30,
1981 and other employees on that date totaled 856.
G
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 12, 1981
"PM MAGAZINE" TAPING WITH KATHY OSBORNE
DATE:
Friday, November 13, 1981
LOCATION:
The Oval Office
TIME:
2:30 p.m. (five minutes)
FROM:
Karna Smal
15
I. PURPOSE
To provide television footage for feature story on Kathy
Osborne, being produced by the "PM Magazine" crew of KXTV,
Sacramento. The idea is to show Kathy on the job with her
boss, so the crew will want shots of the two of you talking,
Kathy bringing papers to your desk, taking notes, and so on.
II. BACKGROUND
"PM Magazine" producer David Mozes is planning to tell a
story about a Sacramento women with one of the most inter-
esting jobs in the country. He wrote to Kathy asking if she
would be willing to be his subject, and she agreed. The story
will center around an interview with Kathy about her work,
and will likely be picked up by "PM Magazine" outlets across
the country.
III. PARTICIPANTS
The President
Kathy Osborne
David Mozes
Gary Labrie
Roger Lindberg
George Davis
Paul Shain
Sue Mathis
IV. PRESS PLAN
TV crew from KXTV
V. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
The President will enter the Oval Office and proceed to his
desk. Kathy Osborne will bring papers to him, chat with him
and take notes for the cameras. The President will be asked to
comment on his secretary's performance.
VI. REMARKS
No formal remarks are necessary, but it would be most appreciated
if the President could make reference to any amusing story about
Kathy and her work he may recall.
H