Museado / NARA Collection rr-0113 — Collection rr-0113
Recent Folios
Login Register
English español (Spanish) magyar (Hungarian) हिन्दी (Hindi)

Survos folio page chat

Chron File (12/27/1982-12/31/1982)

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

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: Chron File (12/27/1982-12/31/1982) Box: 59 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/ WITHDRAWAL SHEET Ronald Reagan Library Collection Name ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES Withdrawer RBW 8/2/2005 File Folder CHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982) FOIA F05-139/01 Box Number COOK 2RW DOC Doc Type Document Description No of Doc Date Restrictions NO Pages 1 MEMO JOHN ROBERT TO FRED FIELDING RE 2 12/27/1982 B6 418 REMOVAL OF NAVAL OFFICER FROM PROMOTION LIST 2 MEMO FIELDING TO RICHARD DARMAN RE 1 12/27/1982 B6 419 PROMOTION LIST 3 LETTER FIELDING TO ADMIRAL STARING RE 1 12/27/1982 B6 420 PROMOTION LIST Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA] E.O. 13233 C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift. WITHDRAWAL SHEET Ronald Reagan Library Collection Name Withdrawer ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES RB 8/2/2005 W File Folder FOIA CHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982) F05-139/01 COOK Box Number 2RW DOC Document Type No of Doc Date Restric- NO Document Description pages tions 1 MEMO 2 12/27/1982 B6 418 JOHN ROBERT TO FRED FIELDING RE REMOVAL OF NAVAL OFFICER FROM PROMOTION LIST Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA] E.O. 13233 C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift. WITHDRAWAL SHEET Ronald Reagan Library Collection Name Withdrawer ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES RB 8/2/2005 W File Folder FOIA CHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982) F05-139/01 COOK Box Number 2RW DOC Document Type No of Doc Date Restric- NO Document Description pages tions 2 MEMO 1 12/27/1982 B6 419 FIELDING TO RICHARD DARMAN RE PROMOTION LIST Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA] E.O. 13233 C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift. WITHDRAWAL SHEET Ronald Reagan Library Collection Name Withdrawer ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES RB 8/2/2005 W File Folder FOIA CHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982) F05-139/01 COOK Box Number 2RW DOC Document Type No of Doc Date Restric- NO Document Description pages tions 3 LETTER 1 12/27/1982 B6 420 FIELDING TO ADMIRAL STARING RE PROMOTION LIST Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA] E.O. 13233 C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 27, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD A. HAUSER FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS ask SUBJECT: Inquiry from Ron Mann Concerning Appointment of SES Official as Acting Deputy Director, National Science Foundation Ron Mann, Associate Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel, has inquired if there are any legal impediments that would preclude the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) from appointing an official of NSF in the Senior Executive Service to the post of Acting Deputy Director pending nomination and confirmation of a permanent Deputy Director. The post of Deputy Director is a PAS position. I located in our files a January 27, 1982, Memorandum on "Acting Officers" prepared for you by Ted Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (Tab A). That memorandum concluded that the Attorney General could desig- nate the Deputy Commissioner -of INS as Acting Commissioner, in part because of the authority given the Attorney General in 28 U.S.C. § 510 (1976) to authorize the performance of any function of the Attorney General by any officer of the Justice Department. There is an analogous provision concerning NSF and its Director at 42 U.S.C. § 1864 (c) (1976), which provides: The Director may from time to time make such provisions as he deems appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, agency, or employee of the Foundation of any of his functions under this chapter, including functions delegated to him by the Board; except that the Director may not redelegate policymaking functions delegated to him by the Board. I also located a December 5, 1982 letter to Ed Wilson from Joseph Morris, General Counsel, Office of Personnel Manage- ment, on the question of appointing individuals with SES status (Tab B). In pertinent part, Morris concluded: With respect to your first question, whether a person presently in the SES who is named to hold an "acting" PAS position retains his SES status during and after his service in the PAS position, -2- the answer is affirmative. Designation as "acting" does not amount to an appointment with Senate confirmation, nor does it amount to a recess appointment without Senate confirmation as provided for in 5 U.S.C. § 3349. Whereas certain statutory procedures must be followed for PAS appointments and recess appointments to PAS positions, and certain changed-status consequences flow from such appointments Congress has mandated no special changes in underlying status for persons named to hold "acting" PAS positions. I therefore conclude that such persons retain SES status during and after temporary service in PAS positions. On the basis of these two memoranda, and the provision in 42 U.S.C. § 1864 (c) (1976), I am disposed to advise Mann that the Director of NSF may appoint an SES official of NSF Acting Deputy Director, pending the nomination and confirma- tion of a new Deputy Director. Pursuant to the terms of 42 U.S.C. § 1864 (c), the Acting Deputy Director should refrain from exercising policymaking functions delegated to the Director by the NSF Board. I discussed the question with Herman Marcuse at the Office of Legal Counsel, who agreed that the SES official could be appointed Acting Deputy Director, but could not engage in policymaking. Marcuse also pointed out that the Acting Deputy Director could not act as Director in the absence of the Director, as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1864a (1976), because an official may not be in a position of "acting" twice. You will recall that the above-cited OLC memorandum noted that under the Vacancy Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349 (1976), vacancies filled pursuant to that Act may be filled for no more than thirty days. 5 U.S.C. § 3348 (1976). As stated in the memorandum, however, it has been the consistent position of the Department of Justice that vacancies such as the one in question are filled pursuant to the delegation authority -- in this case 42 U.S.C. § 1864 (c) -- and not the Vacancy Act, and therefore the limitations of the Vacancy Act are not applicable. This is contrary to the position of the Comptroller General. Out of an excess of caution, Mann should be advised that the Acting Deputy Director, after serving thirty days, should avoid, if possible, taking action which may legally only be taken by the Deputy Director. See OLC memorandum, at 4. If you agree, I can advise Mann that the Director of NSF may appoint an SES official Acting Deputy Director, provided the Acting Deputy Director (1) avoid exercising policymaking functions, (2) avoid, after serving thirty days, taking action which specifically must be taken by the NSF Deputy Director, and (3) not act as Director in the absence of the Director. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS are SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 1735 - Disposition of Pembina Chippewa Indians Judgement Funds Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business today, December 28, on S. 1735, which authorizes distribu- tion of some $52 million previously awarded and appropriated to the Pembina Chippewa Indians. The award was made in 1980 by the Court of Claims for the 1905 value of a large tract of land in North Dakota. The bill specifies the manner of distribution of the award among the different groups of Pembina descendants. This legislation is necessary under the Indian Judgment Funds Act of 1973 because the Secretary of Interior did not submit a plan for distribution within 180 days of the time Congress appropriated the funds. OMB and Interior recommend approval, and Justice defers to Interior. I have reviewed the memorandum to the President prepared by James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative Reference, the legislative reports, and the bill itself. I see no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to Darman to that effect for your signature. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 1735 - Disposition of Pembina Chippewa Indians Judgment Funds Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective to the above-referenced enrolled bill. FFF:JGR:aw 12/28/82 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS 2SR SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 835 - Private Relief for Jerry Crow and Ralph and Connie Hubbell Richard Darman has asked for comments by close of business today on Enrolled Bill S. 835, a private relief bill. The bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to sell 10 acres of Alaskan land at fair market value to Jerry Crow, an Alaskan campground operator, and lease up to 70 additional acres, with an option to purchase. Crow's application to purchase 80 acres for his campground was denied in 1967 because he failed to meet the conditions of the Trade and Manufacturing Act of 1898, which provides for sales of up to 80 acres to Alaskan residents occupying Federal lands for business purposes. A completely unrelated section of the bill directs the Secretary to convey to the Hubbells of Carbondale, Colorado, all interest of the United States in a 1.25 acre tract of land on which their home is situated, at 1964 fair market value. The Hubbells thought they had purchased the land in 1964 from a private party, but their title was defective, due to an inaccurate private survey. OMB recommends approval, despite the lack of a current fair market value provision in the case of the Hubbells. Interior has no objection. I have reviewed the memorandum to the President from James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative Reference, and the bill itself. I see no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to that effect to Darman for your signature. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 835 - Private Relief for Jerry Crow and Ralph and Connie Hubbell Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective to the above-referenced enrolled bill. FFF: JGR:aw 12/28/82 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. Chron - THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS asor SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 3103 - Collection and Use of Participation Fees for Private Sector Participants in the President's Executive Exchange Program Richard Darman has asked for comments by close of business today on Enrolled Bill S. 3103. This bill would authorize the President's Commission on Executive Exchange (PCEE) to collect fees for the participation of private sector exchange executives, and use those fees for education and travel expenses of those exchange executives. In the past agencies have accepted from the firms of private sector exchange executives fees for participation of their employees, and used those fees for expenses of the exchange executives. The fees were deposited in a Treasury fund, which was recently determined to lack authority to spend the funds for earmarked purposes. S. 3103 authorizes collection and expenditure of participation fees, for one year only. PCEE will seek permanent authority over the course of the next year. I have reviewed the memorandum to the President from James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB, and the bill itself. OMB, OPM and the PCEE all recommend approval of the bill. I see no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to that effect to Darman for your signature. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 3103 - Collection and Use of Participation Fees for Private Sector Participants in the President's Executive Exchange Program Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective to the above-referenced enrolled bill. FFF:JGR:aw 12/28/82 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS JOR SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 6946 - False Identification Crime Control Act Richard Darman has asked for comments by 2:00 p.m. today on Enrolled Bill H.R. 6946, which establishes criminal penalties for various acts involving false identification cards. This bill is the result of recommendations by the Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification. It would provide criminal penalties for knowing production of a false identifier, possession of five or more false identifiers, possession of false identifiers with intent to defraud the United States, production or transfer of falsifying implements, and possession of false United States identifiers. The bill also requires "i.d. companies" to stamp "not a government document" on their products. Fines and prison terms ranging to $25,000 and five years are set for violations. There is an interstate commerce provision satisfying any Constitutional objections on that score. I have reviewed the memorandum to the President from James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB, and the bill itself. OMB and the Department of Justice approve of the bill, and I see no legal objections. I have attached a proposed memorandum to Darman. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 6946 - False Identification Crime Control Act Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective to the above-referenced enrolled bill. FFF: JGR:aw 12/28/82 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. - Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS ose SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 1501 - Educational Mining Act of 1982 Richard Darman has requested comments by noon tomorrow, December 29, on Enrolled Bill S. 1501. This bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of Interior to convey to the University of Alaska all interest of the United States in a 57-acre tract of land known as the Silver Fox Mine. The land had been worked by an individual as an unpatented mining claim, and the individual donated the land to the University's School of Mines. OMB recommends approval. Interior has no objection, but notes that while the bill refers to a 76-acre tract the physical description is of a 57-acre tract. The bill as introduced conveyed a 76-acre tract, but corrections during the legislative process deleted some lands that had already left Federal ownership. I agree with OMB that this technical error will cause no major problems. The physical description of a 57-acre tract will control, and even if it does not all the bill does is convey the interest of the United States in the land. If the United States has no interest in the extra 19 acres, that is what is conveyed. I have reviewed the memorandum to the President prepared by James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative Reference, the legislative report, and the bill itself. I see no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to Darman to that effect for your signature. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 1501 - Educational Mining Act of 1982 Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective to the above-referenced enrolled bill. FFF: JGR:aw 12/28/82 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. - Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 29, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS OSR SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 5447 - Commodity Futures Trading Commission Reauthorization Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business today on Enrolled Bill H.R. 5447, concerning commodity futures trading. The bill authorizes funds for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for fiscal years 1983-1986, enacts into law the CFTC's side of its jurisdic- tional agreement with the SEC, establishes a new self- regulatory body for commodity futures trading (the National Futures Association), permits the CFTC to impose limited service fees, and otherwise expands and clarifies regulation of commodity futures markets and CFTC regulatory authority. Two additional provisions of the bill are problematic: Section 238 would prohibit the President -- in the absence of a declared national emergency or declared war -- from imposing an export embargo on commodities already under contract for delivery at the time of the announced embargo and to be actually delivered within 270 days of the announcement. Section 221 provides that nothing in the Act prohibits States from proceeding in State court against certain persons registered under the Act for a violation of the antifraud provisions of the Act. State, Commerce, and NSC recommended disapproval because of the limits on Presidential power contained in section 238. State has submitted a memorandum of disapproval. OMB, Agriculture, the CFTC and the SEC recommend approval despite section 238. OMB argues that the "contract sanctity" provision of section 238 -- a floor amendment sponsored by Senator Durenberger -- does not impose any serious limits beyond the already announced intention of the President not to impose an embargo on agricultural products except as part of a broad package of trade restrictions. A serious argument can be developed that section 238 is unconstitutional. It is an attempt by Congress to circum- scribe the President's authority over the conduct of foreign -2- affairs. While an effort by an Executive to take action prohibited by section 238 would fall within the third, most suspect category of the classic tripartite division of executive power in Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. V. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637-638 (1952) -- action in contravention of the will of Congress -- cases covered by section 238 would also have the most direct foreign relations link, unlike the situation in the Sawyer case itself. In any event, section 238 purports to circum- scribe the legal authority of the President, and this office has a responsibility to ensure that the President retain as much legal flexibility as possible. I therefore recommend that we concur in the objections of State, Commerce, and NSC to the bill on the ground that it would, perhaps unconstitu- tionally, restrict the legal authority of the President to act in the area of foreign affairs. The memorandum prepared by the State Department adequately makes this point, although it does not raise the constitutionality concerns. I do not think those concerns need be expressed in the memorandum, primarily because there is no precise answer on the consti- tutionality question. (The Supreme Court itself noted last year that "the decisions of the Court in this area have been rare, episodic, and afford little precedential value for subsequent cases." Dames & Moore V. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 661 (1981) ) I have another unrelated objection to the bill. Section 221 provides that nothing in the Act shall prohibit a state from proceeding in State court against certain persons registered under the Act for violations of the federal antifraud provisions. The very clear negative implication in this section essentially makes the States federal prosecutors under the Act. While the CFTC is given rights of notice and intervention, the fact remains that a State could prosecute violations of federal law under this provision, even if federal prosecutors, in the exercise of their discretion, determined that such prosecution was unwarranted. Federal prosecutions could be commenced under authority of prosecutors appointed not by the President with the advise and consent of the Senate, but appointed by some state governor, or elected by citizens of some state. Current law does provide that States may bring parens patriae actions on behalf of aggrieved residents, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-2 (1978). Such a parens patriae action, however, "on behalf of" injured citizens, is simply a class action type device, and really no more objectionable than the existence of implied private rights of action under the Act. Section 221 is quite different, since States are, by negative implication, authorized to institute proceedings not on behalf of aggrieved residents but as States. -3- The evolution of section 221 leads me to conclude that little attention has been paid to its bizarre provisions. The Senate added an amendment to the House bill providing that nothing in the Act prohibited States from instituting proceedings in State court for violations of State commodities antifraud statutes -- a classic non-preemption provision. The Conference changed this to cover violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal Act, apparently to avoid subjecting traders to separate State regulations. See Conference Report, at 42-43. I recommend noting an objection to section 221 in the memorandum to Darman. I have prepared a suggested memorandum to Darman for your signature. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 5447 - Commodity Futures Trading Commission Reauthorization Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Enrolled Bill. I agree with the view of the Departments of State and Commerce and the National Security Council that section 238 of the bill is objectionable because it would limit the options available to the President to respond to international crises. As an intrusion on the powers of the Executive over the conduct of foreign affairs section 238 is constitutionally suspect, although more than that cannot be said because of the absence of clear rules governing such cases. Section 238 does purport to limit the legal authority of the President -- authority the Executive has exercised in the past, and could well desire to exercise in the future -- and is thus of serious concern to this office. I have no legal objection to the memorandum of disapproval discussing these concerns prepared by the Department of State. Section 221 of the bill is also a source of concern to this office. That section, by clear negative implication, contemplates that State officials may institute proceedings in State court for violations of Federal law. This unusual arrangement would remove control over the institution of Federal prosecutions from Federal prosecutors, a highly undesirable development. It is true that under current law States may institute so-called parens patriae actions on behalf of residents aggrieved by violations of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-2, but this is a far cry from simply permitting States to institute proceedings for violations of provisions of the Act. I do not believe that we should sanction the transfer of Federal prosecutorial authority to State officials, even assuming this can be done. Section 221, though far from clear and apparently lacking definitive legislative history, raises this danger. FFF:JGR:aw 12/28/82 CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj./Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 29, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS are SUBJECT: H.R. 7356 - Department of the Interior Appropriation Bill Richard Darman's office delivered the above-referenced enrolled bill to this office at 2:40 p.m. today, requesting comments by 3:30 p.m. The bill is the appropriations measure for Interior, Energy, Agriculture, and several other agencies. The bulk of the bill, of course, concerns funding levels for various activities and does not raise any issues of concern to this office. Legal issues are raised by the Administrative Provisions of the Indian Affairs section, at pages 11-12 of the bill. These provisions substitute a claims processing procedure for the existing statute of limitations on pre-1966 Indian claims in 28 U.S.C. 2415. That provision bars pre-1966 Indian claims not filed before December 31, 1982. The Secretary of Interior has been sued on the ground that several claims which he had a fiduciary obligation to prosecute were due to expire. The suit was successful to the extent that the Secretary will be held in contempt if action of some sort is not taken to preserve asserted claims by Friday. The bill takes such action by removing the imminent statute of limitations bar. This is also the reason the bill is on such a "fast track.' Hank Habicht, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Lands Division, has advised me that the Justice Department approves of the procedure established in the bill. Based on a necessarily quick review, I see no objections. The bill also contains restrictions on the Secretary's leasing authority with respect to the Outer Continental Shelf off California and wilderness lands generally. This is a compromise provision negotiated with the Hill by Interior. Finally, section 311 of the bill exempts employment funded by the Act from any personnel ceilings. As noted in OMB's legislative reference letter, this is a highly objectionable restriction on Executive power. It was, however, included in the continuing resolution, so it is not feasible to object at this stage. -2- I have reviewed the bill, in a somewhat rushed fashion, and see no legal objections. Because of the quick turnaround time, I talked with the Solicitor's Office at Interior (William Satterfield), the Legislative Office (Dave Brown), and the Budget Office (Joseph Gorell). I also talked with the Lands Division at the Justice Department (Hank Habicht). All of these individuals advised that the bill contained no unusual legal provisions other than those discussed above. All affected agencies recommended approval. Based on this review, I recommend that you sign the attached memorandum to Darman. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 29, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: H.R. 7356 - Department of the Interior Appropriation Bill Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective to the above-referenced enrolled bill. FFF:JGR:aw 12/29/82 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 29, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 1364 - Relief of Jose Ramon Beltron Aiveda Ostler Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business today, December 29, on Enrolled Bill S. 1364, a private relief bill sponsored by Senator Hatch. S. 1364 would deem Jose Ostler to be a child within the meaning of § 101 (b) (1) (E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in effect granting him permanent residence status. He was adopted at age 15 in 1978 by the Osters, but the Act sets a maximum adoption age of 14 for purposes of being classified as an immediate relative for immigration purposes. The bill also specifies that no natural relatives of Jose can derive "piggyback" benefits from his special legislation. OMB recommends approval; INS and State interpose no objection. I have reviewed the memorandum to the President from James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative Reference, and the bill itself. I see no legal objection, and have prepared a memorandum to Darman to that effect for your signature. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 29, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 1364 - Relief of Jose Ramon Beltron Aiveda Ostler Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective to the above-referenced enrolled bill. FFF:JGR:aw 12/29/82 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts - Subj. Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 29, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 1986 - Disposition of Indian Judgment Funds Richard Darman has requested comments by 3:00 p.m. tomorrow, December 30, on Enrolled Bill S. 1986, which authorizes the distribution of funds previously awarded and appropriated to the Blackfeet, Gros Ventre, Assiniboine and Papago Indians. The bill specifies the manner of distribution of some $37 million awarded the first three tribes by the Court of Claims and awarded the Papagos by the Indian Claims Commis- sion. This legislation is necessary under the Indian Judgment Funds Act of 1973 because the Secretary of Interior did not submit a plan for distribution of the funds within the statutorily prescribed period after Congress appropriated the funds. OMB and Interior recommend approval, and Justice defers to Interior. I have reviewed the memorandum to the President prepared by James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative Reference, the legislative reports, and the bill itself. I see no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to Darman to that effect for your signature. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 29, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 1986 - Disposition of Indian Judgment Funds Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective to the above-referenced enrolled bill. FFF: JGR:aw 12/29/82 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 30, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RON MANN ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS ass ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Appointment of SES Official as Acting Deputy Director by Director, National Science Foundation This will confirm our conversation of this morning. The Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) may designate an SES official of NSF Acting Deputy Director, pending nomination and confirmation of a permanent Deputy Director. The Acting Deputy Director (1) may not exercise policymaking functions, (2) should avoid, after serving thirty days, taking any legal action which specifically must be taken by the Deputy Director, and (3) may not serve as Acting Director in the absence of the Director. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. MEMORANDUM THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 30, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS or SUBJECT: Request to Include Bronze Portrait of the President in Proposed Los Angeles Airport Monument Michael Deaver has referred to you for action a packet of materials submitted by Brett-Livingstone Strong of Pacific Palisades, California. Strong, apparently something of a self-starter in the world of sculpture, has proposed the erection of a sixty-five foot monument at the Los Angeles International Airport, to commemorate the upcoming Olympics. Strong has constructed a seven-foot model, and reports that the project "is currently being approved," although he also notes that "a letter from President Reagan would aid the progress of the remaining approvals." He specifically requests approval of his proposal to include a bronze portrait of the President on the dedication plaque at the base of the proposed monument. It is unclear from Strong's materials whether his enterprise is a commercial enterprise, or if he is planning to donate his skills. I recommend that the letter to Strong note that the President as a matter of policy does not approve such requests, both to avoid endorsing commercial enterprises and to avoid showing favoritism. The latter point should be made in light of Strong's effort to secure Presidential support for what is apparently only a proposal on his part. Strong's materials are rife with violations of the law governing use of the Great Seal and the Presidential Seal. 18 U.S.C. § 713; E.O. 11649. The Great Seal is printed on the background of his stationery, and on the cover and interior flap of his pamphlet. The Presidential Seal is glued to a sash surrounding the pamphlet. The letter to Strong should alert him to the law in this area, and advise him to discontinue use of the seals. I have attached a proposed memorandum to Deaver and letter to Strong for your signature. Attachments THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 30, 1982 Dear Mr. Strong: Your request that the President approve the use of his likeness at the base of your proposed monument at the Los Angeles International Airport has been referred to this office. While we admire the enthusiasm, dedication, and patriotism which you obviously bring to the ambitious project to design and erect the monument, we cannot approve or endorse the use of the President's likeness. As you might imagine, the President receives countless requests for the use of his name or likeness during the course of a year. Frankly, many of the requests originate with individuals or organizations with which he would be pleased to be identified. In response to the large number, however, the White House has been obliged to adhere to a general policy of denying requests of this kind to use the signature, name, photograph or likeness of President Reagan when to do so would either suggest favoritism by the Presi- dent toward particular individuals or organizations, or associate him with a commercial product or enterprise in a way that does or might suggest his endorsement of that product or enterprise. In addition, I am certain you will understand that in this case modesty precludes the President from endorsing your gracious proposal to include his likeness on the monument. The materials you forwarded to the White House in connection with your proposal raise another concern. Your folder and stationery contain reproductions of the Great Seal of the United States and the Seal of the President of the United States. In light of your evident good faith, I assume you are unaware that the permitted uses of these seals are restricted by law. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 713, is the principal federal law governing use of the Great Seal of the United States and the Seal of the President of the United States. Section 713 (a) proscribes use of these seals in a manner reasonably calculated to convey a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the United States Government, and section 713 (b) proscribes use of the Presidential seal, except in a manner consistent with regulations promulgated by the President. The regulations to which reference is -2- made are embodied in Executive Orders 11649 and 11916. I enclose for your information copies of 18 U.S.C., Section 713, the notes to which include the Executive Orders mentioned. You will note that use of the seals on personal stationery and the like is not among the uses sanctioned by the Executive Order. Accordingly, I must advise you to cease such use of the seals. I am sorry that I cannot be more accommodating. Thank you for your cooperation, and best of luck with your ambitious undertaking. Sincerely, Fred F. Fielding Counsel to the President Mr. Brett-Livingstone Strong 1157 Las Pulgas Place Pacific Palisades, California 90272 Enclosure FFF: JGR:aw 1/3/83 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 30, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL K. DEAVER ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Request of Brett-Livingstone Strong to Include Bronze Portrait of the President in Proposed Los Angeles Airport Monument On December 13 you transmitted for my review and action a packet of materials from Brett-Livingstone Strong. Mr. Strong seeks endorsement of his plan to include a bronze portrait of the President at the base of his proposed sixty-five foot monument to the Los Angeles Olympics, to be erected (if approved by local authorities) at the Los Angeles Airport. While the President could endorse this project, the White House adheres to a policy of not approv- ing use of the President's likeness when doing so might suggest endorsement of a commercial enterprise or favoritism to any particular individual or group. It is unclear if Mr. Strong's project is a commercial one, but, in any event, the President should not endorse a proposal of this sort which has not been finally approved by the relevant authorities in Los Angeles. Mr. Strong explicitly notes Presidential endorsement would help him gain the remaining approvals, indicating that he seeks precisely the sort of Presidential sponsorship for his project which we strive to avoid. I have written to Mr. Strong advising him that we cannot endorse his proposal. I have also alerted him to the law governing use of the Great Seal and Presidential Seal, because the presence of both seals on his materials is contrary to that law. FFF:JGR:aw 12/30/82 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 30, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS ISR SUBJECT: FOI/PA Request from Jane Glazer on Behalf of Helen Gordon James K. Hall, Chief of the FBI FOI/PA Section, has referred two FBI documents, which contain information furnished by the White House, to you for review prior to response to the FOI/PA request of Jane Glazer on behalf of the invalid Helen Gordon. The first document, a March 10, 1967 letter from the Bureau to Marvin Watson, responded to a name check requested by Mildred Stegall on 108 individuals. The second, a November 10, 1969, letter from the Bureau to John Ehrlichman, responded to a name check requested on 227 individuals. Each document notes that a separate memorandum is attached on Mrs. Gordon, as well as several other cited individuals. This separate memorandum has not been submitted to us in response to the FOI/PA request. I believe that the names of all the individuals (other than Mrs. Gordon) who were subject to the name checks may be excised from the copies to be released pursuant to Exemption 6. This exemption provides that the disclosure requirements of the FOIA do not apply to "personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (6). In its recent decision in United States Department of State V. The Washington Post Co., 102 S. Ct. 1957 (1982), the Court interpreted this provision quite broadly as applicable to any records identifiable as apply- ing to a particular individual. I recommend noting the desirability of deletion of the names in your memorandum to the Bureau. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 30, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. HALL CHIEF, FOI/PA SECTION FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: FOI/PA Request from Jane Glazer on Behalf of Helen Gordon: FBI #221,872 This is in response to your memorandum of December 13, 1982 in which you referred to me for review two FBI documents responsive to the above-referenced FOI/PA request. The documents contain information furnished by the White House. Upon review of this information, we believe that the exemption of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (6) should result in the deletion of the names of all the individuals other than Mrs. Gordon listed in the documents. The Supreme Court has ruled that Exemption 6 is to be interpreted broadly, United States Department of State V. The Washington Post Co., 102 S. Ct. 1957 (1982), and disclosure of the names would be an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals. We have no legal objection to the release of these two documents, provided the names of individuals other than Mrs. Gordon listed in the documents are deleted. FFF:JGR:aw 12/30/82 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. Chron DRAFT THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON January 5, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. HALL CHIEF, FOI/PA SECTION FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: FOI/PA Request from Jane Glazer on Behalf of Helen Gordon: FBI #221,872 This is in response to your memorandum of December 13, 1982 in which you referred to me for review two FBI documents responsive to the above-referenced FOI/PA request. The documents contain information furnished by the White House. Upon review of this information, we believe that the exemption of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (6) should result in the deletion of the names of all the individuals other than Mrs. Gordon listed in the documents. The Supreme Court has ruled that Exemption 6 is to be interpreted broadly, United States Department of State V. The Washington Post Co., 102 S. Ct. 1957 (1982), and disclosure of the names would be an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals. We have no legal objection to the release of these two documents. FFF: JGR:aw 1/5/83 CC: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 30, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS JOR SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 6254 - Protection of Certain Foreign Diplomatic Missions Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business Monday, January 3, on Enrolled Bill H.R. 6254, which would increase appropriations to reimburse New York City for protective services it provides for foreign diplomats, and permit reimbursement for the cost of motorcades for foreign diplomats. The Administration opposed H.R. 6254, on the grounds that motorcades are ceremonial and not protective, and that New York City is already being adequately reimbursed. OMB and Treasury recommend approval, noting that the Continu- ing Resolution already authorizes increased funds for reimbursement to New York City, and covers motorcades. Reimbursement is much less costly than replacing local security with Federal officers, which Mayor Koch has threat- ened will be necessary if the bill fails. State recommends disapproval, essentially for the reasons the Administration initially opposed the bill. Signing and disapproval state- ments have been prepared by Treasury and State, respectively. I have reviewed the memorandum to the President from David Stockman, the bill itself, and the draft statements. I see no legal objections to the bill, nor do I think the policy dispute between Treasury and State holds any particular significance for this office. I therefore recommend a simple "no legal objection" memorandum to Darman. I also have no legal objection to either the signing or disapproval statement. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 30, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 6254 - Protection of Certain Foreign Diplomatic Missions Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective to the above-referenced enrolled bill. We also have no legal objection to either the proposed signing statement or the memorandum of disapproval. FFF:HPG:aw 12/30/82 cc: FFFielding HPGoldfield Subj. Chron THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 30, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: JOHN G. ROBERTS are SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S.J. Res. 264 - National Children and Television Week Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business Tuesday, January 4, on Enrolled Bill S.J. Res. 264, which would designate the week of March 13-19, 1983, as "National Children and Television Week." The resolution authorizes and requests the President to issue an appropriate proclama- tion calling for appropriate observances of the week. OMB recommends approval. I have reviewed the memorandum for the President from James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative Reference, and the resolution itself. I see no legal objections, and recommend that you sign the attached memorandum to Darman. Attachment THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON December 30, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: FRED F. FIELDING COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S.J. Res. 264 - National Children and Television Week Counsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective to the above-referenced enrolled bill. FFF:JGR:aw 12/30/82 cc: FFFielding JGRoberts Subj. Chron

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
41ef830a100defcd
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
135839744
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "135839744",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839744",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Chron File (12/27/1982-12/31/1982)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839744",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Chronological Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-059-004-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-059-004-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-059-004-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "135839744",
    "label": "Chron File (12/27/1982-12/31/1982)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839744"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "135839744",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839744",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Chron File (12/27/1982-12/31/1982)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839744",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Chronological Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-059-004-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-059-004-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-059-004-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839744",
    "naId": 135839744,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40-485-6909456-059-004-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "41ef830a100defcd",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: Chron File (12/27/1982-12/31/1982)\nBox: 59\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES\nWithdrawer\nRBW\n8/2/2005\nFile Folder\nCHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982)\nFOIA\nF05-139/01\nBox Number\nCOOK\n2RW\nDOC Doc Type\nDocument Description\nNo of Doc Date Restrictions\nNO\nPages\n1\nMEMO\nJOHN ROBERT TO FRED FIELDING RE\n2 12/27/1982\nB6\n418\nREMOVAL OF NAVAL OFFICER FROM\nPROMOTION LIST\n2\nMEMO\nFIELDING TO RICHARD DARMAN RE\n1 12/27/1982\nB6\n419\nPROMOTION LIST\n3\nLETTER\nFIELDING TO ADMIRAL STARING RE\n1 12/27/1982\nB6\n420\nPROMOTION LIST\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nE.O. 13233\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name\nWithdrawer\nROBERTS, JOHN: FILES\nRB 8/2/2005\nW\nFile Folder\nFOIA\nCHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982)\nF05-139/01\nCOOK\nBox Number\n2RW\nDOC Document Type\nNo of Doc Date Restric-\nNO Document Description\npages\ntions\n1\nMEMO\n2 12/27/1982 B6\n418\nJOHN ROBERT TO FRED FIELDING RE REMOVAL\nOF NAVAL OFFICER FROM PROMOTION LIST\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nE.O. 13233\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name\nWithdrawer\nROBERTS, JOHN: FILES\nRB 8/2/2005\nW\nFile Folder\nFOIA\nCHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982)\nF05-139/01\nCOOK\nBox Number\n2RW\nDOC Document Type\nNo of Doc Date Restric-\nNO Document Description\npages\ntions\n2\nMEMO\n1 12/27/1982 B6\n419\nFIELDING TO RICHARD DARMAN RE\nPROMOTION LIST\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nE.O. 13233\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name\nWithdrawer\nROBERTS, JOHN: FILES\nRB 8/2/2005\nW\nFile Folder\nFOIA\nCHRON FILE (12/12/1982 - 12/31/1982)\nF05-139/01\nCOOK\nBox Number\n2RW\nDOC Document Type\nNo of Doc Date Restric-\nNO Document Description\npages\ntions\n3\nLETTER\n1 12/27/1982 B6\n420\nFIELDING TO ADMIRAL STARING RE\nPROMOTION LIST\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nE.O. 13233\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 27, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD A. HAUSER\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nask\nSUBJECT:\nInquiry from Ron Mann Concerning Appointment\nof SES Official as Acting Deputy Director,\nNational Science Foundation\nRon Mann, Associate Director of the Office of Presidential\nPersonnel, has inquired if there are any legal impediments\nthat would preclude the Director of the National Science\nFoundation (NSF) from appointing an official of NSF in the\nSenior Executive Service to the post of Acting Deputy\nDirector pending nomination and confirmation of a permanent\nDeputy Director. The post of Deputy Director is a PAS\nposition.\nI located in our files a January 27, 1982, Memorandum on\n\"Acting Officers\" prepared for you by Ted Olson, Assistant\nAttorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (Tab A). That\nmemorandum concluded that the Attorney General could desig-\nnate the Deputy Commissioner -of INS as Acting Commissioner,\nin part because of the authority given the Attorney General\nin 28 U.S.C. § 510 (1976) to authorize the performance of\nany function of the Attorney General by any officer of the\nJustice Department. There is an analogous provision\nconcerning NSF and its Director at 42 U.S.C. § 1864 (c)\n(1976), which provides:\nThe Director may from time to time make such\nprovisions as he deems appropriate authorizing\nthe performance by any other officer, agency, or\nemployee of the Foundation of any of his functions\nunder this chapter, including functions delegated\nto him by the Board; except that the Director may\nnot redelegate policymaking functions delegated to\nhim by the Board.\nI also located a December 5, 1982 letter to Ed Wilson from\nJoseph Morris, General Counsel, Office of Personnel Manage-\nment, on the question of appointing individuals with SES\nstatus (Tab B). In pertinent part, Morris concluded:\nWith respect to your first question, whether a\nperson presently in the SES who is named to hold\nan \"acting\" PAS position retains his SES status\nduring and after his service in the PAS position,\n-2-\nthe answer is affirmative. Designation as\n\"acting\" does not amount to an appointment with\nSenate confirmation, nor does it amount to a\nrecess appointment without Senate confirmation as\nprovided for in 5 U.S.C. § 3349. Whereas certain\nstatutory procedures must be followed for PAS\nappointments and recess appointments to PAS\npositions, and certain changed-status consequences\nflow from such appointments Congress has\nmandated no special changes in underlying status\nfor persons named to hold \"acting\" PAS positions.\nI therefore conclude that such persons retain SES\nstatus during and after temporary service in PAS\npositions.\nOn the basis of these two memoranda, and the provision in 42\nU.S.C. § 1864 (c) (1976), I am disposed to advise Mann that\nthe Director of NSF may appoint an SES official of NSF\nActing Deputy Director, pending the nomination and confirma-\ntion of a new Deputy Director. Pursuant to the terms of 42\nU.S.C. § 1864 (c), the Acting Deputy Director should refrain\nfrom exercising policymaking functions delegated to the\nDirector by the NSF Board. I discussed the question with\nHerman Marcuse at the Office of Legal Counsel, who agreed\nthat the SES official could be appointed Acting Deputy\nDirector, but could not engage in policymaking. Marcuse\nalso pointed out that the Acting Deputy Director could not\nact as Director in the absence of the Director, as provided\nin 42 U.S.C. § 1864a (1976), because an official may not be\nin a position of \"acting\" twice.\nYou will recall that the above-cited OLC memorandum noted\nthat under the Vacancy Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349 (1976),\nvacancies filled pursuant to that Act may be filled for no\nmore than thirty days. 5 U.S.C. § 3348 (1976). As stated\nin the memorandum, however, it has been the consistent\nposition of the Department of Justice that vacancies such as\nthe one in question are filled pursuant to the delegation\nauthority -- in this case 42 U.S.C. § 1864 (c) -- and not the\nVacancy Act, and therefore the limitations of the Vacancy\nAct are not applicable. This is contrary to the position of\nthe Comptroller General. Out of an excess of caution, Mann\nshould be advised that the Acting Deputy Director, after\nserving thirty days, should avoid, if possible, taking\naction which may legally only be taken by the Deputy\nDirector. See OLC memorandum, at 4.\nIf you agree, I can advise Mann that the Director of NSF may\nappoint an SES official Acting Deputy Director, provided\nthe Acting Deputy Director (1) avoid exercising policymaking\nfunctions, (2) avoid, after serving thirty days, taking\naction which specifically must be taken by the NSF Deputy\nDirector, and (3) not act as Director in the absence of the\nDirector.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nare\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 1735 - Disposition of\nPembina Chippewa Indians Judgement Funds\nRichard Darman has requested comments by close of business\ntoday, December 28, on S. 1735, which authorizes distribu-\ntion of some $52 million previously awarded and appropriated\nto the Pembina Chippewa Indians. The award was made in 1980\nby the Court of Claims for the 1905 value of a large tract\nof land in North Dakota. The bill specifies the manner of\ndistribution of the award among the different groups of\nPembina descendants. This legislation is necessary under\nthe Indian Judgment Funds Act of 1973 because the Secretary\nof Interior did not submit a plan for distribution within\n180 days of the time Congress appropriated the funds. OMB\nand Interior recommend approval, and Justice defers to\nInterior.\nI have reviewed the memorandum to the President prepared by\nJames Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative\nReference, the legislative reports, and the bill itself. I\nsee no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to\nDarman to that effect for your signature.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 1735 - Disposition of\nPembina Chippewa Indians Judgment Funds\nCounsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective\nto the above-referenced enrolled bill.\nFFF:JGR:aw 12/28/82\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS 2SR\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 835 - Private Relief for\nJerry Crow and Ralph and Connie Hubbell\nRichard Darman has asked for comments by close of business\ntoday on Enrolled Bill S. 835, a private relief bill. The\nbill would require the Secretary of the Interior to sell 10\nacres of Alaskan land at fair market value to Jerry Crow, an\nAlaskan campground operator, and lease up to 70 additional\nacres, with an option to purchase. Crow's application to\npurchase 80 acres for his campground was denied in 1967\nbecause he failed to meet the conditions of the Trade and\nManufacturing Act of 1898, which provides for sales of up to\n80 acres to Alaskan residents occupying Federal lands for\nbusiness purposes. A completely unrelated section of the\nbill directs the Secretary to convey to the Hubbells of\nCarbondale, Colorado, all interest of the United States in a\n1.25 acre tract of land on which their home is situated, at\n1964 fair market value. The Hubbells thought they had\npurchased the land in 1964 from a private party, but their\ntitle was defective, due to an inaccurate private survey.\nOMB recommends approval, despite the lack of a current fair\nmarket value provision in the case of the Hubbells. Interior\nhas no objection. I have reviewed the memorandum to the\nPresident from James Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for\nLegislative Reference, and the bill itself. I see no legal\nobjections, and have prepared a memorandum to that effect to\nDarman for your signature.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 835 - Private Relief for\nJerry Crow and Ralph and Connie Hubbell\nCounsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective\nto the above-referenced enrolled bill.\nFFF: JGR:aw 12/28/82\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\n-\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nasor\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 3103 - Collection and\nUse of Participation Fees for Private\nSector Participants in the President's\nExecutive Exchange Program\nRichard Darman has asked for comments by close of business\ntoday on Enrolled Bill S. 3103. This bill would authorize\nthe President's Commission on Executive Exchange (PCEE) to\ncollect fees for the participation of private sector\nexchange executives, and use those fees for education and\ntravel expenses of those exchange executives. In the past\nagencies have accepted from the firms of private sector\nexchange executives fees for participation of their\nemployees, and used those fees for expenses of the exchange\nexecutives. The fees were deposited in a Treasury fund,\nwhich was recently determined to lack authority to spend the\nfunds for earmarked purposes. S. 3103 authorizes collection\nand expenditure of participation fees, for one year only.\nPCEE will seek permanent authority over the course of the\nnext year.\nI have reviewed the memorandum to the President from James\nFrey, Assistant Director of OMB, and the bill itself. OMB,\nOPM and the PCEE all recommend approval of the bill. I see\nno legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to that\neffect to Darman for your signature.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 3103 - Collection and\nUse of Participation Fees for Private\nSector Participants in the President's\nExecutive Exchange Program\nCounsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective\nto the above-referenced enrolled bill.\nFFF:JGR:aw 12/28/82\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nJOR\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill H.R. 6946 - False\nIdentification Crime Control Act\nRichard Darman has asked for comments by 2:00 p.m. today on\nEnrolled Bill H.R. 6946, which establishes criminal\npenalties for various acts involving false identification\ncards. This bill is the result of recommendations by the\nFederal Advisory Committee on False Identification. It\nwould provide criminal penalties for knowing production of a\nfalse identifier, possession of five or more false\nidentifiers, possession of false identifiers with intent to\ndefraud the United States, production or transfer of\nfalsifying implements, and possession of false United States\nidentifiers. The bill also requires \"i.d. companies\" to\nstamp \"not a government document\" on their products. Fines\nand prison terms ranging to $25,000 and five years are set\nfor violations. There is an interstate commerce provision\nsatisfying any Constitutional objections on that score.\nI have reviewed the memorandum to the President from James\nFrey, Assistant Director of OMB, and the bill itself. OMB\nand the Department of Justice approve of the bill, and I see\nno legal objections.\nI have attached a proposed memorandum to Darman.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill H.R. 6946 - False\nIdentification Crime Control Act\nCounsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective\nto the above-referenced enrolled bill.\nFFF: JGR:aw 12/28/82\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\n-\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nose\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 1501 - Educational\nMining Act of 1982\nRichard Darman has requested comments by noon tomorrow,\nDecember 29, on Enrolled Bill S. 1501. This bill authorizes\nand directs the Secretary of Interior to convey to the\nUniversity of Alaska all interest of the United States in a\n57-acre tract of land known as the Silver Fox Mine. The\nland had been worked by an individual as an unpatented\nmining claim, and the individual donated the land to the\nUniversity's School of Mines. OMB recommends approval.\nInterior has no objection, but notes that while the bill\nrefers to a 76-acre tract the physical description is of a\n57-acre tract. The bill as introduced conveyed a 76-acre\ntract, but corrections during the legislative process\ndeleted some lands that had already left Federal ownership.\nI agree with OMB that this technical error will cause no\nmajor problems. The physical description of a 57-acre tract\nwill control, and even if it does not all the bill does is\nconvey the interest of the United States in the land. If\nthe United States has no interest in the extra 19 acres,\nthat is what is conveyed.\nI have reviewed the memorandum to the President prepared by\nJames Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative\nReference, the legislative report, and the bill itself. I\nsee no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to\nDarman to that effect for your signature.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 1501 - Educational\nMining Act of 1982\nCounsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective\nto the above-referenced enrolled bill.\nFFF: JGR:aw 12/28/82\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\n-\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 29, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nOSR\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill H.R. 5447 - Commodity\nFutures Trading Commission Reauthorization\nRichard Darman has requested comments by close of business\ntoday on Enrolled Bill H.R. 5447, concerning commodity\nfutures trading. The bill authorizes funds for the\nCommodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for fiscal years\n1983-1986, enacts into law the CFTC's side of its jurisdic-\ntional agreement with the SEC, establishes a new self-\nregulatory body for commodity futures trading (the National\nFutures Association), permits the CFTC to impose limited\nservice fees, and otherwise expands and clarifies regulation\nof commodity futures markets and CFTC regulatory authority.\nTwo additional provisions of the bill are problematic:\nSection 238 would prohibit the President -- in the absence\nof a declared national emergency or declared war -- from\nimposing an export embargo on commodities already under\ncontract for delivery at the time of the announced embargo\nand to be actually delivered within 270 days of the\nannouncement. Section 221 provides that nothing in the Act\nprohibits States from proceeding in State court against\ncertain persons registered under the Act for a violation of\nthe antifraud provisions of the Act.\nState, Commerce, and NSC recommended disapproval because of\nthe limits on Presidential power contained in section 238.\nState has submitted a memorandum of disapproval. OMB,\nAgriculture, the CFTC and the SEC recommend approval despite\nsection 238. OMB argues that the \"contract sanctity\"\nprovision of section 238 -- a floor amendment sponsored by\nSenator Durenberger -- does not impose any serious limits\nbeyond the already announced intention of the President not\nto impose an embargo on agricultural products except as part\nof a broad package of trade restrictions.\nA serious argument can be developed that section 238 is\nunconstitutional. It is an attempt by Congress to circum-\nscribe the President's authority over the conduct of foreign\n-2-\naffairs. While an effort by an Executive to take action\nprohibited by section 238 would fall within the third, most\nsuspect category of the classic tripartite division of\nexecutive power in Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in\nYoungstown Sheet & Tube Co. V. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637-638\n(1952) -- action in contravention of the will of Congress --\ncases covered by section 238 would also have the most direct\nforeign relations link, unlike the situation in the Sawyer\ncase itself. In any event, section 238 purports to circum-\nscribe the legal authority of the President, and this office\nhas a responsibility to ensure that the President retain as\nmuch legal flexibility as possible. I therefore recommend\nthat we concur in the objections of State, Commerce, and NSC\nto the bill on the ground that it would, perhaps unconstitu-\ntionally, restrict the legal authority of the President to\nact in the area of foreign affairs. The memorandum prepared\nby the State Department adequately makes this point, although\nit does not raise the constitutionality concerns. I do not\nthink those concerns need be expressed in the memorandum,\nprimarily because there is no precise answer on the consti-\ntutionality question. (The Supreme Court itself noted last\nyear that \"the decisions of the Court in this area have been\nrare, episodic, and afford little precedential value for\nsubsequent cases.\" Dames & Moore V. Regan, 453 U.S. 654,\n661 (1981) )\nI have another unrelated objection to the bill. Section 221\nprovides that nothing in the Act shall prohibit a state from\nproceeding in State court against certain persons registered\nunder the Act for violations of the federal antifraud\nprovisions. The very clear negative implication in this\nsection essentially makes the States federal prosecutors\nunder the Act. While the CFTC is given rights of notice and\nintervention, the fact remains that a State could prosecute\nviolations of federal law under this provision, even if\nfederal prosecutors, in the exercise of their discretion,\ndetermined that such prosecution was unwarranted. Federal\nprosecutions could be commenced under authority of\nprosecutors appointed not by the President with the advise\nand consent of the Senate, but appointed by some state\ngovernor, or elected by citizens of some state.\nCurrent law does provide that States may bring parens\npatriae actions on behalf of aggrieved residents, 7 U.S.C.\n§ 13a-2 (1978). Such a parens patriae action, however, \"on\nbehalf of\" injured citizens, is simply a class action type\ndevice, and really no more objectionable than the existence\nof implied private rights of action under the Act. Section\n221 is quite different, since States are, by negative\nimplication, authorized to institute proceedings not on\nbehalf of aggrieved residents but as States.\n-3-\nThe evolution of section 221 leads me to conclude that\nlittle attention has been paid to its bizarre provisions.\nThe Senate added an amendment to the House bill providing\nthat nothing in the Act prohibited States from instituting\nproceedings in State court for violations of State\ncommodities antifraud statutes -- a classic non-preemption\nprovision. The Conference changed this to cover violations\nof the antifraud provisions of the federal Act, apparently\nto avoid subjecting traders to separate State regulations.\nSee Conference Report, at 42-43.\nI recommend noting an objection to section 221 in the\nmemorandum to Darman. I have prepared a suggested memorandum\nto Darman for your signature.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 28, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill H.R. 5447 - Commodity\nFutures Trading Commission Reauthorization\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Enrolled\nBill. I agree with the view of the Departments of State and\nCommerce and the National Security Council that section 238\nof the bill is objectionable because it would limit the\noptions available to the President to respond to\ninternational crises. As an intrusion on the powers of the\nExecutive over the conduct of foreign affairs section 238 is\nconstitutionally suspect, although more than that cannot be\nsaid because of the absence of clear rules governing such\ncases. Section 238 does purport to limit the legal\nauthority of the President -- authority the Executive has\nexercised in the past, and could well desire to exercise in\nthe future -- and is thus of serious concern to this office.\nI have no legal objection to the memorandum of disapproval\ndiscussing these concerns prepared by the Department of\nState.\nSection 221 of the bill is also a source of concern to this\noffice. That section, by clear negative implication,\ncontemplates that State officials may institute proceedings\nin State court for violations of Federal law. This unusual\narrangement would remove control over the institution of\nFederal prosecutions from Federal prosecutors, a highly\nundesirable development. It is true that under current law\nStates may institute so-called parens patriae actions on\nbehalf of residents aggrieved by violations of the Act, 7\nU.S.C. § 13a-2, but this is a far cry from simply permitting\nStates to institute proceedings for violations of provisions\nof the Act. I do not believe that we should sanction the\ntransfer of Federal prosecutorial authority to State\nofficials, even assuming this can be done. Section 221,\nthough far from clear and apparently lacking definitive\nlegislative history, raises this danger.\nFFF:JGR:aw 12/28/82\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj./Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 29, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nare\nSUBJECT:\nH.R. 7356 - Department of the\nInterior Appropriation Bill\nRichard Darman's office delivered the above-referenced\nenrolled bill to this office at 2:40 p.m. today, requesting\ncomments by 3:30 p.m. The bill is the appropriations\nmeasure for Interior, Energy, Agriculture, and several other\nagencies. The bulk of the bill, of course, concerns funding\nlevels for various activities and does not raise any issues\nof concern to this office.\nLegal issues are raised by the Administrative Provisions of\nthe Indian Affairs section, at pages 11-12 of the bill.\nThese provisions substitute a claims processing procedure\nfor the existing statute of limitations on pre-1966 Indian\nclaims in 28 U.S.C. 2415. That provision bars pre-1966\nIndian claims not filed before December 31, 1982. The\nSecretary of Interior has been sued on the ground that\nseveral claims which he had a fiduciary obligation to\nprosecute were due to expire. The suit was successful to\nthe extent that the Secretary will be held in contempt if\naction of some sort is not taken to preserve asserted claims\nby Friday. The bill takes such action by removing the\nimminent statute of limitations bar. This is also the\nreason the bill is on such a \"fast track.' Hank Habicht,\nDeputy Assistant Attorney General, Lands Division, has\nadvised me that the Justice Department approves of the\nprocedure established in the bill. Based on a necessarily\nquick review, I see no objections.\nThe bill also contains restrictions on the Secretary's\nleasing authority with respect to the Outer Continental\nShelf off California and wilderness lands generally. This\nis a compromise provision negotiated with the Hill by\nInterior. Finally, section 311 of the bill exempts\nemployment funded by the Act from any personnel ceilings.\nAs noted in OMB's legislative reference letter, this is a\nhighly objectionable restriction on Executive power. It\nwas, however, included in the continuing resolution, so it\nis not feasible to object at this stage.\n-2-\nI have reviewed the bill, in a somewhat rushed fashion, and\nsee no legal objections. Because of the quick turnaround\ntime, I talked with the Solicitor's Office at Interior\n(William Satterfield), the Legislative Office (Dave Brown),\nand the Budget Office (Joseph Gorell). I also talked with\nthe Lands Division at the Justice Department (Hank Habicht).\nAll of these individuals advised that the bill contained no\nunusual legal provisions other than those discussed above.\nAll affected agencies recommended approval. Based on this\nreview, I recommend that you sign the attached memorandum to\nDarman.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 29, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nH.R. 7356 - Department of the\nInterior Appropriation Bill\nCounsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective\nto the above-referenced enrolled bill.\nFFF:JGR:aw 12/29/82\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 29, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 1364 - Relief of\nJose Ramon Beltron Aiveda Ostler\nRichard Darman has requested comments by close of business\ntoday, December 29, on Enrolled Bill S. 1364, a private\nrelief bill sponsored by Senator Hatch. S. 1364 would deem\nJose Ostler to be a child within the meaning of\n§ 101 (b) (1) (E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in\neffect granting him permanent residence status. He was\nadopted at age 15 in 1978 by the Osters, but the Act sets a\nmaximum adoption age of 14 for purposes of being classified\nas an immediate relative for immigration purposes. The bill\nalso specifies that no natural relatives of Jose can derive\n\"piggyback\" benefits from his special legislation. OMB\nrecommends approval; INS and State interpose no objection.\nI have reviewed the memorandum to the President from James\nFrey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative Reference,\nand the bill itself. I see no legal objection, and have\nprepared a memorandum to Darman to that effect for your\nsignature.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 29, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 1364 - Relief of\nJose Ramon Beltron Aiveda Ostler\nCounsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective\nto the above-referenced enrolled bill.\nFFF:JGR:aw 12/29/82\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\n-\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 29, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 1986 - Disposition\nof Indian Judgment Funds\nRichard Darman has requested comments by 3:00 p.m. tomorrow,\nDecember 30, on Enrolled Bill S. 1986, which authorizes the\ndistribution of funds previously awarded and appropriated to\nthe Blackfeet, Gros Ventre, Assiniboine and Papago Indians.\nThe bill specifies the manner of distribution of some $37\nmillion awarded the first three tribes by the Court of\nClaims and awarded the Papagos by the Indian Claims Commis-\nsion. This legislation is necessary under the Indian\nJudgment Funds Act of 1973 because the Secretary of Interior\ndid not submit a plan for distribution of the funds within\nthe statutorily prescribed period after Congress appropriated\nthe funds. OMB and Interior recommend approval, and Justice\ndefers to Interior.\nI have reviewed the memorandum to the President prepared by\nJames Frey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative\nReference, the legislative reports, and the bill itself. I\nsee no legal objections, and have prepared a memorandum to\nDarman to that effect for your signature.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 29, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 1986 - Disposition\nof Indian Judgment Funds\nCounsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective\nto the above-referenced enrolled bill.\nFFF: JGR:aw 12/29/82\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 30, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RON MANN\nASSOCIATE DIRECTOR\nPRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS ass\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nAppointment of SES Official as Acting\nDeputy Director by Director, National\nScience Foundation\nThis will confirm our conversation of this morning. The\nDirector of the National Science Foundation (NSF) may\ndesignate an SES official of NSF Acting Deputy Director,\npending nomination and confirmation of a permanent Deputy\nDirector. The Acting Deputy Director (1) may not exercise\npolicymaking functions, (2) should avoid, after serving\nthirty days, taking any legal action which specifically must\nbe taken by the Deputy Director, and (3) may not serve as\nActing Director in the absence of the Director.\nPlease do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 30, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nor\nSUBJECT:\nRequest to Include Bronze Portrait\nof the President in Proposed\nLos Angeles Airport Monument\nMichael Deaver has referred to you for action a packet of\nmaterials submitted by Brett-Livingstone Strong of Pacific\nPalisades, California. Strong, apparently something of a\nself-starter in the world of sculpture, has proposed the\nerection of a sixty-five foot monument at the Los Angeles\nInternational Airport, to commemorate the upcoming Olympics.\nStrong has constructed a seven-foot model, and reports that\nthe project \"is currently being approved,\" although he also\nnotes that \"a letter from President Reagan would aid the\nprogress of the remaining approvals.\" He specifically\nrequests approval of his proposal to include a bronze\nportrait of the President on the dedication plaque at the\nbase of the proposed monument.\nIt is unclear from Strong's materials whether his enterprise\nis a commercial enterprise, or if he is planning to donate\nhis skills. I recommend that the letter to Strong note that\nthe President as a matter of policy does not approve such\nrequests, both to avoid endorsing commercial enterprises and\nto avoid showing favoritism. The latter point should be\nmade in light of Strong's effort to secure Presidential\nsupport for what is apparently only a proposal on his part.\nStrong's materials are rife with violations of the law\ngoverning use of the Great Seal and the Presidential Seal.\n18 U.S.C. § 713; E.O. 11649. The Great Seal is printed on\nthe background of his stationery, and on the cover and\ninterior flap of his pamphlet. The Presidential Seal is\nglued to a sash surrounding the pamphlet. The letter to\nStrong should alert him to the law in this area, and advise\nhim to discontinue use of the seals.\nI have attached a proposed memorandum to Deaver and letter\nto Strong for your signature.\nAttachments\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 30, 1982\nDear Mr. Strong:\nYour request that the President approve the use of his\nlikeness at the base of your proposed monument at the Los\nAngeles International Airport has been referred to this\noffice. While we admire the enthusiasm, dedication, and\npatriotism which you obviously bring to the ambitious\nproject to design and erect the monument, we cannot approve\nor endorse the use of the President's likeness.\nAs you might imagine, the President receives countless\nrequests for the use of his name or likeness during the\ncourse of a year. Frankly, many of the requests originate\nwith individuals or organizations with which he would be\npleased to be identified. In response to the large number,\nhowever, the White House has been obliged to adhere to a\ngeneral policy of denying requests of this kind to use the\nsignature, name, photograph or likeness of President Reagan\nwhen to do so would either suggest favoritism by the Presi-\ndent toward particular individuals or organizations, or\nassociate him with a commercial product or enterprise in a\nway that does or might suggest his endorsement of that\nproduct or enterprise.\nIn addition, I am certain you will understand that in this\ncase modesty precludes the President from endorsing your\ngracious proposal to include his likeness on the monument.\nThe materials you forwarded to the White House in connection\nwith your proposal raise another concern. Your folder and\nstationery contain reproductions of the Great Seal of the\nUnited States and the Seal of the President of the United\nStates. In light of your evident good faith, I assume you\nare unaware that the permitted uses of these seals are\nrestricted by law.\nTitle 18 of the United States Code, Section 713, is the\nprincipal federal law governing use of the Great Seal of the\nUnited States and the Seal of the President of the United\nStates. Section 713 (a) proscribes use of these seals in a\nmanner reasonably calculated to convey a false impression of\nsponsorship or approval by the United States Government, and\nsection 713 (b) proscribes use of the Presidential seal,\nexcept in a manner consistent with regulations promulgated\nby the President. The regulations to which reference is\n-2-\nmade are embodied in Executive Orders 11649 and 11916. I\nenclose for your information copies of 18 U.S.C., Section\n713, the notes to which include the Executive Orders mentioned.\nYou will note that use of the seals on personal stationery\nand the like is not among the uses sanctioned by the Executive\nOrder. Accordingly, I must advise you to cease such use of\nthe seals.\nI am sorry that I cannot be more accommodating. Thank you\nfor your cooperation, and best of luck with your ambitious\nundertaking.\nSincerely,\nFred F. Fielding\nCounsel to the President\nMr. Brett-Livingstone Strong\n1157 Las Pulgas Place\nPacific Palisades, California 90272\nEnclosure\nFFF: JGR:aw 1/3/83\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 30, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL K. DEAVER\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nRequest of Brett-Livingstone Strong to\nInclude Bronze Portrait of the President\nin Proposed Los Angeles Airport Monument\nOn December 13 you transmitted for my review and action a\npacket of materials from Brett-Livingstone Strong. Mr.\nStrong seeks endorsement of his plan to include a bronze\nportrait of the President at the base of his proposed\nsixty-five foot monument to the Los Angeles Olympics, to be\nerected (if approved by local authorities) at the Los\nAngeles Airport. While the President could endorse this\nproject, the White House adheres to a policy of not approv-\ning use of the President's likeness when doing so might\nsuggest endorsement of a commercial enterprise or favoritism\nto any particular individual or group. It is unclear if Mr.\nStrong's project is a commercial one, but, in any event, the\nPresident should not endorse a proposal of this sort which\nhas not been finally approved by the relevant authorities in\nLos Angeles. Mr. Strong explicitly notes Presidential\nendorsement would help him gain the remaining approvals,\nindicating that he seeks precisely the sort of Presidential\nsponsorship for his project which we strive to avoid.\nI have written to Mr. Strong advising him that we cannot\nendorse his proposal. I have also alerted him to the law\ngoverning use of the Great Seal and Presidential Seal,\nbecause the presence of both seals on his materials is\ncontrary to that law.\nFFF:JGR:aw 12/30/82\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 30, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nISR\nSUBJECT:\nFOI/PA Request from Jane Glazer\non Behalf of Helen Gordon\nJames K. Hall, Chief of the FBI FOI/PA Section, has referred\ntwo FBI documents, which contain information furnished by\nthe White House, to you for review prior to response to the\nFOI/PA request of Jane Glazer on behalf of the invalid Helen\nGordon. The first document, a March 10, 1967 letter from\nthe Bureau to Marvin Watson, responded to a name check\nrequested by Mildred Stegall on 108 individuals. The\nsecond, a November 10, 1969, letter from the Bureau to John\nEhrlichman, responded to a name check requested on 227\nindividuals. Each document notes that a separate memorandum\nis attached on Mrs. Gordon, as well as several other cited\nindividuals. This separate memorandum has not been submitted\nto us in response to the FOI/PA request.\nI believe that the names of all the individuals (other than\nMrs. Gordon) who were subject to the name checks may be\nexcised from the copies to be released pursuant to Exemption\n6. This exemption provides that the disclosure requirements\nof the FOIA do not apply to \"personal and medical files and\nsimilar files the disclosure of which would constitute a\nclearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.\" 5 U.S.C.\n§ 552 (b) (6). In its recent decision in United States\nDepartment of State V. The Washington Post Co., 102 S. Ct.\n1957 (1982), the Court interpreted this provision quite\nbroadly as applicable to any records identifiable as apply-\ning to a particular individual. I recommend noting the\ndesirability of deletion of the names in your memorandum to\nthe Bureau.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 30, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. HALL\nCHIEF, FOI/PA SECTION\nFEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nFOI/PA Request from Jane Glazer on\nBehalf of Helen Gordon: FBI #221,872\nThis is in response to your memorandum of December 13, 1982\nin which you referred to me for review two FBI documents\nresponsive to the above-referenced FOI/PA request. The\ndocuments contain information furnished by the White House.\nUpon review of this information, we believe that the exemption\nof 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (6) should result in the deletion of the\nnames of all the individuals other than Mrs. Gordon listed\nin the documents. The Supreme Court has ruled that Exemption\n6 is to be interpreted broadly, United States Department of\nState V. The Washington Post Co., 102 S. Ct. 1957 (1982),\nand disclosure of the names would be an unwarranted invasion\nof the privacy of the individuals.\nWe have no legal objection to the release of these two\ndocuments, provided the names of individuals other than Mrs.\nGordon listed in the documents are deleted.\nFFF:JGR:aw 12/30/82\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nDRAFT\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 5, 1983\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. HALL\nCHIEF, FOI/PA SECTION\nFEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nFOI/PA Request from Jane Glazer on\nBehalf of Helen Gordon: FBI #221,872\nThis is in response to your memorandum of December 13, 1982\nin which you referred to me for review two FBI documents\nresponsive to the above-referenced FOI/PA request. The\ndocuments contain information furnished by the White House.\nUpon review of this information, we believe that the exemption\nof 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (6) should result in the deletion of the\nnames of all the individuals other than Mrs. Gordon listed\nin the documents. The Supreme Court has ruled that Exemption\n6 is to be interpreted broadly, United States Department of\nState V. The Washington Post Co., 102 S. Ct. 1957 (1982),\nand disclosure of the names would be an unwarranted invasion\nof the privacy of the individuals.\nWe have no legal objection to the release of these two\ndocuments.\nFFF: JGR:aw 1/5/83\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 30, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nJOR\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill H.R. 6254 - Protection\nof Certain Foreign Diplomatic Missions\nRichard Darman has requested comments by close of business\nMonday, January 3, on Enrolled Bill H.R. 6254, which would\nincrease appropriations to reimburse New York City for\nprotective services it provides for foreign diplomats, and\npermit reimbursement for the cost of motorcades for foreign\ndiplomats. The Administration opposed H.R. 6254, on the\ngrounds that motorcades are ceremonial and not protective,\nand that New York City is already being adequately reimbursed.\nOMB and Treasury recommend approval, noting that the Continu-\ning Resolution already authorizes increased funds for\nreimbursement to New York City, and covers motorcades.\nReimbursement is much less costly than replacing local\nsecurity with Federal officers, which Mayor Koch has threat-\nened will be necessary if the bill fails. State recommends\ndisapproval, essentially for the reasons the Administration\ninitially opposed the bill. Signing and disapproval state-\nments have been prepared by Treasury and State, respectively.\nI have reviewed the memorandum to the President from David\nStockman, the bill itself, and the draft statements. I see\nno legal objections to the bill, nor do I think the policy\ndispute between Treasury and State holds any particular\nsignificance for this office. I therefore recommend a\nsimple \"no legal objection\" memorandum to Darman. I also\nhave no legal objection to either the signing or disapproval\nstatement.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 30, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill H.R. 6254 - Protection\nof Certain Foreign Diplomatic Missions\nCounsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective\nto the above-referenced enrolled bill. We also have no\nlegal objection to either the proposed signing statement or\nthe memorandum of disapproval.\nFFF:HPG:aw 12/30/82\ncc: FFFielding\nHPGoldfield\nSubj.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 30, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nare\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S.J. Res. 264 - National\nChildren and Television Week\nRichard Darman has requested comments by close of business\nTuesday, January 4, on Enrolled Bill S.J. Res. 264, which\nwould designate the week of March 13-19, 1983, as \"National\nChildren and Television Week.\" The resolution authorizes\nand requests the President to issue an appropriate proclama-\ntion calling for appropriate observances of the week. OMB\nrecommends approval.\nI have reviewed the memorandum for the President from James\nFrey, Assistant Director of OMB for Legislative Reference,\nand the resolution itself. I see no legal objections, and\nrecommend that you sign the attached memorandum to Darman.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 30, 1982\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S.J. Res. 264 - National\nChildren and Television Week\nCounsel's Office finds no objection from a legal perspective\nto the above-referenced enrolled bill.\nFFF:JGR:aw 12/30/82\ncc: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj.\nChron"
}