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
118568404
label
JGR/Export Administration (5 of 6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568404
contentType
document
title
JGR/Export Administration (5 of 6)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118568404
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
887ab6c2ac0f0502
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Export Administration
(5 of 6)
Box: 24
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 19, 1984
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
This report is submitted pursuant to section 204 of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1703)
and section 401 (c) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1641 (c)) to account for government expenditures attributable
to the national economic emergency that I declared following
the lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.) (EAA) on October 14, 1983. On
that date, I issued Executive Order No. 12444 to continue in
effect the system of controls that had been established under
the EAA. In view of the extension by Public Law 98-207
(December 5, 1983) of the authorities contained in the EAA,
this emergency authority was no longer needed, and on
December 20, 1983, I issued Executive Order No. 12451, a copy
of which is attached, rescinding the declaration of economic
emergency and revoking Executive Order No. 12444.
The EAA export controls were not expanded during the
emergency period, and the administration of the system of
controls continued in the normal course. Accordingly, the
government spent no funds over and above what would have been
spent had the EAA remained in force without interruption.
RONALD REAGAN
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 19, 1984.
#
#
#
#
#
VGK
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1984
FOR:
FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
PETER J. RUSTHOVEN 646
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
Continuation of Export Control Regulations
Richard Darman's office asked for comments by 10:00 a.m. today
on the above-referenced proposed Executive Order, which would
declare a national economic emergency for the purpose of
continuing in effect the system of export controls established
pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979.
The Executive Order would be issued if, as is now anticipated,
the Congress fails to extend the Act before midnight tonight,
at which time the most recent temporary extension will expire.
Although the Department of Justice has not formally approved
the proposed Order and the accompanying draft message to the
Congress, these documents are substantively identical to those
signed when Congress allowed the Act to lapse last October,
which our office reviewed and approved.
The legal and other issues presented now are identical to
those involved at that time. Aside from recommending that the
message to the Congress be modified slightly simply to reflect
that a copy of the Executive Order is being forwarded with
that message, I see no legal or other problem requiring
comment by our office.
A memorandum for Darman is attached for your review and
signature.
Attachment
CC: Richard A. Hauser
John G. Roberts, Jr.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
Continuation of Export Control Regulations
Our office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed Executive
Order and the accompanying message to the Congress. Subject
to formal approval by the Department of Justice -- which, as
these documents are substantively identical to those signed in
parallel circumstances last October, should be forthcoming --
we have no legal or other substantive objection to either the
proposed Order or the draft message.
I would recommend, however, that numbered paragraph 3 of the
message be modified slightly simply to reference the fact that
a copy of the Executive Order is being forwarded to the
Congress with the message.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig- signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
Continuation of Export Control Regulations
Our office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed Executive
Order and the accompanying message to the Congress. Subject
to formal approval by the Department of Justice -- which, as
these documents are substantively identical to those signed in
parallel circumstances last October, should be forthcoming --
we have no legal or other substantive objection to either the
proposed Order or the draft message.
I would recommend, however, that numbered paragraph 3 of the
message be modified slightly simply to reference the fact that
a copy of the Executive Order is being forwarded to the
Congress with the message.
FFF: PJR:pr 3/30/84
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
RAHauser
Subject
PJRusthoven
Chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 18, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS JJC
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Report to the Congress Regarding
Iran Emergency
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced report to
Congress, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
ID #. 27139355 CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
I a INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Dave Chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Repart to the Cangress re: Iran
Emergency
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency (Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 85,04,17
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
R 85,04,17
5 85,04,19
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/
/
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A . Appropriate Action
I into Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
271393ss
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
4/17/85
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
Friday, April 19
SUBJECT:
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS RE IRAN EMERGENCY
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
OGLESBY
REGAN
ROLLINS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
BUCHANAN
TUTTLE
CHEW
P
55
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FRIEDERSDORF
RYAN
HICKEY
DANIELS
HICKS
KINGON
McFARLANE
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/recommendations by Friday, April 19th.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
1985 APR 17 PII 4: 26
Ext. 2702
OF
THE
Received SS
THE SECRETARY OF, THE TREASURY
THE REASURE
WASHINGTON 20220
HES APR 17 AM 11/0:27 10:
1789
AR 17 2 03
April 16, 1985
Dear Mr. President:
Under Section 204(c) of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, the President is required to submit
a report to the Congress concerning the Iran emergency
once every six months. A proposed report, which summa-
rizes developments concerning the Iran emergency during
the past six months, is enclosed at Tab A. Your last
report to Congress, dated October 31, 1984, is enclosed
for your reference at Tab B.
I recommend that you forward the proposed report to
Congress by May 14, 1985, the end of the current six-month
period.
Sincerely,
Janus James A. Baker, III III
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Enclosures
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Pursuant to Section 204(c) of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. Section 1703 (c), I
hereby report to the Congress on developments since my last
report of October 31, 1984, concerning the national emergency
with respect to Iran that was declared in Executive Order
No. 12170 of November 14, 1979.
1. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, established
at The Hague pursuant to the Claims Settlement Agreement of
January 19, 1981 (the "Algiers Accords"), continues to make
progress in arbitrating the claims before it. Since my last
report, the Tribunal has rendered 18 more decisions for a
total of 169 final decisions. Of these, 125 have been awards
in favor of American claimants; 89 were awards on agreed
terms, authorizing and approving payment of settlements
negotiated by the parties; and 36 were adjudicated decisions.
As of March 31, 1984, total payments to successful American
claimants from the Security Account stood at over
$337 million. Of the remaining 44 decisions, 22 dismissed
claims for lack of jurisdiction, 3 partially dismissed claims
for lack of jurisdiction, 13 dismissed claims on the merits,
one approved the withdrawal of a claim, four were awards in
favor of the Government of Iran, and one was an award in favor
of the United States Government.
2. In the past six months, there have been significant
changes in the composition of the Tribunal. As I noted in my
last report, Professor Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the Federal
Republic of Germany was selected to replace President Gunnar
Lagergren, who resigned effective October 1, 1984. On
December 1, 1984, Professor Bockstiegel was designated
President of the Tribunal, in addition to his duties as
Chairman of Chamber One. On November 29, 1984, the Government
of Iran appointed two new arbitrators to replace Judges
Mahmoud M. Kashani and Shafei Shafeiei, whose qualifications
2
had been challenged by the United States following their
unprecedented attack on one of the third-party arbitrators,
Judge Mangard, in September 1984. The two new Iranian
arbitrators, Hamid Bahrami Ahmadi and Seyed Mohsen Mostafavi
Tafreshi, assumed their duties on January 15, 1985. In
addition, the Chairman of Chamber Two, Willem Riphagen,
submitted his resignation for health reasons, effective
April 1, 1985, and the Chairman of Chamber Three, Nils
Mangard, has submitted his resignation for personal reasons,
effective no later than July 1, 1985. Swiss lawyer Robert
Briner and French law professor Michel Virally have recently
accepted invitations from the U.S. and Iranian arbitrators to
join the Tribunal in place of Chairmen Riphagen and Mangard.
3. In spite of the disruptions that I described in my
last report, the Tribunal made some progress in arbitrating
the claims of U.S. nationals for $250,000 or more. The
Special Chamber, which was established to consider requests
for withdrawals or terminations of claims and for awards on
agreed terms, rendered 13 awards on agreed terms prior to its
dissolution on January 15, 1985. With the arrival of the two
new Iranian arbitrators, the Chambers have once again begun
hearing and deciding cases. On March 1, the Tribunal
awarded R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. an additional $12 million
in interest on its claim, the decision in which was described
in my last report. In total, more than 35 percent of the
claims for over $250,000 have now been disposed of through
adjudication, settlement, or voluntary withdrawal, leaving 344
such claims on the docket.
4. The Tribunal has continued with the arbitration of
the claims of U.S. nationals against Iran of less than
$250,000 each. In addition to 18 test cases, the Tribunal has
selected 100 other claims for active arbitration. In 62 of
these claims, the Department of State has submitted Supple-
mental Statements of Claim, containing more than 16,000 pages
3
of text and evidence. Additional pleadings are being filed
weekly. Although Iran repeatedly seeks extensions of time
within which to file its responsive pleadings to these claims,
the Tribunal has continued to press for their resolution. At
the Tribunal, three senior legal officers and a law clerk work
exclusively on these claims. Finally, since my last report,
another seven of these claimants have received awards on
agreed terms, bringing the total to ten.
5. The Department of State continues to coordinate the
efforts of concerned governmental agencies in presenting U.S.
claims against Iran as well as responses by the U.S.
Government to claims brought against it by Iran. Since my
last report, the Department has filed pleadings in seven
government-to-government claims based on contracts for the
provision of goods and services. These claims include a claim
on behalf of the Agency for International Development for over
$38 million based on outstanding developmental loans to the
Government of Iran. In addition, the Department of State,
working together with the Department of the Treasury and the
Department of Justice, filed responsive pleadings in two major
interpretive disputes. One related to Iran's claim to over
$400 million remaining from funds transferred pursuant to the
Algiers Accords for payment of Iran's syndicated debt. The
other was in response to Iran's allegations that the United
States breached its obligation under the Algiers Accords to
terminate litigation against Iran. The Department of State
also filed pleadings in four other interpretive disputes. The
Tribunal held one hearing in an interpretive dispute on
whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to arbitrate approxi-
mately 111 claims brought by Iran directly against U.S. banks
which do not involve standby letters of credit. Finally, two
of the Tribunal's chambers have confirmed that action will be
taken on or about May 20 to strike or otherwise dispose of 248
claims brought by Iran against U.S. banks based on standby
letters of credit.
4
6. The Algiers Accords also provided for direct
negotiations between U.S. banks and Bank Markazi Iran
concerning the payment of nonsyndicated debt claims of U.S.
banks against Iran from Dollar Account No. 2 (the interest-
bearing escrow account established at the Bank of England in
January 1981 with the deposit of $1.418 billion of previously
blocked Iranian funds). As of April 10, 1985, three
additional settlements had been reached since my last report
between Iran and U.S. banks. The three settling banks, Irving
Trust Company, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, and Banker's
Trust Company, received a total of $81.91 million from Dollar
Account No. 2 in payment of their claims against Iran. From
this amount, $73.595 million was subsequently paid by these
banks to Iran in settlement of Iran's claims against them,
primarily for interest on Iran's domestic deposits with these
banks. (One of these banks paid Iran an additional $8.45
million from other funds.) Thus, as of April 10, 1985, there
have been 29 bank settlements resulting in payments to the
settling banks of approximately $1.5 billion from Dollar
Account No. 2. From that amount, the banks have paid
approximately $693 million to Iran in settlement of Iran's
claims against them. About 17 banks have yet to settle their
claims. In addition, attorneys from the Department of the
Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have been
negotiating an "Agreed Clarification" with Bank Markazi to
allow the payment from Dollar Account No. 2 of certain amounts
still owing on Iran's syndicated debt.
7. There have been no changes in the Iranian Assets
Control Regulations since my last report.
8. Although the attack on Judge Mangard in September
seriously disrupted and delayed proceedings for three months,
the Tribunal resumed full operation in January of this year
and the two Iranian arbitrators who committed the attack were
5
removed by the Government of Iran. Since that time, the
Tribunal has actively pursued the arbitration of both private
and government claims. Prehearing conferences and hearings
that had been cancelled are being rescheduled. The Tribunal
has made provision for the issuance of awards in cases heard
prior to the removal of the two Iranian arbitrators and the
resignations of President Lagergren and Chairmen Riphagen and
Mangard. This resumption of Tribunal activities provides
reason to expect that more progress will be made in the coming
months.
9. Financial and diplomatic aspects of the relationship
with Iran continue to present an unusual challenge to the
national security and foreign policy of the United States. I
shall continue to exercise the powers at my disposal to deal
with these problems and will continue to report periodically
to the Congress on significant developments.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 / Oct. 31
ary 19, 1981, continues to make 'some
progress in arbitrating the 3,848 claims
which have been filed before it. In total,
330 claims have been resolved through
award or withdrawal. Since my last report,
the Tribunal has rendered 33 more deci-
sions, for a total of 151 final decisions. Of
these decisions, 111 have resulted in awards
in favor of American claimants, of which 76
were awards on agreed terms, authorizing
and approving payment of settlements ne-
gotiated by the parties, and 35 were adjudi-
cated. Total payments to successful Ameri-
can claimants from the Security Account
stood at just over $306 million as of Sep-
tember 30, 1984. Of the remaining 40 deci-
sions, 19 dismissed claims for lack of juris-
diction, three partially dismissed claims for
lack of jurisdiction, 13 dismissed claims on
the merits, one approved withdrawal of a
claim, three were awards in favor of the
Government of Iran, and one was an award
in favor of the United States Government.
2. In the past six months, the Tribunal has
continued to make progress in arbitrating
the claims of U.S. nationals for $250,000 or
more. More than 33 percent of these claims
have been disposed of through adjudication,
settlement, or voluntary withdrawal, leav-
ing 362 such claims on the docket. On
August 6, 1984, the Tribunal rendered its
largest non-bank award, almost $50 million,
in favor of the R.J. Reynolds Co. In a signifi-
cant development, Iran agreed to withdraw
all of the cases that it had filed in the Dutch
courts seeking to set aside certain Tribunal
National Emergency With Respect to
awards in favor of U.S. claimants. It also
Iran
agreed to stay proceedings in Iranian courts
against two U.S. claimants, as requested by
Letter to the Speaker of the House and the
the Tribunal, but has not yet complied with
President of the Senate. October 31, 1984
similar Tribunal requests in other cases.
3. The Tribunal has proceeded with its
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
previously adopted test-case approach for
Pursuant to Section 204(c) of the Interna-
arbitrating the claims of U.S. nationals
tional Emergency Economic Powers Act
against Iran for less than $250,000. The De-
(IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. Section 1703(c), I hereby
partment of State has submitted Supple-
report to the Congress with respect to de-
mental Statements of Claim in 33 of these
velopments since my last report of May 3,
claims (including 14 of the 18 test cases
1984, concerning the national emergency
selected by the Tribunal), and has filed
with respect to Iran declared in Executive
major factual and legal memoranda in sup-
Order No. 12170 of November 14, 1979.
port of those claims. Supplemental State-
1. The Iran-United States Claims Tribu-
ments of Claim are being prepared for 91
nal, established at The Hague pursuant to
additional claims. While Iran continues to
the Claims Settlement Agreement of Janu-
resist efforts to resolve these claims expedi-
1711
Oct. 31 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984
tiously, we are pressing for early Tribunal
1984, President Lagergren appointed Pro-
action. A third senior legal officer has re-
fessor Bockstiegel as "acting President"
cently been hired by the Tribunal to work
pending a determination by the Tribunal
exclusively on these claims. Finally, the Tri-
(or, if necessary, the Appointing Authority)
bunal recently issued three awards on
on whether he will serve as President. Pro-
agreed terms, reflecting settlements be-
fessor Bockstiegel held the Chair of Interna-
tween U.S. claimants and Iran of these
tional Business Law and served as director
claims.
of the Institute of Air and Space Law at
4. The Department of State continues to
Cologne University.
coordinate the efforts of concerned govern-
6. The January 19, 1981, agreements with
mental agencies in presenting U.S. claims
Iran also provided for direct negotiations
against Iran as well as U.S. responses to
between U.S. banks and Bank Markazi Iran
claims brought by Iran. Since my last
concerning the payment of nonsyndicated
report, the Tribunal has resolved three gov-
debt claims of U.S. banks against Iran from
ernment-to-government claims based on
the $1.418 billion escrow account presently
contracts for the provision of goods and
held by the Bank of England. Since my last
services. In one case, the United States re-
report, only one additional settlement has
ceived an award for costs incurred in pro-
been reached. Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh
viding instruction to Iranian students at the
received $12.4 million in settlement of its
United States Coast Guard Academy. Of the
claim, of which $2.8 million was subse-
other two claims (both brought by Iran),
quently paid to Iran, primarily for interest
one (against the National Aeronautics and
on Iran's domestic deposits with the bank.
Space Administration) was dismissed on the
Thus, as of September 30, 1984, there have
merits, and the other (against the Atomic
been 26 bank settlements, totaling approxi-
Energy Commission) resulted in an award
mately $1.4 billion. Iran has received $619
to Iran. As in the past, these awards were
million in settlement of its claims against
rendered solely on the pleadings. The Tri-
the banks. About 20 bank claims remain
bunal has in addition set filing dates for
pleadings in 10 government-to-government
outstanding.
claims through the end of 1984. Although
7. On May 21, 1984, the Department of
two hearings were scheduled in cases con-
the Treasury amended Section 535.215 of
cerning the interpretation and implementa-
the Iranian Assets Control Regulations to
tion of the Algiers Accords, the Tribunal has
prohibit any transfer, except under license
postponed these hearings indefinitely. The
from the Office of Foreign Assets Control,
United States, however, is fully prepared to
of blocked tangible property in which, Iran
proceed with these hearings and is also pre-
has any interest whatsoever, the export of
paring rejoinders for submission to the Tri-
which requires the issuance of any specific
bunal in two other cases.
license under U.S. law. This amendment
5. In the last six months, there has also
was promulgated in order to help assure
been a change in the composition of the
compliance with the export restrictions of
Tribunal. On April 27, 1984, Gunnar Lager-
U.S. law, particularly those with respect to
gren, the President of the Tribunal and
properties having potential military applica-
Chairman of Chamber One, resigned effec-
tion.
tive October 1, 1984. Despite several
8. Significant developments have oc-
rounds of discussion, the six party-appointed
curred at the Tribunal since my last report.
arbitrators were unable to agree on a suc-
On September 3, 1984, two Iranian arbitra-
cessor. Accordingly, pursuant to the Tribu-
tors, Mahmoud M. Kashani and Shafei Sha-
nal's Rules of Procedure, the United States
feiei, assaulted Judge Nils Mangard, a third-
requested the independent Appointing Au-
country arbitrator, in an attempt to exclude
thority, M.J.A. Moons, the Chief Judge of
him from the Tribunal. This unprovoked
the Netherlands Supreme Court, to desig-
and unprecedented attack resulted in an in-
nate a successor. On September 1, 1984,
definite suspension of Tribunal proceedings
Judge Moons appointed Karl-Heinz Bock-
from September 5. In response to the
stiegel, a West German national, as a
attack, the United States filed a formal chal-
member of the Tribunal. On September 25,
lenge seeking the removal of the two Irani-
1712
Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 / Nov. /
an arbitrators in the event that the Govern-
ment of Iran does not voluntarily remove
them. A special chamber has been estab-
lished to consider requests for withdrawals
or terminations of claims and for awards on
agreed terms until regular proceedings are
reestablished.
9. Although the Tribunal made some
progress in arbitrating the claims before it
in the first few months of this reporting
period, the attack on Judge Mangard in
September has seriously disrupted and de-
layed proceedings. Significant American in-
terests remain unresolved. Prehearing con-
ferences and hearings scheduled for Sep-
tember and October have been postponed
indefinitely. However, should the status of
the two Iranian arbitrators who perpetrated
the attack be resolved expeditiously, we be-
lieve that the Tribunal will be restored to
its full functioning.
10. Financial and diplomatic aspects of
the relationship with Iran continue to
present an unusual challenge to the nation-
al security and foreign policy of the United
States. I shall continue to exercise the
powers at my disposal to deal with these
problems and will continue to report peri-
odically to the Congress on significant de-
velopments.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan
Note: This is the text of identical letters
addressed to Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker
of the House of Representatives, and George
Bush, President of the Senate.
1713
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
Honorable David A. Stockman
JUL 3 1985
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Stockman:
In compliance with your request, we have examined a
copy of the conference report on S. 883, the Export
Administration Amendments Act of 1985, a bill to extend the
Export Administration Act of 1979 (1979 Act). 131 Cong.
Rec. H 4905 (June 25, 1985). The Department of Justice
(Department) recommends Executive approval of this bill. We
I
do, however, have the following comments, some of which are
included in a proposed signing statement (attached).
1. Two subsections of the bill, § 107 (c) and § 107 (h),
to amend §§ 5(f)(4) and 5(h)(6), respectively, of the 1979
Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2404(f)(4) and (h) (6), purport to
require the President, at the time that export controls
are imposed for national security reasons or maintained, or
if thereafter a good or technology becomes available from a
foreign source, actively to pursue negotiations with the
governments of foreign countries to eliminate the foreign
availability such goods or technology. The purpose and the
effect of these provisions is somewhat unclear. These provisions
are not necessary to authorize the President to negotiate
with foreign governments, nor could the President be directed
to negotiate if he chose not to. We would therefore read
these provisions as an expression of congressional desire
that the President seek to eliminate foreign availability of
goods or technology controlled for national security reasons.
Congress can constitutionally condition the authority to
impose or maintain export controls on the elimination of
foreign availability, as both the cited subsections do. But
it remains in the President's discretion whether to seek to
eliminate the foreign availability through negotiation with
foreign governments. We call this qualification to your
attention now because it may be important in the future to
those administering these export control provisions.
2. Section 108 (a) (3), amending § 6(a) of the 1979 Act,
50 U.S.C. App. § 2405 (a), adds a provision that any export
control imposed for foreign policy reasons shall apply to
transactions or activities undertaken with the intent to
evade that control, even if the export control would not
otherwise apply to that transaction or activity. The meaning
and scope of application of this provision are unclear, and,
in certain circumstances, could raise due process problems.
Although we do not believe that comment on this provision
would be necessary in the signing statement, we note the
problem here for future reference in the administration
of the bill.
3. Section 108(b) of the bill would amend § 6(b) of the
1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2905 (b), to identify the criteria
for the future imposition of export controls for foreign
policy reasons. The bill provides that the President may
impose foreign policy controls only if he makes certain
determinations relating to the likely effects of such controls.
In brief, the President must determine (1) that the purpose
of such controls can be achieved, (2) that the controls are
compatible with other foreign policy objectives, (3) that the
reaction of other countries will not render the controls
ineffective or counterproductive, (4) that the effect of the
controls on the competitive position of the United States will
not exceed the benefit, and (5) that the United States has
the ability to enforce the controls effectively. Under
current law, the President is directed to consider some
similar factors but is not required to make a determination
regarding the likely effect, in terms of the factors, of the
imposition of controls. Although changed in form, this
section may not be very different in substance because no
specific criteria are proposed for the guidance of these
presidential decisions. We assume, both because of this
silence as well as the constitutional implications of a
contrary assumption, that such decisions are left to the
President's unreviewable discretion according to whatever
criteria he deems appropriate. We think that it might be
well to include in a signing statement proposed for the
President an interpretation of § 6(b) to the effect that,
because the determination whether the criteria are met in a
particular case is committed to the President's sole discretion,
§ 6(b) amounts to an expression by Congress of the factors
that it deems important to the President's decision to impose
export controls for foreign policy reasons.
-2-
4. Section (d) of the bill, which amends § (g) (3)
of the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2406(g) (3), relates to the
imposition of short supply controls on agricultural commodities.
Section 110(d) requires the President to report to Congress
upon the imposition of such controls, setting forth the
reasons for the controls and specifying the period of time,
up to one year, that the controls are proposed to be in
effect. Section 110(d) further provides that if Congress,
within 60 days of the date of receipt of the report adopts a
joint resolution approving the imposition of controls, such
control may remain in effect for the period specified in the
President's report unless he terminates the controls sooner.
If Congress fails within 60 days to adopt a joint resolution
of approval, the controls expire at the end of the 60-day
period. This procedure is not inconsistent with INS V.
Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), and does not present constitutional
problems. We do not believe that this section need be noted in
a signing statement.
5. Section 113 provides the enforcement authority for
the export control laws. Section 113 (a) amends § 12 (a) of
the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2411 (a), to provide, essentially
that the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is given jurisdiction
over investigations at places within the United States other
than ports, and over investigations involving pre-licensing,
post-shipment, or foreign enforcement at places outside the
United States. The United States Customs Service (Customs) is
given jurisdiction over investigations at the ports of entry
and exit and places outside the United States where it is
authorized, pursuant to agreements or arrangements with
foreign countries, to perform enforcement activities. The
power to enforce the export laws by searches and seizures is
conferred upon both Commerce and Customs. In general, this
authority is consistent with Fourth Amendment limitations,
although specific analysis and qualification are necessary
with regard to both Commerce and Customs.
Customs is authorized to stop, search, and examine
vehicles and persons, and search packages and containers,
on the basis of reasonable cause to suspect a violation of
the export laws, and seize goods of technology for trial on
the basis of probable cause. Such authority is fully
constitutional when exercised at the ports of entry and exit.
See United States V. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1971) (importation
through the mails; warrantless search based on reasonable
cause) ; United States V. Martinez-Fuente, 428 U.S. 453 (1976)
(illegal entry of aliens by automobile; warrantless stop of
vehicle and questioning of occupants at fixed checkpoint
without individual suspicion). Similar standards have been
-3-
applied in the courts of appeals to exit searches at the
ports. See, e.g., United States V. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971,
976-77 (9th Cir. 1982) ; United States V. Ajlouny, 629 F.2d
830, 833-34 (2d Cir. 1979) see also California Bankers Ass'n
V. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 63 (1974) (dictum).
This same enforcement authority is conferred on Customs
for enforcement in countries outside the United States which
have authorized Customs to operate. Under certain circumstances,
the exercise by Customs of search and seizure authority in
overseas enforcement activities in the absence of a warrant
will exceed the limitations imposed by the Fourth Amendment.
In Reid V. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5 (1957), the Court "reject| [ed]
the idea that when the United States acts against citizens
abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights." In reliance
on Reid, one lower court, considering the Fourth Amendment
issues involved in the context of warrantless electronic
surveillance of American citizens and organizations, held
that [t]here is no question
that the Constitution
applies to actions by United States officials taken against
American citizens overseas." Berlin Democratic Club V.
Rumsfeld, 410 F. Supp. 144, 157 n.6 (D.D.C. 1976). We believe
that this standard would apply to physical searches as well.
Cf. United States V. United States District Court (Keith),
407 U.S. 297 (1972) Katz V. United States, 389 U.S. 347
(1967). See also Powell V. Zuckert, 125 U.S. App D.C. 55,
366 F.2d 634, 640 (1966) ; Birdsell V. United States, 346
F.2d 775, 782 (5th Cir. 1965) cf. United States V. Emery,
591 F.2d 1266, 1267-68 (9th Cir. 1978) (Fifth Amendment).
In our view, these cases demonstrate that, depending
on the facts, a warrantless search and seizure directed
against U.S. citizens abroad may not meet Fourth Amendment
standards in the absence of a recognized exception to the
warrant requirement. Cf. Mincey V. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385,
390 (1978). In such cases, an agreement or arrangement with
a foreign government would not alter the applicable constitutional
standard. See Reid V. Covert, 354 U.S. at 16.
To our knowledge, the Supreme Court has never adressed
the constitutional restrictions on search and seizures directed
at non-U.S. citizens abroad. We think that such enforcement
measures would be held to be constitutionally sufficient if
they are reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment
and conform to local law or restrictions imposed by the
foreign country and to international law. In this regard, we
think that the search and seizure of foreign vessels on the
high seas is an apt analogy. See, e.g., United States V.
Williams, 617 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc) (permission
by foreign sovereign renders search reasonable).
-4-
With regard to Commerce, a similar problem exists in
certain circumstances because of the apparent authorization
of warrantless searches and seizures. The Secretary of
Commerce, however, is specifically authorized to designate
officers and employees of Commerce to execute warrants in the
enforcement of the Act. We believe that this provision
should be read to impose the warrant requirement on authorized
searches and seizures in the absence of facts supporting a
search or seizure without a warrant. As thus interpreted,
the enforcement provisions relating to Commerce would meet
constitutional standards.
Specifically, Commerce's authority exists in three
contexts: (1) at places within the United States; (2) at
ports, and places outside the United States, with the concurrence
of Customs; and (3) certain other specific overseas enforcement
activities. 1/ The interpretation suggested above, as
applied in these three contexts, would generally require a
warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement for searches
and seizures at all places within the United States other
than ports, and outside the United States at least if United
States citizens are involved. For certain specific authorized
enforcement activities outside the United States, such as
prelicense or post-shipment investigations, a licensing
provision providing consent to a search might serve as an
exception to the warrant requirement. No warrant would be
required at the ports, and most likely, at places outside the
United States if non-citizens are involved.
In summary, we believe that an explanation of the
enforcement authority should be included in a signing statement.
For that purpose, it would be sufficient simply to state
the understanding that all enforcement authority will be
exercised consistent with whatever Fourth Amendment standards
may be applicable on the particular facts. We offer the
fuller discussion here for reference in the administration of
the export laws.
6. Finally, we have repeatedly opined on the technical
data provisions, such as is contained in § 117 of the bill,
1/ It is not clear from the wording of Commerce's authority
whether search and seizure powers are provided in the conduct
of pre-license or post-shipment investigations or the
enforcement of foreign boycott provisions. For purposes of
this discussion, we assume that such powers are provided.
-5-
amending § 16 of the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2415. Section
117 provides an amended definition of "technology" and a new
definition of "export." The effect of the definitions contained
in the bill presents First Amendment questions. We suggest
that the signing statement contain a direction to those who
will administer the licensing system to develop regulations
to restrict the scope of the definitions to conform to consti-
tutional limitations.
7. We are concerned that section 105, amending § 5 of
the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2404, does not require that
Commerce officials consult with the Attorney General or
his designee prior to conducting investigations of foreign
countries' embassies believed to be attempting to obtain
strategic items on the open market. In the absence of such a
requirement, Commerce's activities under this section could
have a substantial adverse impact on ongoing Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) counterintelligence investigations.
Additionally, we note that the Act does not define the term
"affiliates" when used in discussing the activities of foreign
"embassies and affiliates of controlled countries."
8. Section 105(j), amending § 5 of the 1979 Act,
50 U.S.C. App. § 2404, by adding a new paragraph (n), provides
that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the
Commissioner of Customs and the Director of the FBI, shall
provide advice and technical assistance in developing security
systems to persons engaged in the manufacture or handling of
goods or technology subject to export controls under the
section. The security systems would be designed to prevent
violations or evasions of applicable export controls. We are
uncertain as to what the FBI's responsibilities would be
under this section.
9. Section 113, amending § 12(a) of the 1979 Act,
50 U.S.C. App. § 2411(a), would give the Secretary of Commerce
the authority to designate Commerce employees to perform
designated law enforcement activities such as execution of
warrants, arrests, searches and seizures, and carrying firearms.
We continue to believe that such authority is unnecessary for
Commerce to carry out its responsibilities under this bill.
Efforts by agencies other than the Department to gain jurisdiction
over criminal activities could tend to divert resources from
the Department, making a coordinated approach to resolving
criminal justice problems more difficult. We believe that
police powers should be given only to those personnel directly
and specifically involved in the enforcement of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, and then only after they have
received appropriate training.
-6-
10. Sections 105 (a) (1), amending $ 5 (a) (1) of the 1979
Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2404 (a) (1), and 117 (4), amending $ 16
of the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. § 2415, authorize export controls
on transfers of technology to embassies and subsidiaries of
foreign companies in the United States. This authority
implies that Commerce will investigate activities involving
these entities. Because the FBI has primary counterintelligence
responsibilites in this area, we have included language in
the proposed signing statement stating that Commerce investigations
involving these entities will be coordinated with the FBI.
11. Section (b) (2), amending § (c) (3) of the 1979 Act,
50 U.S.C. App. § 2411, would require all agencies to provide
Commerce with information relevant to enforcement of this
Act, "including information pertaining to any investigation."
The amendments would also require, in 113 (b) (4), the Attorney
General to consult on a continuing basis with the Secretary
of Commerce, Commissioner of Customs, and other department
and agency heads to facilitate the exchange of "licensing and
enforcement information." These changes are laudatory if
their intent is to encourage greater sharing of export control -
enforcement information between Customs and Commerce, with
the FBI sharing in their data. However, these provisions may
also be read to require the FBI to share sensitive investigative
materials with Commerce even when information relating to
export controls may only be a minor element in a counterintelligence
investigation of major national security importance.
Section 113 (a) (5), adding § (7) to § 12 (a) of the
1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2411 (a), authorizes the Secretary
of Commerce to publish procedures, with the concurrence of
the Secretary of Treasury, for sharing enforcement information.
We have included language in the proposed signing statement
noting the necessity of involving the Attorney General, not
only as a consultant on means to facilitate the exchange of
enforcement information under 113 (b) (4), but also in the
development of procedures under 113 (a) (5) in order to ensure
protection of important FBI interests.
The Department of Justice recommends Executive approval
of this bill.
Sincerely,
Pay
Phillip D. Brady
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Attachment
SIGNING STATEMENT
There are several provisions in S. 883 that will require
close coordination between the Department of Commerce and
other agencies. I expect the Department of Commerce to
consult regularly with the Attorney General and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation with regard to implementation of
sections 105(a)(1), 113, and 117(4), including coordination of
investigations and development of appropriate regulations.
Section 108(b) of the bill identifies factors that the
President should consider when deciding whether to impose
export controls for foreign policy reasons. It is my
understanding that the determination whether the criteria are
met in a particular case is committed to the President's
discretion and the factors listed are simply an expression
by Congress of the factors it deems important for the President -
to consider.
The bill also contains broad language empowering the
Department of Commerce to conduct certain searches and
seizures. It is my understanding that all enforcement
authority will be exercised in a manner consistent with the
Fourth Amendment.
Finally, section 117, amending § 16 of the 1979 Act,
50 U.S.C. App. § 2415, presents novel issues under the
First Amendment. Administration of the licensing system
and development of regulations under this section should
insure that the definitions conform to constitutional
limitations.
Mar. 30 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984
the creation of a scenic highway along the
my from the excessive drain of scarce mate-
routes described in that section.
rials and reduce the serious economic
The Secretary and the Governor recom-
impact of foreign demand, it is hereby or-
mend that no such scenic highway be estab-
dered as follows:
lished and, further, that the Congress move
Section 1. Notwithstanding the expiration
immediately to repeal the public lands
of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
withdrawal from mining and mineral leas-
amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.), the
ing imposed by section 1311. I concur in
provisions of that Act, the provisions for ad-
those recommendations.
ministration of that Act and the delegations
Sincerely,
of authority set forth in Executive Order
Ronald Reagan
No. 12002 of July 7, 1977 and Executive
Order No. 12214 of May 2, 1980, shall, to
Note: This is the text of identical letters
the extent permitted by law, be incorporat-
addressed to Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker
ed in this Order and shall continue in full
of the House of Representatives, and George
force and effect.
Bush, President of the Senate.
Sec. 2. All rules and regulations issued or
continued in effect by the Secretary of
Commerce under the authority of the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended, including those published in Title
Continuation of Export Control
15, Chapter III, Subchapter C, of the Code
Regulations
of Federal Regulations, Parts 368 to 399
inclusive, and all orders, regulations, li-
Executive Order 12470. March 30, 1984
censes and other forms of administrative
action issued, taken or continued in effect
By the authority vested in me as Presi-
pursuant thereto, shall, until amended or
dent by the Constitution and laws of the
revoked by the Secretary of Commerce,
United States of America, including section
remain in full force and effect, the same as
203 of the International Emergency Eco-
if issued or taken pursuant to this Order,
nomic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) (herein-
except that the provisions of sections
after referred to as "the Act"), and 22
203(b)(2) and 206 of the Act (50 U.S.C.
U.S.C. 287c,
1702(b)(2) and 1705) shall control over any
I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United
inconsistent provisions in the regulations
States of America, find that the unrestricted
with respect to, respectively, certain dona-
access of foreign parties to United States
tions to relieve human suffering and civil
commercial goods, technology, and techni-
and criminal penalties for violations subject
cal data and the existence of certain boycott
to this Order. Nothing in this section shall
practices of foreign nations constitute, in
affect the continued applicability of admin-
light of the expiration of the Export Admin-
istration Act of 1979, an unusual and ex-
istrative sanctions provided for by the regu-
lations described above.
traordinary threat to the national security,
foreign policy and economy of the United
Sec. 3. Provisions for the administration of
States and hereby declare a national eco-
section 38(e) of the Arms Export Control
nomic emergency to deal with that threat.
Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(e)) may be made and
Accordingly, in order (a) to exercise the
shall continue in full force and effect until
necessary vigilance over exports from the
amended or revoked under the authority of
standpoint of their significance to the na-
section 203 of the Act (50 U.S.C. 1702). To
tional security of the United States; (b) to
the extent permitted by law, this Order also
further significantly the foreign policy of
shall constitute authority for the issuance
the United States, including its policy with
and continuation in full force and effect of
respect to cooperation by United States per-
all rules and regulations by the President or
sons with certain foreign boycott activities,
his delegate, and all orders, licenses, and
and to fulfill its international responsibil-
other forms of administrative action issued,
ities; and (c) to protect the domestic econo-
taken or continued in effect pursuant there-
452
Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 / Mar. 30
to, relating to the administration of section
boycott requests. This would seriously harm
38(e).
our foreign policy interests, particularly in
Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective as of
the Middle East. Controls established in 15
midnight between March 30 and March 31,
C.F.R. 368-399, and continued by this
1984, and shall remain in effect until termi-
action, include the following:
nated. It is myaintention to terminate this
National security export controls
Order upon the enactment into law of a bill
aimed at restricting the export of goods
reauthorizing the authorities contained in
and technologies which would make a
the Export Administration Act. a
significant contribution to the military
Ronald Reagan
potential of any other country and
which would prove detrimental to the
The White House,
national security of the United States;
March 30, 1984.
Foreign policy controls which further
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Regis-
the foreign policy objectives of the
ter, 3:07 p.m., March 30, 1984]
United States or its declared interna-
tional obligations in such widely recog-
nized areas as human rights, anti-ter-
rorism, and regional stability;
Continuation of Export Control
Nuclear nonproliferation controls
Regulations
that are maintained for both national
security and foreign policy reasons, and
Message to the Congress. March 30, 1984
which support the objectives of the Nu-
clear Nonproliferation Act;
To the Congress of the United States:
Short supply controls that protect do-
Pursuant to section 204(b) of the Interna-
mestic supplies; and
tional Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50
Anti-boycott regulations that prohibit
U.S.C. 1703, I hereby report to the Con-
compliance with foreign boycotts
gress that I have today exercised the au-
aimed at countries friendly to the
thority granted by this Act to continue in
United States.
effect the system of controls contained in
3. Consequently, I have issued an Execu-
15 C.F.R. Parts 368-399, including restric-
tive Order (a copy of which is attached) to
tions on participation by United States per-
continue in effect all rules and regulations
sons in certain foreign boycott activities,
issued or continued in effect by the Secre-
which heretofore has been maintained
tary of Commerce under the authority of
under the authority of the Export Adminis-
the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
tration Act of 1979, as amended, 50 U.S.C.
amended, and all orders, regulations, li-
App. 2401 et seq. In addition, I have made
censes, and other forms of administrative
provision for the administration of Section
actions under that Act, except where they
38(e) of the Arms Export Control Act, 22
are inconsistent with sections 203(b) and
U.S.C. 2778(e).
206 of the International Emergency Eco-
1. The exercise of this authority is necessi-
nomic Powers Act.
tated by the expiration of the Export Ad-
4. The Congress and the Executive have
ministration Act on March 30, 1984, and
not permitted export controls to lapse since
the resulting lapse of the system of controls
they were enacted under the Export Con-
maintained under that Act.
trol Act of 1949. Any termination of con-
2. In the absence of controls, foreign par-
trols could permit transactions to occur that
ties would have unrestricted access to
would be seriously detrimental to the na-
United States commercial products, technol-
tional interests we have heretofore sought
ogy and technical data, posing an unusual
to protect through export controls and re-
and extraordinary threat to national secu-
strictions on compliance by United States
rity, foreign policy, and economic objectives
persons with certain foreign boycotts. I be-
critical to the United States. In addition,
lieve that even a temporary lapse in this
United States persons would not be prohib-
system of controls would seriously damage
ited from complying with certain foreign
our national security, foreign policy and
453
Mar. 30 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984
economic interests and undermine our
committees for consideration, and enacted.
credibility in meeting our international obli-
I also request that the Congress note the
gations.
agreements subsidiary to the Compact. Also
5. The countries affected by this action
enclosed is a section-by-section analysis to
vary depending on the objectives sought to
facilitate your consideration of the Com-
be achieved by the system of controls insti-
pact.
tuted under the Export Administration Act.
The defense and land use provisions of
Potential adversaries are seeking to acquire
the Compact extend indefinitely the right
sensitive United States goods and technol-
of the United States to foreclose access to
ogies. Other countries serve as conduits for
the area to third countries for military pur-
the diversion of such items. Still other coun-
poses. These provisions are of great impor-
tries have policies that are contrary to
tance to our strategic position in the Pacific
United States foreign policy or nuclear non-
proliferation objectives, or foster boycotts
and enable us to continue preserving re-
against friendly countries. For some goods
gional security and peace.
or technologies, controls could apply even
Since 1947, the islands of Micronesia have
to our closest allies in order to safeguard
been administered by the United Statés
against diversion to potential adversaries.
under a Trusteeship Agreement with the
6. It is my intention to terminate the Ex-
United Nations Security Council. This Com-
ecutive Order upon enactment into law of a
pact of Free Association with the govern-
bill reauthorizing the authorities contained
ments of the Federated States of Micronesia
in the Export Administration Act.
and the Republic of the Marshall Islands
would fulfill our commitment under that
Ronald Reagan
agreement to bring about self-government.
The White House,
Upon termination of the Trusteeship Agree-
March 30, 1984.
ment, another political jurisdiction of the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the
Northern Mariana Islands, will become a
commonwealth of the United States.
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
The Compact of Free Association was
signed for the United States by Ambassador
Message to the Congress Transmitting
Fred M. Zeder, II, on October 1, 1982, with
the Federated States of Micronesia, and on
Proposed Legislation To Approve a
Compact of Free Association.
June 25, 1983, with the Republic of the
March 30, 1984
Marshall Islands. It is the result of negotia-
tions between the United States and broad-
To the Congress of the United States:
ly representative groups of delegates from
There is enclosed a draft of a Joint Reso-
the prospective freely associated states.
lution to approve the "Compact of Free As-
In 1983, United Nations-observed plebi-
sociation," the negotiated instrument set-
scites produced high voter participation,
ting forth the future political relationship
and the Compact was approved by impres-
between the United States and two political
sive majorities. In addition to approval in
jurisdictions of the Trust Territory of the
the plebiscites, the Compact has been ap-
Pacific Islands.
proved by the governments of the Republic
The Compact of Free Association is the
of the Marshall Islands and the Federated
result of more than fourteen years of con-
States of Micronesia in accordance with
tinuous and comprehensive negotiations,
their constitutional processes.
spanning the administrations of four Presi-
Enactment of the draft Joint Resolution
dents. The transmission of the proposed
approving the Compact of Free Association
Joint Resolution to you today marks the last
would be a major step leading to the termi-
step in the Compact approval process.
nation of the Trusteeship Agreement with
The full text of the Compact is part of the
the United Nations Security Council, which
draft Joint Resolution, which I request be
the United States entered into by Joint Res-
introduced, referred to the appropriate
olution on July 18, 1947. Therefore, I urge
454
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 27, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS JSR
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Notice Regarding Continuing Export Controls
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
Notice, and has no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
ID # 27125755
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o - OUTGOING
H # INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Dave chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: notice M cantinuing Expart controls
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CIRHOLL
ORIGINATOR
85,03,27
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
R
85,03,27
S 85,03,27
4pm
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A. Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
-
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central FReference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No. 271257ss
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 3/27/85
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
4:00 P.M. TODAY
SUBJECT: NOTICE RE CONTINUING EXPORT CONTROLS
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
McMANUS
REGAN
MURPHY
DEAVER
OGLESBY
STOCKMAN
ROLLINS
BUCHANAN
SPEAKES
CHEW
P
SS SVAHN
FIELDING
TUTTLE
FRIEDERSDORF
VERSTANDIG
FULLER
WHITTLESEY
HICKEY
CLERK
-
HICKS
KINGON
McFARLANE
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/recommendations on the attached by 4:00 p.m.
today, March 27th. Thank you.
(Note: The attached notice is an advance copy. Justice will be clearing
this afternoon. This notice must be published in the Federal Register
tomorrow.)
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
1885 HAR 27 FII 12:
Ext. 2702
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
EXECUTIVE
BAS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
ReceivedSS
March 27, 1985
ITS MAR 27 PM 04
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
DAVID A. STOCKMAN AS
SUBJECT:
NOTICE CONTINUING EXPORT CONTROLS
SUMMARY: Enclosed for your consideration is a Notice, along with
the required transmittal letters to the Congress, continuing the
national emergency declared on March 30, 1984, in order to
continue in effect the current system of export controls.
BACKGROUND: The Export Administration Act of 1979 (Act)
authorizes regulation of the export of goods and technical data
and of conduct by U.S. persons related to certain boycott
practices of foreign nations. Authority under the Act lapsed on
March 30, 1984, at which time the President issued Executive
Order No. 12470, declaring a National Emergency and, pursuant to
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ordering
the system of export controls continued. This emergency will now
terminate on March 30, 1985, pursuant to Section 202(d) of the
National Emergencies Act, unless the President continues the
emergency in effect. If the President continues the emergency,
he must also publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the
Congress a Notice stating that the emergency is to continue.
Although Congress has been considering a renewal of the Act, it
appears that action will not be completed by March 30, 1985. If
the emergency were to lapse, exports of commercial goods and
technical data could occur without restriction, thereby posing
serious detrimental effects to our national security, foreign
policy, and the domestic economy. Additionally, compliance with
foreign boycott practices would no longer be prohibited by
legislation specifically directed at such conduct.
The attached documents, which were prepared by the Department of
Commerce, would continue the emergency in effect. They should be
signed no later than March 28, 1985, so that the Notice of
Emergency Extension can be published in the Federal Register by
March 29, 1985, prior to the expiration of the current authority.
Due to time constraints, the Notice and letters were not
submitted for review by the affected agencies.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that you sign the attached letters
to Congress transmitting the Notice of Emergency Extension and
submit the Notice of Extension of the national emergency beyond
March 30, 1985, to the Federal Register.
Attachment
White House
Dear Mr. President,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq. ) Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable George Bush
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
White House
Dear Mr. Speaker,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.). Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Notice of March , 1985
Continuation of Emergency Declared in
Executive Order No. 12470 Regarding
Export Control Regulations
On March 30, 1984, by Executive Order No. 12470, I declared a
national emergency to deal with an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of
the United States in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979. Because the Export Administration Act
has not been replaced by the Congress, the national emergency
declared on March 30, 1984, must continue in effect beyond March
30, 1985. Therefore, in accordance with Section 202(d) of the
National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1622(d)], I am continuing the
national emergency in order to deal with the threat posed by the
unrestricted access of foreign parties to United States commercial
goods, technology and technical data and by certain boycott
practices of foreign nations.
RONALD REAGAN
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March , 1985.
White House
Dear Mr. President,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.). Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable George Bush
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
White House
Dear Mr. Speaker,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq. ) Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
EXECUTIVE
HAVE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
March 27, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
DAVID A. STOCKMAN
GAS
SUBJECT:
NOTICE CONTINUING EXPORT CONTROLS
SUMMARY: Enclosed for your consideration is a Notice, along with
the required transmittal letters to the Congress, continuing the
national emergency declared on March 30, 1984, in order to
continue in effect the current system of export controls.
BACKGROUND: The Export Administration Act of 1979 (Act)
authorizes regulation of the export of goods and technical data
and of conduct by U.S. persons related to certain boycott
practices of foreign nations. Authority under the Act lapsed on
March 30, 1984, at which time the President issued Executive
Order No. 12470, declaring a National Emergency and, pursuant to
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ordering
the system of export controls continued. This emergency will now
terminate on March 30, 1985, pursuant to Section 202(d) of the
National Emergencies Act, unless the President continues the
emergency in effect. If the President continues the emergency,
he must also publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the
Congress a Notice stating that the emergency is to continue.
Although Congress has been considering a renewal of the Act, it
appears that action will not be completed by March 30, 1985. If
the emergency were to lapse, exports of commercial goods and
technical data could occur without restriction, thereby posing
serious detrimental effects to our national security, foreign
policy, and the domestic economy. Additionally, compliance with
foreign boycott practices would no longer be prohibited by
legislation specifically directed at such conduct.
The attached documents, which were prepared by the Department of
Commerce, would continue the emergency in effect. They should be
signed no later than March 28, 1985, so that the Notice of
Emergency Extension can be published in the Federal Register by
March 29, 1985, prior to the expiration of the current authority.
Due to time constraints, the Notice and letters were not
submitted for review by the affected agencies.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that you sign the attached letters
to Congress transmitting the Notice of Emergency Extension and
submit the Notice of Extension of the national emergency beyond
March 30, 1985, to the Federal Register.
Attachment
White House
Dear Mr. President,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.). Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable George Bush
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
White House
Dear Mr. Speaker,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.). Under Section 202 (d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Notice of March , 1985
Continuation of Emergency Declared in
Executive Order No. 12470 Regarding
Export Control Regulations
On March 30, 1984, by Executive Order No. 12470, I declared a
national emergency to deal with an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of
the United States in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979. Because the Export Administration Act
has not been replaced by the Congress, the national emergency
declared on March 30, 1984, must continue in effect beyond March
30, 1985. Therefore, in accordance with Section 202(d) of the
National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1622(d)], I am continuing the
national emergency in order to deal with the threat posed by the
unrestricted access of foreign parties to United States commercial
goods, technology and technical data and by certain boycott
practices of foreign nations.
RONALD REAGAN
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March , 1985.
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
March 27, 1985
Honorable Edwin Meese, III
United States Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
Enclosed for your consideration is a Notice, along with the
required transmittal letters to the Congress, continuing the
national emergency declared on March 30, 1984, in order to
continue in effect the current system of export controls.
The Export Administration Act of 1979 (Act) authorizes regulation
of the export of goods and technical data and of conduct by U.S.
persons related to certain boycott practices of foreign nations.
Authority under the Act lapsed on March 30, 1984, at which time
the President issued Executive Order No. 12470, declaring a
National Emergency and, pursuant to the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ordering the system of export
controls continued. This emergency will now terminate on
March 30, 1985, pursuant to Section 202(d) of the National
Emergencies Act, unless the President continues the emergency in
effect. If the President continues the emergency, he must also
publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a
Notice stating that the emergency is to continue.
Although Congress has been considering a renewal of the Act, it
appears that action will not be completed by March 30, 1985. If
the emergency were to lapse, exports of commercial goods and
technical data could occur without restriction, thereby posing
serious detrimental effects to our national security, foreign
policy, and the domestic economy. Additionally, compliance with
foreign boycott practices would no longer be prohibited by
legislation specifically directed at such conduct.
The attached documents, which were prepared by the Department of
Commerce, would continue the emergency in effect. They should be
signed no later than March 28, 1985, so that the Notice of
Emergency Extension can be published in the Federal Register by
March 29, 1985, prior to the expiration of the current authority.
Your staff may direct any questions concerning this proposed
Notice to Mr. Charles Kolb of this office (395-5600).
This proposed Notice has the approval of the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Horowitz
Counsel to the Director