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
1534779
label
1975/09/16 - President, Vice President and Jim Lynn
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1534779
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1975/09/16 - President, Vice President and Jim Lynn
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Meetings Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Office of Science and Technology Policy. (5/11/1976 - 1/20/1977)
Health
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1534779
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-09-30
month
9
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-09-01
month
9
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
93b0130aab1bbfa5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 51, folder "1975/09/16 - President, Vice
President and Jim Lynn" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 51 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT AND MR. LYNN
Tuesday, September 16, 1975
2:30 p.m.
Oval Office
THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
September 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
THE VICE PRESIDENT har
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Public Forums on
Domestic Policy
Attached is the plan for conducting the Public
Forums on Domestic Policy, administered by the Domestic
Council. The plan proposes:
One-day meetings in six cities with specific dates
and locations listed. (Four. additional cities
optional.)
At each Forum, a three-hour morning session would
be held with the Vice President chairing. Following
the morning session, the participants would divide
into four groups along the following major policy
areas:
Social Programs
Jobs and the Economy
Resources and the Environment
Community Development, Transportation,
and Housing
Testimony from solicited persons representing a
broad cross-section of opinion and interests.
The Forums be announced by the President and the
Vice President following a Domestic Council meeting
during the week of September 22.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
VICE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNON
SUBJECT:
Public Forums on Domestic
Policy
I.
OBJECTIVES
To conduct a series of six or more meetings, geograph-
ically distributed, to:
Outline what the nation is facing with regard
to Domestic Programs;
Obtain public input in the development of
Presidential options;
Assist the President in formulating his legis-
lative recommendations and initiatives to the
Congress in the 1975 State of the Union message.
II. FORUM FORMAT
Each Forum will be a one-day meeting, consisting of
the following elements:
A. A morning session of approximately three hours
would be chaired by the Vice President with
Cabinet members and other Federal officials
participating. The Vice President would open
with introductions and brief remarks. The
balance of the morning would be divided into
time for a discussion of four major domestic
policy areas. Two or three witnesses would be
asked to present five-minute testimony on issues
relating to social programs, the economy,
resources, and subjects of interest to the area
such as housing, transportation, etc. Following
the presentation of testimony for each segment,
the witnesses could be questioned by the Vice
President and Federal officials. A portion of
the time could also be made available for public
participation.
- 2 -
B. Following the morning session, four separate,
simultaneous meetings would be held to continue
the discussion of the four major policy areas.
These would involve:
1. A Cabinet level official would serve as
chairman and would be backed up by rep-
sentatives from appropriate Federal
agencies, including the Domestic Council.
2. Selected individuals, representing a
cross section of interests and opinion,
would present testimony on pre-determined
subjects. Each witness would be allowed
up to five minutes for testimony, or to
summarize a more comprehensive statement.
3. Total seating for each of the four meetings
will be approximately 125 persons. Fifty
to seventy-five seats will be reserved for
the witnesses and support personnel; the
remainder will be available to the general
public on a first-come, first-served basis.
4. Vice President will rotate among the four
meetings, dividing his time equally.
5. Opportunity for submission of written
statements from the public.
6. An informal buffet luncheon for the Federal
officials, invited participants, and
selected State and local officials, hosted
by the Cabinet member who would be serving
as chairman, could begin the afternoon
sessions.
III. DATES AND LOCATIONS
Tuesday, October 21
Denver, Colorado*
Tuesday, October 28
Kansas City, Mo. *
Tuesday, November 11
Austin, Texas
Tuesday, November 18
Philadelphia, Pa. *
Monday, December 1
Nashville, Tennessee
Tuesday, December 9
Los Angeles or
Sacramento, California
* Locations of Federal Regional Offices
- 3 -
Possible additional cities (dates not currently
available in Vice President's schedule):
Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida
Springfield, Illinois
Hartford, Connecticut
Albuquerque, New Mexico
NOTE:
The Vice President should not be scheduled to
participate in any political activities in conjunction
with the Forums.
IV. CONFERENCE ISSUES
The Forums will focus on four major domestic policy
areas:
Social Programs (welfare, health, etc.)
Jobs and the Economy (manpower programs,
inflation, etc.)
Resources and the Environment (raw materials,
agriculture, etc.)
Community Development, Transportation, and
Housing
The issues could vary according to regional interests.
Under each general policy area specific issues will
receive focus through the scheduling of witnesses.
For example, welfare reform can be a discussion issue
through scheduling witnesses concerned with that
subject for a block of time; the same with health
care, etc.
V. PARTICIPANT SELECTION (WITNESSES)
Participants will be selected from recommendations
received from: State and local officials; labor,
business, consumer groups and similar key constit-
uencies; local Federal officials (Regional Offices) ;
White House lists. Congressional recommendations,
though not solicited, will also be considered.
A limited number of witnesses will come from State
and local governments in the region covered by each
Forum.
Members of Congress from the region covered by the
Forum will be briefed on the purpose and plans of the
Forum by the Congressional Liaison office. Although
not specifically invited to the Forum, Members will
be welcome to attend, as observers, and will receive
appropriate introductions.
- 4 -
VI. ANNOUNCEMENT STRATEGY
A. During the week of September 22, the Congressional
leadership should be briefed at a session with the
President.
B. During the same week, the President would call
a meeting of the Domestic Council, at which time
he describes the program. Immediately following
the meeting, the President and Vice President
should adjourn to the press room. The President
would announce his decision to direct that the
hearings be held. The Vice President would brief
the press about the purpose and scope of the
hearings.
C. It is important that a distinction be made between
the Public Forums on Domestic Policy and the White
House Conferences on Domestic and Economic Policy.
In order to avoid confusion, it is recommended
that the White House conferences be suspended
during the period when the Forums are scheduled.
D. Cooperation from the departments and agencies
represented on the Domestic Council to provide
personnel and financial resources for these
Forums is essential. It will be necessary to
utilize Regional Office personnel in the cities
where the Forums will be held.
CV
treep for New
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY APPARATUS
Summary
House. Teague Mosher bill introduced on July 30
was scheduled for markup on September 8 but this
has been delayed until October 8 because of Teague's
illness and press of other business. It's conceivable
that the Committee could take it up on September 24
if we considered it important and the President or
Vice President wished to telephone Teague and Mosher
to urge prompt action. Even if we do not want to
press for earlier action, a call from the Vice
President would be helpful to keep attention focused.
I have reviewed the bill with Drs. Stever, Mark,
Ramo and Baker and staff of OMB, NSC and the Vice
President's office and met with Phil Yeager for a
preliminary staff level discussion of the bill. My
assessment is that the Administration could live
with the bill as now written, if necessary, but
that we can and should work to get some changes
discussed below.
Senate. Staff of the three Committees with
jurisdiction (Commerce, Aeronautical and Space
Sciences, Labor & Welfare) are meeting but have not
agreed on a course of action. Probably will not act
until the House completes action. Commerce and Moss
Committee are likely to favor prompt action, largely
accepting House bill. Kennedy may want to press for
hearings and for expansion of the bill.
Details
The new Teague-Mosher bill (H.R. 9058) has three principal
titles:
Title I - declares a national policy on science
and technology.
Title II - creates an Office of Science and Technology
policy as proposed by the President, with three
exceptions.
- 2 -
The Director would be subject to Senate
confirmation.
The President would have the discretion of
appointing up to four assistant directors.
(This is designed to allow this and succeeding
presidents to structure the office as they
prefer; e.g., Director and a deputy; a 3 or
5-man council)
The functions of the office are spelled out
in more detail.
Title III - calls for appointment by the President
of a Committee of 5 to 12 members for a full survey
of Federal science and technology policies, program
and organization and submission of a report within
15 months to the President and the Congress.
Assessment
Title I:
-
It is undesirable to have a science and technology
policy in law but, with a few changes it will be a
rather harmless statement.
The House Committee will insist on having a
policy statement.
Title II. We should:
-
Accept the idea of Senate confirmation for the
Director.
- Accept the idea of discretionary authority for
appointing as many as four assistant directors
at Level III.
- Accept the idea of great specificity of functions
but seek wording changes to avoid too much
specificity (e.g., on role in budget formulation).
Title III.
-
As a preferred option, we should favor deletion
of the Survey Committee but recognize that the
Teague Committee will insist on its retention.
-
As a fall back position, seek changes which make
the Survey Committee less independent and duplica-
tive; specifically:
all the Director of OSTP to serve also as
chairman of the Survey Committee.
have the Committee report to the President and
give him time to evaluate the report before
transmitting it with recommendations to the Congress.
clarify its scope.
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
September 15, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Administration Position on Federal
Role in Health Professions Education
This is to present for your decision the issue of the
Federal role in the education of health professionals.
The position of the Administration needs to be decided
before HEW testifies tomorrow before the Senate. Attached
at Tab A is a memorandum from Jim Lynn and at Tab B a
memorandum from Secretary Mathews presenting the position
of each.
ISSUE
The broad issue is how to approach the problems of geographic
and specialty maldistribution of health professionals.
The issue focuses in particular on the question: Should the
Administration propose to continue Federal formula grant
support (capitation) limited to medical and dental schools?
A related matter is also brought to your attention: Should
the Administration propose a new student loan program for
medical and dental students? This issue is not pressing
and can await, if you so decide, further development of the
specific proposals before a position is taken.
BACKGROUND
Your '76 budget proposes:
-- an elimination of construction grants for medical
schools
--- a gradual four year phase-out of capitation grants
-- an increase in special project grants
-- an expansion of medical student scholarship assistance
tied to repayment through Federal service
- 2 -
These are proposals which have been advocated by the Admin-
istration for the last three years. Congress has shown no
inclination to accept this approach. On two previous occasions
you have decided to maintain this Administration stance.
HEW argues that the only way the Administration can play a
role in shaping the legislation currently moving on the Hill
is to recognize that some capitation program will evolve and
to work toward developing a compromise measure.
A. Capitation Issue
Should the Administration proposed to continue capitation
grants but only for medical and dental schools?
-- Administration would maintain position that capitation
for pharmacists, veterinarians, optometrists and
podiatrists should be phased out.
Arguments for Capitation
1. Capitation, as proposed by HEW, would be provided only
to those medical and dental schools agreeing to the
national goals of:
-- maintaining enrollment levels,
-- increasing output of primary health care skills,
-- improving a geographic distribution of graduates.
2. Restricting capitation to medical and dental schools
would permit reductions in Federal funding while allowing
targeting on those schools whose training is the longest,
most expensive, and least responsive to normal market
forces.
3. Capitation would help assure that tuition charges do
not rise to levels that would discourage low and middle
income students from seeking medical and dental careers.
Arguments for Maintaining Opposition to any Capitation
1. Health profession students should not be singled out
for capitation grant subsidies not available in other
fields of higher education, especially in view of health
professionals' substantially higher career income prospects.
- 3 -
2. Capitation subsidies, as formula allocations, do not
focus Federal assistance on program merit or financial
need.
0. The proposed phase-out of capitation would only require
tuition increases of $400 annually over the next four
years, if schools seek to replace the capitation re-
duction with tuition increases.
4. A limited Federal role is appropriate because -- while
there is consensus on the existence of maldistribution --
there is no agreement on its extent or on the ways to
address the problem.
B. Student Assistance Issue
Should the Administration propose a new loan program for
medical and dental students? Such a loan program would
be funded "off-the-budget." Loan repayment would be
made over a 20-year period based upon professional
income.
Arguments for a New Loan Program
1. Estimated total 4-year costs -- including living
expenses -- to medical and dental students are between
$30,000 and $40,000. Medical and dental students need
additional sources of financing for these costs.
2. The current Federal guaranteed student loan program
is inadequate not simply because the loan guarantee
limit of $10,000 is too low, but also because banks
are unwilling to consistently make individual loans
to students of $30,000 to $40,000. Repayment pressures
may lead graduates into high paying specialties rather
than primary care.
Arguments Against a New Loan Program
1. While an income-related loan program may be a good
idea, the specifics of such a proposal should be
fully worked out before the Administration makes a
commitment to it.
- 4 -
2. Congress and the Administration have generally opposed
off-the-budget financing of Federal programs.
3. No current evidence supports a conclusion that there
is a significant number of medical or dental students
or applicants foregoing an education because of inability
to obtain financing.
4. Federal scholarship student assistance should be tied
to a service commitment. For other students who seek
Federal support, but do not wish to commit themselves
to meeting Federal objectives, assistance should be
limited to Federal loan guarantees.
5. An income-related loan repayment program is a complex
issue with implications for the Federal responsibility
in higher education generally and therefore should not
be considered apart from other HEW higher education
loan proposals.
RECOMMENDATIONS
OMB is arguing that capitation should continue to be phased
out and that the needs of medical students should be considered
as part of the overall Federal approach to higher education
student loan programs.
Secretary Mathews maintains that Congress will continue
capitation programs and therefore if we persist in our
current position, we will play no role in the eventual
outcome which is likely to be an extension or expansion
of the existing program.
I believe that given the history of Congressional action on
the Administration's position we should seek the most
effective use of capitation and therefore I recommend
support of HEW's capitation proposal.
Action on the student assistance recommendations should
await further development of specific elements of the
various proposals.
- 5 -
DECISION
Capitation Subsidies
Option 1: Continue capitation for medical and dental
schools that agree to participate in geographic
and specialty distribution initiatives.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
(Cannon, Mathews,
Buchen)
Option 2: Phase-out capitation subsidies over a 4-year
period. Meet geographic and specialty mal-
distribution through special projects and
scholarships.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
(Lynn, Friedersdorf,
Greenspan)
Student Assistance
Option 1: Establish a new off-the-budget loan program
for medical and dental students.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
(Mathews)
Option 2:
Consider a new income-related loan repayment program
as part of a comprehensive review of Federal
education loan programs in the context of
developing the 1977 budget.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
(Cannon, Lynn, Buchen,
Friedersdorf, Greenspan)
THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
AGENDA FOR THE
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT
Tuesday, September 16, 1975
1. Impressions from the London trip
2. Energy Independence Authority, and the Importance
of its Relationship to
-- jobs;
-- stimulating the economy.
3. CIA - Jim Connor's request to prepare a final TAB A
decision memo on Presidential actions
relating to the intelligence community;
4. Office of Science and Technology Policy
TAB B
5. Domestic Council Hearings
-- anticipating a major overhaul of
social programs, that will enable
the nation to meet human needs on a
basis of fiscal integrity,
-- while eliminating red-tape
and bureaucratic repetition;
- 2 -
6. Bicentennial Speech Ideas
-- idea for a series of Presidential
TAB C
Bicentennial speeches on key subjects,
that could ultimately be published in
book form sometime next year;
-- a sample speech -- on "The Role of
TAB D
Philanthropy in Our History"
U
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1975
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
JIM LYNN
FROM:
JIM CONNOR Jrl
SUBJECT:
Administration Position on Federal Role
in Health Professions Education
The President reviewed the recommendations submitted to him
yesterday on the above subject and approved the following:
Capitation Subsidies
Option 1: Continue capitation for medical and dental
schools that agree to participate in
geographic and specialty distribution
initiatives.
Student Assistance
Option 2: Consider a new income-related loan repayment
program as part of a comprehensive review of
Federal education loan programs in the context
of developing the 1977 budget.
Please follow-up with appropriate action.
cc: Don Rumsfeld
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1975
WEEKLY DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES REPORT
FOR THE PRESIDENT
1.
Domestic Council Hearings
We are making arrangements for the Domestic Council
hearings and believe it is time for you to make a
formal announcement to the White House Press Corps.
We understand you plan to discuss the hearings at
tomorrow's Cabinet meeting and express your desire
to have members of the Cabinet participate personally
in the hearings. We also think it would be appropriate
if you would go down to the Press Briefing Room after
the Cabinet meeting to announce the hearings and ask
the Vice President to describe what they are designed
to achieve.
2.
Key Facts on Domestic Issues
We have our staff at work developing draft positions,
based on your statements, on some 60 domestic issues,
from busing to welfare reform. Once the drafts are
complete, we will circulate them to your senior staff
for their review and then to you for your approval.
The purpose is to provide your senior staff and
members of the Cabinet with a ready reference on your
positions on issues for their review prior to their
press conferences and public appearances. Once we
complete this set of positions, we will continue to
update them and to add new items as issues develop.
3.
Office of Science and Technology
The Teague-Mosher Bill as introduced on July 30 will
probably be marked up October 8. We probably could
live with the bill as now drafted it necessary, but
we are working to get some changes. The Senate's
2
posture at this point is to wait until the House
completes action before moving. Senators Moss and
Magnuson say they want prompt action and will
probably accept most of the House bill. Kennedy
may press for public hearings and expansion of the
House bill.
4.
Development of State of the Union Options
Our meetings with members of the Cabinet to solicit
their ideas and views for next year are producing
some warmed-over ideas, but some new suggestions.
We met last week with the Attorney General and
Secretary Mathews. We meet this week with Secretary
Hills and next week with Secretary Simon. That leaves
five to go--FEA, CEA, CEQ, VA, and ACTION.
5.
Auto Emissions
Bill Seidman and I met individually with representatives
of the auto companies to get their views on suspending
tighter controls. In brief:
a. An early decision by Congress is quite important
to all four.
b. A two-year suspension would be of marginal benefit
to GM and Ford, because both have already made
major investments in developing ways to reach
the standards for the 1977 and 1978 model years.
But American Motors is so hard pressed that any
suspension would help them.
C. All made a good case that a three-year suspension
is sound economically and environmentally.
d. Several suggested a new approach: That Congress
not legislate arbitrary mandatory standards, but
direct that emission standards be set annually,
four or five years in advance, by a group of
government agencies that might include FEA, EPA,
HEW and the National Science Foundation. Congress,
under their plan, would retain veto power over the
results.
3
6.
Busing
Senator Henry Bellmon has suggested to Dick Parsons
and me that the Administration create a small
information unit of Justice and HEW officials who
could, upon request, inform a school board or a
Federal judge about ways other school districts have
used to bring about an orderly desegregation of a
school system. Bellmon's idea came from the
experience of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, one of which
desegregated with few problems, the other with big
problems. Bellmon believes that many judges and
school officials are inexperienced and have no place
to go to find out how other school districts made it
work.
If you feel Bellmon's idea could be helpful, I will
take it up with the Attorney General and Secretary
Mathews.
7.
Southern Governors
Both Senator Mansfield and Al Ullman made a poor
impression on most of the 15 Southern governors.
Mansfield expressed great pessimism about the free
enterprise system being able to meet problems, and
Ullman made a speech SO partisan as to be embarrasing
to most of his fellow Democrats.
Several Democratic governors mentioned to me later
that, with the present Congressional leadership, they
have little hope that Congress will do anything about
energy or the economy.
time
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
WMY
September 16, 1975
WEEKLY DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES REPORT
FOR THE PRESIDENT
1.
Domestic Council Hearings
We are making arrangements for the Domestic Council
hearings and believe it is time for you to make a
formal announcement to the White House Press Corps.
We understand you plan to discuss the hearings at
tomorrow's Cabinet meeting and express your desire
to have members of the Cabinet participate personally
in the hearings. We also think it would be appropriate
if you would go down to the Press Briefing Room after
the Cabinet meeting to announce the hearings and ask
the Vice President to describe what they are designed
to achieve.
2.
Key Facts on Domestic Issues
We have our staff at work developing draft positions,
based on your statements, on some 60 domestic issues,
from busing to welfare reform. Once the drafts are
complete, we will circulate them to your senior staff
for their review and then to you for your approval.
The purpose is to provide your senior staff and
members of the Cabinet with a ready reference on your
positions on issues for their review prior to their
press conferences and public appearances. Once we
complete this set of positions, we will continue to
update them and to add new items as issues develop.
3.
Office of Science and Technology
The Teague-Mosher Bill as introduced on July 30 will
probably be marked up October 8. We probably could
live with the bill as now drafted it necessary, but
we are working to get some changes. The Senate's
2
posture at this point is to wait until the House
completes action before moving. Senators Moss and
Magnuson say they want prompt action and will
probably accept most of the House bill. Kennedy
may press for public hearings and expansion of the
House bill.
4.
Development of State of the Union Options
Our meetings with members of the Cabinet to solicit
their ideas and views for next year are producing
some warmed-over ideas, but some new suggestions.
We met last week with the Attorney General and
Secretary Mathews. We meet this week with Secretary
Hills and next week with Secretary Simon. That leaves
five to go--FEA, CEA, CEQ, VA, and ACTION.
5.
Auto Emissions
Bill Seidman and I met individually with representatives
of the auto companies to get their views on suspending
tighter controls. In brief:
a. An early decision by Congress is quite important
to all four.
b. A two-year suspension would be of marginal benefit
to GM and Ford, because both have already made
major investments in developing ways to reach
the standards for the 1977 and 1978 model years.
But American Motors is so hard pressed that any
suspension would help them.
C. All made a good case that a three-year suspension
is sound economically and environmentally.
d
good
Several suggested a new approach: That Congress
not legislate arbitrary mandatory standards, but
direct that emission standards be set annually,
four or five years in advance, by a group of
government agencies that might include FEA, EPA,
HEW and the National Science Foundation. Congress,
under their plan, would retain veto power over the
results.
By Fuding
unput be an
6.
Busing
affinvation cone coned put thing together
Senator Henry Bellmon has suggested to Dick Parsons
and me that the Administration create a small
information unit of Justice and HEW officials who
Watch
could, upon request, inform a school board or a
Federal judge about ways other school districts have
used to bring about an orderly desegregation of a
school system. Bellmon's idea came from the
wr
experience of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, one of which
Goldarni
desegregated with few problems, the other with big
problems. Bellmon believes that many judges and
school officials are inexperienced and have no place
to go to find out how other school districts made it
work.
idea
If you feel Bellmon's idea could be helpful, I will
take it up with the Attorney General and Secretary
Mathews.
7.
Southern Governors
Both Senator Mansfield and Al Ullman made a poor
impression on most of the 15 Southern governors.
Mansfield expressed great pessimism about the free
enterprise system being able to meet problems, and
Ullman made a speech SO partisan as to be embarrasing
to most of his fellow Democrats.
Several Democratic governors mentioned to me later
that, with the present Congressional leadership, they
have little hope that Congress will do anything about
energy or the economy.
Bui Taylor
Boh Stranes
K can Bo Callaway-
[9/16/75]
a
Heary 1 go Though
step m. ibp
How
5 purk woll out
foor - strup
student
ages
feual - has how
in
NP- Soulway.
Rep Ree - prittaing altemater up an
What D Congun
doesnt do.
GERALD FORD
6 - Nota Dad isea
Golburn
non of cant
we Sach Scole.
Ash Coul + Un
food out if used
If not, why.
Congreen wjut to Sun Juidelvies
Camb. of Ballicor Each
4
Such - law who effect
On I Beston
,
FORDO & LIBRARY
Count oresnt To bollow
Scentehies congum Laid down
FORD & BERRED LIBRARY