LETTER TO (SANITIZED) FROM CLINTON MCCARTY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 21, 2010
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: June 27, 1984
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
June 27, 1984
suite 2111
I X25 K srree
V('axhin;;ton I
(202)466-241
Office of Public Affairs
Central Intelligence Agenc
Washington, D. C. 20505
A copy of the BNS article I mentioned in our telephone conver-
sation this morning is attached. It is based on Mr. Casey's
interview in the Legion Magazine, whose editor-in-chief, Jim
Sites, gave us permission to use the material.
Since interview answers require some minor changes to be trans-
formed into an op-ed page article, we do, of course, want to
make sure the finished product meets with the approval of Mr.
Casey and your office. Please feel free to make any changes
you think advisable.
Our mailings go to the op-ed page editors of all 1,700 daily
newspapers in the United States. We normally charge for the
distribution, but we also like to include, from time to time,
articles furnished in the public interest.
Examples of other articles we have distributed also are attached.
Our next mailing goes out early in the week. Assuming your
changes are minor, I would very much appreciate your calling
them in to me at the above number.
Your cooperation is very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Clinton McCar
Editor
I
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Denied
Iq
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
AVAILABLE FOR PUBLICATION
UPON RECEIPT (2/15)
CONTACT: DICK LUKSTAT
(202) 466-6911
SHOWED THROUGH IN ADDRESS TO CONGRESS
By MAUREEN REAGAN
The evening of January 25 was very special for me. Like
millions of Americans, I watched the President give his State
of the Union address. But mine was the rare privilege of being
there in the gallery while my father spoke.
I can't think of a time when I have been more proud of him
or more proud of what he's accomplished. Proud of him because
during the past three years he's had to stand unflinching in the
face of all those who said it couldn't be done. Proud, too, of
what he's been able to accomplish for us. It's almost hard to
imagine now just how tough things were in 1981.
When he came into office, he found 21.5 percent interest
rates that were devastating the country. Small businessmen and
farmers were paying up to 25 percent for borrowed money just to
maintain cash flow. Inflation was up over 15 percent and eating
away our savings and retirements. (more)
Maureen Reagan is special assistant to the chairman of the
Republican National Committee.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
2--Maureen Reagan
We were in dire straits. There were few people in this
country who wouldn't tell you that the economy wasn't as bad
as it could possibly be at that moment.
Obviously, the numbers look better today. Interest rates
have been cut in half, inflation is down to under 4 percent per
year and more and more Americans are rejoining the work force
each day.
But the numbers don't tell the whole story. In January
of 1981, there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Things
weren't getting better; they were getting worse. There was
nothing to look forward to. Now, at every quarter we look
back and we can see things are much better.
In 1980, the American people wanted inflation stopped,
interest rates brought down, our prestige restored and our
industrial might rebuilt.
Nobody believed that we could do anything about inflation.
Nobody believed we could cut interest rates in half. No one
believed we could ever again be respected in the world. No
one believed that today more and more Americans would be working
every day.
Nobody except for this President.
Today, Americans are again respected in the world, our sick
economy is on the mend and we are getting back to work. So now
we are beginning to hear the doomsayers question whether the
recovery has been fair.
(more)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
3--Maureen Reagan
Every day, I talk to dozens and dozens of people. I have
never met one who had a plan for economic recovery that would
bring us all out of the mess we were in at the same time and
at the same rate.
Today, as has always been the case, some Americans are
better off than others. But the important point is that
things are continuously getting better, and that means it's
going to get better for everyone. That's why we all feel so
much better about tomorrow.
I saw something in my father's eyes when he spoke that
night. Others have told me they did, too. He was proud.
Proud of the American people and what they have accomplished.
Together we've accomplished a great deal.
And it's only going to get better and better.
(Distributed by Byliner News Service)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
AVAILABLE FOR PUBLICATION
UPON RECEIPT (4/1)
CONTACT: JANE LESTER
(202) 456-6900
BARRING OF RFE/RL FROM WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES
WAS PART OF SOVIETS' 'NEW INFORMATION ORDER'
By JAMES L. BUCKLEY
Most Americans may not have noticed when the International
Olympic Committee decided to exclude Radio Free Europe and Radio
Liberty reporters from the 1984 Winter Olympics at Sarajevo,
Yugoslavia.
But all Americans should be aware that this act was part
of an unrelenting campaign by the Soviet Union to limit the scope
of international journalism and foster what the Third World has
embraced as a "new information order."
Why do they want it? Because, they say, news media in
the industrialized democracies -- the United States in particular
-- have acquired through their technology and drive an undue
influence in the affairs of other countries. The premise is that
Western media present images of other nations that are inconsiderate
and unfair. (more)
Mr. Buckley, a former U. S. senator from New York, is president
of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which broadcast to
Communist bloc nations from West Germany, Spain and Portugal.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 f N Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
2--Mr. Buckley
It follows, from the logic of the new information order,
that the state's right to control news originated abroad is
superior to the right of its citizens to receive it. Nationality
thus becomes a test of who is entitled to transmit news and
information across frontiers.
Of course, that's completely contrary to the American idea
of a free press. We believe that the more journalists there are
-- all functioning independently -- the greater the chance for
truth to be told. A reporter's passport is irrelevant to his
right to cover news events.
The Soviets believe right and wrong are determined by the
state, and reporters are essentially agents of the state.
The Soviet approach has proved popular with the governments
of many developing countries. Let there be no mistake about it,
however: The new information order th- y.propose is an endorsement
of state control. Its supporters would turn freedom of information
into the freedom of every government to decide what its population
is to see, hear and read.
Unknown to the vast majority of Americans, efforts to impose
such a concept upon us all have been under way for years within
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO). They also have been made within the
Olympic movement.
The IOC has allowed itself to be persuaded that "too many"
journalists have been accredited to cover past Olympic games.
(more)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
3--Mr. Buckley
And that the quotas of those countries that generally send
large contingents of reporters should be reduced, to achieve
"better balance."
In short, the IOC has decided upon a new information order
of its own, in which the countries with a large and active free
press are to be constrained because other countries practice
state control and have fewer newspapers and broadcasters.
Under the Olympic system, it is up to national committees
to allocate whatever quotas are assigned to them by the IOC.
In advance of Sarajevo, the U. S. Olympic Committee was able to
give no broadcaster (with the exception of ABC, which had the
contract) more than four accreditations.
RFE/RL, which broadcasts in 21 languages and reaches more
than 50 million listeners a week, received two. It had 14
reporters and technicians at the previous winter olympics.
American broadcasters found a way around these constraints
when the Yugoslav committee organizing the Sarajevo games agreed
to make extra accreditations available. NBC and Mutual increased
their allotments from four to 10 in this manner. The Voice of
America raised its number from two to 18.
It was not until RFE/RL got approval from the Yugoslavs and
the USOC to send 11 that the IOC stepped in. However, thanks to
Soviet pressure, RFE/RL was singled out for special treatment,
on the grounds that it was not qualified to receive accreditations
,because it broadcast exclusively to non-American audiences.
(more)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
4--Mr. Buckley
This territorial litmus test, if allowed to stand, will
no doubt be applied to others in the future, and to that degree
it undermines the principles of the freedom of international
broadcasting guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
The campaign against RFE/RL has been going on since 1972,
when the Soviet Union attempted unsuccessfully to keep RFE/RL
reporters from covering the~Munich Olympics. But they have
never let up.
One Soviet IOC member, Vitaly Smirnov, acknowledged in an
interview with the West German news agency DPA that he had
launched this year's successful protest over the accreditation
of RFE/RL.
A report in the March 5 issue of Sports Illustrated indicated
that the Soviets even made RFE/RL an issue in negotiations
over television rights for the Los Angeles Olympics.
The quota for American broadcasters at the Los Angeles
Olympics will again be incredibly tight.. And the Soviets will
again try to sandbag RFE/RL.
No doubt they will again object on the grounds of territoriality.
But their real objection is to the fact that RFE/RL effectively
breaks state-controlled information monopolies in the Soviet Union.
They are using the Olympics, as they have used UNESCO, to
impose new restrictions on the free flow of information, in
-which nationality becomes the test.
(Distributed by Byliner News Service)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
AVAILABLE FOR PUBLICATION
UPON RECEIPT
CONTACT: ESTHER FOER
(202) 466-8320
SPEEDS ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
By A. ALAN HILL
Can we get America's industries to intensify their
environmental protection efforts? Yes, but not by laws alone.
The United States has on its statute books the world's
most comprehensive environmental legislation. It has
accomplished a great deal.
Since the Clean Water Act was passed, for example, 96
percent of all privately owned regulated facilities have come
into full compliance with its requirements. The overall effect
on water quality has been dramatic, for all that remains to be
done. We've also made great progress toward cleaning up the
air and the land.
But whatever legal requirements are placed on our companies,
the essential ingredients of enthusiasm and imagination, vital
for innovative and efficient solutions to environmental cleanup
tasks, must spring from within the corporations themselves.
A. Alan Hill is chairman of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
We as a nation are likely to reach the beginning of the
end of waste control problems when most firms are motivated more
by a sense of pride and challenge than by the letter of the law.
One way to encourage extra effort is to recognize and honor
those companies that, through application of enthusiasm and
imagination, have attained noteworthy environmental results.
Several industry groups have such honors programs.
Possibly the best known citations are the National
Environmental Industry Awards, cosponsored by the President's
Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Industry
Council, an association of manufacturers offering pollution
control systems and equipment.
We inaugurated our awards program in 1977. In the
ensuing years we have cited worthy environmental efforts in
many companies.
Among the best known winners have been Atlantic Cement,
Deere & Co., Frito-Lay, Getty Synthetic Fuels, Goodyear, Martin
Marietta, Uniroyal and Volvo.
The most recent awards, which I presented in a White House
ceremony, went to Allied Corp., Colorado Joint Review Process,
Bofors Nobel, Inc.'s Environmental Systems Corp., Homestake
Mining Co., Miller Brewing Co. and Steelcase, Inc.
CEQ and EIC thought the awards program would be a good idea
for two reasons. First, we felt we needed to reward firms that
went the extra mile -- that were unusually innovative, setting
(more)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
new cleanup and prevention standards for others to emulate.
Second, we were interested in publicizing real-world
cases in which engineering and technological advances initially
developed to meet waste cleanup and prevention needs prove more
cost-effective than the "old way" of doing things. These cases
dispel the notion that environmental protection is never anything
but an economic burden.
We've found worthy examples of both types of cases. Take
first the matter of cost effectiveness. In 1979, we honored
the Foil Division of Gould, Inc., for developing a system that
virtually eliminates contaminated water discharge from its
foil manufacturing plants.
The system recovers large quantities of copper and
sulfuric acid, uses less energy, conserves water and improves
operating efficiency. It cost about $845,000 to design and
install but saves the company half a million dollars a year.
Many other examples of such cost savings could be cited.
The emphasis in cases of "going the extra mile" is more
on responsibility than profitability. One of the most recent
awards is a good example. The honored company was Swedish-owned
Bofors Nobel, Inc., a Muskegon, Mich., specialty chemical firm.
The parent company bought the Muskegon plant as a going
concern and had to deal with 370 million pounds of sludge the
former owner had put in lagoons at the site. Leachate from the
sludge had seeped through sandy soils and contaminated groundwater.
(more)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
Bofors set up a separate company, Environmental Systems
Corporation, to be jointly operated by Bofors and two professional
hazardous waste cleanup firms, Zimpro, Inc., and Chemical Waste
Management, Inc.
Using an innovative coupling of existing technologies, ESC
has pumped and treated about 1.2 million gallons of polluted
groundwater per day. Several thousand gallons of manufacturing
wastes are being detoxified daily. The treatment of both old and
new manufacturing wastes continues with commendable efficiency.
We in the awards program have tried to recognize achievements
in all aspects of environmental protection activity. An example
is the recent award to Colorado Joint Review Process, a group
consisting of Amax, Inc._, and three government agencies.
The group developed a streamlined, cooperative review process
to assure environmental protection in commercial projects. It
is a shining example for other states.
Throughout the seven-year life of our awards program, we
have been gratified by its beneficial effect on honored companies.
There is ample evidence that morale of both management and
employees has been boosted by the citations.
Praise is always a more satisfactory motivator than force.
We should keep that in mind -- and pursue new avenues of
recognition -- as we continue the vitally important task of
cleaning up the nation's environment.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
AVAILABLE FOR PUBLICATION
UPON RECEIPT (4/15)
CONTACT: FRED EILAND
(202) 523-4065
DOING? FINE, THANKS TO THE TAXPAYERS
By LEE ANN ELLIOTT
Do you ever wonder, as you fill out your income tax form,
how many people check the box that diverts a tax dollar into
the Presidential election campaign fund?
The number varies from year to year but averages about 25
percent of persons filing returns. The balance in the fund at
the beginning of 1984 was $177-million, and an estimated $135-
million will be paid out during this Presidential election year.
Federal matching funds are available to any Presidential
candidate who raises $5,000 in each of 20 states -- in
contributions of $250 or less.
As of April 16, 10 present or former candidates -- nine of
them, of course, seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination
--have received federal matching funds: (more)
Mrs. Elliott, a Republican, is the Federal Election Commission
chairwoman for 1984. The one-year chairmanship alternates
between the two parties, each of which is represented on the
FEC by three members. Each member's term in office is six years.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
Reubin Askew
$897,533.71
Alan Cranston
$1,740,029.86
John Glenn
$2,926,473.20
Gary Hart
$2,556,651.38
Earnest F. Hollings
$769,067.94
Jesse Jackson
$702,157.34
Lyndon H. Larouche
$100,000.00
George McGovern
$460,015.02
Walter F. Mondale
$5,878,176.29
Ronald Reagan
$7,406,560.89
Candidates asking for matching funds agree to spend no
more than $20.2-million in the primaries this year, which
means the matching fund limit for those races is $10.1-million.
From present appearances, the limit will be reached by some
candidates but must seem a misty dream for the 177 -- yes, 177 --
declared Presidential candidates not listed above.
A candidate is not required to accept any matching funds,
and only candidates who do are subject to spending limits and
mandatory FEC audits.
An interesting footnote to this year's campaign grew out of
a rule that a candidate who establishes eligibility for matching
funds can later lose it -- by receiving less than 10 percent of
the vote in two consecutive primary elections.
That happened to the Rev. Jesse Jackson when he fell below
10 percent in the New Hampshire and Vermont primaries.
(more)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8
But the rule goes on to say eligibility can be regained if
the candidate wins 20 percent of the vote in a later primary.
Rev. Jackson did that in Georgia and thus became the first
candidate ever to requalify.
The FEC has paid the Democratic and Republican parties
$6,060,000 each to help defray national convention expenses.
Once nominees are chosen at those conventions, the financing
scheme will change dramatically. Each nominee will receive a
campaign block grant of $40.4-million, and in accepting it he
must agree not to spend a cent more -- not from his bank account,
his family's, his friends' or those of his party's state campaign
committees.
The Republican or Democratic National Committee, however,
can spend up to an additional $6.9-million on his behalf.
Candidates for the U. S. Senate and House of Representatives,
like the Presidential candidates, must file regular reports with
the FEC showing their campaign income and expenses. But they are
not eligible for federal matching funds.
The Federal Election Campaign Act is working well. So is
the commission it set up to oversee our election financing
process.
(Distributed by Byliner News Service)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00845R000100050004-8