Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
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: JGR/Export Administration
(5 of 6)
Box: 24
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 19, 1984
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
This report is submitted pursuant to section 204 of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1703)
and section 401 (c) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1641 (c)) to account for government expenditures attributable
to the national economic emergency that I declared following
the lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.) (EAA) on October 14, 1983. On
that date, I issued Executive Order No. 12444 to continue in
effect the system of controls that had been established under
the EAA. In view of the extension by Public Law 98-207
(December 5, 1983) of the authorities contained in the EAA,
this emergency authority was no longer needed, and on
December 20, 1983, I issued Executive Order No. 12451, a copy
of which is attached, rescinding the declaration of economic
emergency and revoking Executive Order No. 12444.
The EAA export controls were not expanded during the
emergency period, and the administration of the system of
controls continued in the normal course. Accordingly, the
government spent no funds over and above what would have been
spent had the EAA remained in force without interruption.
RONALD REAGAN
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 19, 1984.
#
#
#
#
#
VGK
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1984
FOR:
FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
PETER J. RUSTHOVEN 646
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
Continuation of Export Control Regulations
Richard Darman's office asked for comments by 10:00 a.m. today
on the above-referenced proposed Executive Order, which would
declare a national economic emergency for the purpose of
continuing in effect the system of export controls established
pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979.
The Executive Order would be issued if, as is now anticipated,
the Congress fails to extend the Act before midnight tonight,
at which time the most recent temporary extension will expire.
Although the Department of Justice has not formally approved
the proposed Order and the accompanying draft message to the
Congress, these documents are substantively identical to those
signed when Congress allowed the Act to lapse last October,
which our office reviewed and approved.
The legal and other issues presented now are identical to
those involved at that time. Aside from recommending that the
message to the Congress be modified slightly simply to reflect
that a copy of the Executive Order is being forwarded with
that message, I see no legal or other problem requiring
comment by our office.
A memorandum for Darman is attached for your review and
signature.
Attachment
CC: Richard A. Hauser
John G. Roberts, Jr.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
Continuation of Export Control Regulations
Our office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed Executive
Order and the accompanying message to the Congress. Subject
to formal approval by the Department of Justice -- which, as
these documents are substantively identical to those signed in
parallel circumstances last October, should be forthcoming --
we have no legal or other substantive objection to either the
proposed Order or the draft message.
I would recommend, however, that numbered paragraph 3 of the
message be modified slightly simply to reference the fact that
a copy of the Executive Order is being forwarded to the
Congress with the message.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig- signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
Continuation of Export Control Regulations
Our office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed Executive
Order and the accompanying message to the Congress. Subject
to formal approval by the Department of Justice -- which, as
these documents are substantively identical to those signed in
parallel circumstances last October, should be forthcoming --
we have no legal or other substantive objection to either the
proposed Order or the draft message.
I would recommend, however, that numbered paragraph 3 of the
message be modified slightly simply to reference the fact that
a copy of the Executive Order is being forwarded to the
Congress with the message.
FFF: PJR:pr 3/30/84
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
RAHauser
Subject
PJRusthoven
Chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 18, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS JJC
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Report to the Congress Regarding
Iran Emergency
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced report to
Congress, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
ID #. 27139355 CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
I a INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Dave Chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Repart to the Cangress re: Iran
Emergency
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency (Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 85,04,17
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
R 85,04,17
5 85,04,19
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/
/
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A . Appropriate Action
I into Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
271393ss
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
4/17/85
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
Friday, April 19
SUBJECT:
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS RE IRAN EMERGENCY
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
OGLESBY
REGAN
ROLLINS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
BUCHANAN
TUTTLE
CHEW
P
55
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FRIEDERSDORF
RYAN
HICKEY
DANIELS
HICKS
KINGON
McFARLANE
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/recommendations by Friday, April 19th.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
1985 APR 17 PII 4: 26
Ext. 2702
OF
THE
Received SS
THE SECRETARY OF, THE TREASURY
THE REASURE
WASHINGTON 20220
HES APR 17 AM 11/0:27 10:
1789
AR 17 2 03
April 16, 1985
Dear Mr. President:
Under Section 204(c) of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, the President is required to submit
a report to the Congress concerning the Iran emergency
once every six months. A proposed report, which summa-
rizes developments concerning the Iran emergency during
the past six months, is enclosed at Tab A. Your last
report to Congress, dated October 31, 1984, is enclosed
for your reference at Tab B.
I recommend that you forward the proposed report to
Congress by May 14, 1985, the end of the current six-month
period.
Sincerely,
Janus James A. Baker, III III
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Enclosures
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Pursuant to Section 204(c) of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. Section 1703 (c), I
hereby report to the Congress on developments since my last
report of October 31, 1984, concerning the national emergency
with respect to Iran that was declared in Executive Order
No. 12170 of November 14, 1979.
1. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, established
at The Hague pursuant to the Claims Settlement Agreement of
January 19, 1981 (the "Algiers Accords"), continues to make
progress in arbitrating the claims before it. Since my last
report, the Tribunal has rendered 18 more decisions for a
total of 169 final decisions. Of these, 125 have been awards
in favor of American claimants; 89 were awards on agreed
terms, authorizing and approving payment of settlements
negotiated by the parties; and 36 were adjudicated decisions.
As of March 31, 1984, total payments to successful American
claimants from the Security Account stood at over
$337 million. Of the remaining 44 decisions, 22 dismissed
claims for lack of jurisdiction, 3 partially dismissed claims
for lack of jurisdiction, 13 dismissed claims on the merits,
one approved the withdrawal of a claim, four were awards in
favor of the Government of Iran, and one was an award in favor
of the United States Government.
2. In the past six months, there have been significant
changes in the composition of the Tribunal. As I noted in my
last report, Professor Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the Federal
Republic of Germany was selected to replace President Gunnar
Lagergren, who resigned effective October 1, 1984. On
December 1, 1984, Professor Bockstiegel was designated
President of the Tribunal, in addition to his duties as
Chairman of Chamber One. On November 29, 1984, the Government
of Iran appointed two new arbitrators to replace Judges
Mahmoud M. Kashani and Shafei Shafeiei, whose qualifications
2
had been challenged by the United States following their
unprecedented attack on one of the third-party arbitrators,
Judge Mangard, in September 1984. The two new Iranian
arbitrators, Hamid Bahrami Ahmadi and Seyed Mohsen Mostafavi
Tafreshi, assumed their duties on January 15, 1985. In
addition, the Chairman of Chamber Two, Willem Riphagen,
submitted his resignation for health reasons, effective
April 1, 1985, and the Chairman of Chamber Three, Nils
Mangard, has submitted his resignation for personal reasons,
effective no later than July 1, 1985. Swiss lawyer Robert
Briner and French law professor Michel Virally have recently
accepted invitations from the U.S. and Iranian arbitrators to
join the Tribunal in place of Chairmen Riphagen and Mangard.
3. In spite of the disruptions that I described in my
last report, the Tribunal made some progress in arbitrating
the claims of U.S. nationals for $250,000 or more. The
Special Chamber, which was established to consider requests
for withdrawals or terminations of claims and for awards on
agreed terms, rendered 13 awards on agreed terms prior to its
dissolution on January 15, 1985. With the arrival of the two
new Iranian arbitrators, the Chambers have once again begun
hearing and deciding cases. On March 1, the Tribunal
awarded R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. an additional $12 million
in interest on its claim, the decision in which was described
in my last report. In total, more than 35 percent of the
claims for over $250,000 have now been disposed of through
adjudication, settlement, or voluntary withdrawal, leaving 344
such claims on the docket.
4. The Tribunal has continued with the arbitration of
the claims of U.S. nationals against Iran of less than
$250,000 each. In addition to 18 test cases, the Tribunal has
selected 100 other claims for active arbitration. In 62 of
these claims, the Department of State has submitted Supple-
mental Statements of Claim, containing more than 16,000 pages
3
of text and evidence. Additional pleadings are being filed
weekly. Although Iran repeatedly seeks extensions of time
within which to file its responsive pleadings to these claims,
the Tribunal has continued to press for their resolution. At
the Tribunal, three senior legal officers and a law clerk work
exclusively on these claims. Finally, since my last report,
another seven of these claimants have received awards on
agreed terms, bringing the total to ten.
5. The Department of State continues to coordinate the
efforts of concerned governmental agencies in presenting U.S.
claims against Iran as well as responses by the U.S.
Government to claims brought against it by Iran. Since my
last report, the Department has filed pleadings in seven
government-to-government claims based on contracts for the
provision of goods and services. These claims include a claim
on behalf of the Agency for International Development for over
$38 million based on outstanding developmental loans to the
Government of Iran. In addition, the Department of State,
working together with the Department of the Treasury and the
Department of Justice, filed responsive pleadings in two major
interpretive disputes. One related to Iran's claim to over
$400 million remaining from funds transferred pursuant to the
Algiers Accords for payment of Iran's syndicated debt. The
other was in response to Iran's allegations that the United
States breached its obligation under the Algiers Accords to
terminate litigation against Iran. The Department of State
also filed pleadings in four other interpretive disputes. The
Tribunal held one hearing in an interpretive dispute on
whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to arbitrate approxi-
mately 111 claims brought by Iran directly against U.S. banks
which do not involve standby letters of credit. Finally, two
of the Tribunal's chambers have confirmed that action will be
taken on or about May 20 to strike or otherwise dispose of 248
claims brought by Iran against U.S. banks based on standby
letters of credit.
4
6. The Algiers Accords also provided for direct
negotiations between U.S. banks and Bank Markazi Iran
concerning the payment of nonsyndicated debt claims of U.S.
banks against Iran from Dollar Account No. 2 (the interest-
bearing escrow account established at the Bank of England in
January 1981 with the deposit of $1.418 billion of previously
blocked Iranian funds). As of April 10, 1985, three
additional settlements had been reached since my last report
between Iran and U.S. banks. The three settling banks, Irving
Trust Company, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, and Banker's
Trust Company, received a total of $81.91 million from Dollar
Account No. 2 in payment of their claims against Iran. From
this amount, $73.595 million was subsequently paid by these
banks to Iran in settlement of Iran's claims against them,
primarily for interest on Iran's domestic deposits with these
banks. (One of these banks paid Iran an additional $8.45
million from other funds.) Thus, as of April 10, 1985, there
have been 29 bank settlements resulting in payments to the
settling banks of approximately $1.5 billion from Dollar
Account No. 2. From that amount, the banks have paid
approximately $693 million to Iran in settlement of Iran's
claims against them. About 17 banks have yet to settle their
claims. In addition, attorneys from the Department of the
Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have been
negotiating an "Agreed Clarification" with Bank Markazi to
allow the payment from Dollar Account No. 2 of certain amounts
still owing on Iran's syndicated debt.
7. There have been no changes in the Iranian Assets
Control Regulations since my last report.
8. Although the attack on Judge Mangard in September
seriously disrupted and delayed proceedings for three months,
the Tribunal resumed full operation in January of this year
and the two Iranian arbitrators who committed the attack were
5
removed by the Government of Iran. Since that time, the
Tribunal has actively pursued the arbitration of both private
and government claims. Prehearing conferences and hearings
that had been cancelled are being rescheduled. The Tribunal
has made provision for the issuance of awards in cases heard
prior to the removal of the two Iranian arbitrators and the
resignations of President Lagergren and Chairmen Riphagen and
Mangard. This resumption of Tribunal activities provides
reason to expect that more progress will be made in the coming
months.
9. Financial and diplomatic aspects of the relationship
with Iran continue to present an unusual challenge to the
national security and foreign policy of the United States. I
shall continue to exercise the powers at my disposal to deal
with these problems and will continue to report periodically
to the Congress on significant developments.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 / Oct. 31
ary 19, 1981, continues to make 'some
progress in arbitrating the 3,848 claims
which have been filed before it. In total,
330 claims have been resolved through
award or withdrawal. Since my last report,
the Tribunal has rendered 33 more deci-
sions, for a total of 151 final decisions. Of
these decisions, 111 have resulted in awards
in favor of American claimants, of which 76
were awards on agreed terms, authorizing
and approving payment of settlements ne-
gotiated by the parties, and 35 were adjudi-
cated. Total payments to successful Ameri-
can claimants from the Security Account
stood at just over $306 million as of Sep-
tember 30, 1984. Of the remaining 40 deci-
sions, 19 dismissed claims for lack of juris-
diction, three partially dismissed claims for
lack of jurisdiction, 13 dismissed claims on
the merits, one approved withdrawal of a
claim, three were awards in favor of the
Government of Iran, and one was an award
in favor of the United States Government.
2. In the past six months, the Tribunal has
continued to make progress in arbitrating
the claims of U.S. nationals for $250,000 or
more. More than 33 percent of these claims
have been disposed of through adjudication,
settlement, or voluntary withdrawal, leav-
ing 362 such claims on the docket. On
August 6, 1984, the Tribunal rendered its
largest non-bank award, almost $50 million,
in favor of the R.J. Reynolds Co. In a signifi-
cant development, Iran agreed to withdraw
all of the cases that it had filed in the Dutch
courts seeking to set aside certain Tribunal
National Emergency With Respect to
awards in favor of U.S. claimants. It also
Iran
agreed to stay proceedings in Iranian courts
against two U.S. claimants, as requested by
Letter to the Speaker of the House and the
the Tribunal, but has not yet complied with
President of the Senate. October 31, 1984
similar Tribunal requests in other cases.
3. The Tribunal has proceeded with its
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
previously adopted test-case approach for
Pursuant to Section 204(c) of the Interna-
arbitrating the claims of U.S. nationals
tional Emergency Economic Powers Act
against Iran for less than $250,000. The De-
(IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. Section 1703(c), I hereby
partment of State has submitted Supple-
report to the Congress with respect to de-
mental Statements of Claim in 33 of these
velopments since my last report of May 3,
claims (including 14 of the 18 test cases
1984, concerning the national emergency
selected by the Tribunal), and has filed
with respect to Iran declared in Executive
major factual and legal memoranda in sup-
Order No. 12170 of November 14, 1979.
port of those claims. Supplemental State-
1. The Iran-United States Claims Tribu-
ments of Claim are being prepared for 91
nal, established at The Hague pursuant to
additional claims. While Iran continues to
the Claims Settlement Agreement of Janu-
resist efforts to resolve these claims expedi-
1711
Oct. 31 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984
tiously, we are pressing for early Tribunal
1984, President Lagergren appointed Pro-
action. A third senior legal officer has re-
fessor Bockstiegel as "acting President"
cently been hired by the Tribunal to work
pending a determination by the Tribunal
exclusively on these claims. Finally, the Tri-
(or, if necessary, the Appointing Authority)
bunal recently issued three awards on
on whether he will serve as President. Pro-
agreed terms, reflecting settlements be-
fessor Bockstiegel held the Chair of Interna-
tween U.S. claimants and Iran of these
tional Business Law and served as director
claims.
of the Institute of Air and Space Law at
4. The Department of State continues to
Cologne University.
coordinate the efforts of concerned govern-
6. The January 19, 1981, agreements with
mental agencies in presenting U.S. claims
Iran also provided for direct negotiations
against Iran as well as U.S. responses to
between U.S. banks and Bank Markazi Iran
claims brought by Iran. Since my last
concerning the payment of nonsyndicated
report, the Tribunal has resolved three gov-
debt claims of U.S. banks against Iran from
ernment-to-government claims based on
the $1.418 billion escrow account presently
contracts for the provision of goods and
held by the Bank of England. Since my last
services. In one case, the United States re-
report, only one additional settlement has
ceived an award for costs incurred in pro-
been reached. Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh
viding instruction to Iranian students at the
received $12.4 million in settlement of its
United States Coast Guard Academy. Of the
claim, of which $2.8 million was subse-
other two claims (both brought by Iran),
quently paid to Iran, primarily for interest
one (against the National Aeronautics and
on Iran's domestic deposits with the bank.
Space Administration) was dismissed on the
Thus, as of September 30, 1984, there have
merits, and the other (against the Atomic
been 26 bank settlements, totaling approxi-
Energy Commission) resulted in an award
mately $1.4 billion. Iran has received $619
to Iran. As in the past, these awards were
million in settlement of its claims against
rendered solely on the pleadings. The Tri-
the banks. About 20 bank claims remain
bunal has in addition set filing dates for
pleadings in 10 government-to-government
outstanding.
claims through the end of 1984. Although
7. On May 21, 1984, the Department of
two hearings were scheduled in cases con-
the Treasury amended Section 535.215 of
cerning the interpretation and implementa-
the Iranian Assets Control Regulations to
tion of the Algiers Accords, the Tribunal has
prohibit any transfer, except under license
postponed these hearings indefinitely. The
from the Office of Foreign Assets Control,
United States, however, is fully prepared to
of blocked tangible property in which, Iran
proceed with these hearings and is also pre-
has any interest whatsoever, the export of
paring rejoinders for submission to the Tri-
which requires the issuance of any specific
bunal in two other cases.
license under U.S. law. This amendment
5. In the last six months, there has also
was promulgated in order to help assure
been a change in the composition of the
compliance with the export restrictions of
Tribunal. On April 27, 1984, Gunnar Lager-
U.S. law, particularly those with respect to
gren, the President of the Tribunal and
properties having potential military applica-
Chairman of Chamber One, resigned effec-
tion.
tive October 1, 1984. Despite several
8. Significant developments have oc-
rounds of discussion, the six party-appointed
curred at the Tribunal since my last report.
arbitrators were unable to agree on a suc-
On September 3, 1984, two Iranian arbitra-
cessor. Accordingly, pursuant to the Tribu-
tors, Mahmoud M. Kashani and Shafei Sha-
nal's Rules of Procedure, the United States
feiei, assaulted Judge Nils Mangard, a third-
requested the independent Appointing Au-
country arbitrator, in an attempt to exclude
thority, M.J.A. Moons, the Chief Judge of
him from the Tribunal. This unprovoked
the Netherlands Supreme Court, to desig-
and unprecedented attack resulted in an in-
nate a successor. On September 1, 1984,
definite suspension of Tribunal proceedings
Judge Moons appointed Karl-Heinz Bock-
from September 5. In response to the
stiegel, a West German national, as a
attack, the United States filed a formal chal-
member of the Tribunal. On September 25,
lenge seeking the removal of the two Irani-
1712
Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 / Nov. /
an arbitrators in the event that the Govern-
ment of Iran does not voluntarily remove
them. A special chamber has been estab-
lished to consider requests for withdrawals
or terminations of claims and for awards on
agreed terms until regular proceedings are
reestablished.
9. Although the Tribunal made some
progress in arbitrating the claims before it
in the first few months of this reporting
period, the attack on Judge Mangard in
September has seriously disrupted and de-
layed proceedings. Significant American in-
terests remain unresolved. Prehearing con-
ferences and hearings scheduled for Sep-
tember and October have been postponed
indefinitely. However, should the status of
the two Iranian arbitrators who perpetrated
the attack be resolved expeditiously, we be-
lieve that the Tribunal will be restored to
its full functioning.
10. Financial and diplomatic aspects of
the relationship with Iran continue to
present an unusual challenge to the nation-
al security and foreign policy of the United
States. I shall continue to exercise the
powers at my disposal to deal with these
problems and will continue to report peri-
odically to the Congress on significant de-
velopments.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan
Note: This is the text of identical letters
addressed to Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker
of the House of Representatives, and George
Bush, President of the Senate.
1713
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
Honorable David A. Stockman
JUL 3 1985
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Stockman:
In compliance with your request, we have examined a
copy of the conference report on S. 883, the Export
Administration Amendments Act of 1985, a bill to extend the
Export Administration Act of 1979 (1979 Act). 131 Cong.
Rec. H 4905 (June 25, 1985). The Department of Justice
(Department) recommends Executive approval of this bill. We
I
do, however, have the following comments, some of which are
included in a proposed signing statement (attached).
1. Two subsections of the bill, § 107 (c) and § 107 (h),
to amend §§ 5(f)(4) and 5(h)(6), respectively, of the 1979
Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2404(f)(4) and (h) (6), purport to
require the President, at the time that export controls
are imposed for national security reasons or maintained, or
if thereafter a good or technology becomes available from a
foreign source, actively to pursue negotiations with the
governments of foreign countries to eliminate the foreign
availability such goods or technology. The purpose and the
effect of these provisions is somewhat unclear. These provisions
are not necessary to authorize the President to negotiate
with foreign governments, nor could the President be directed
to negotiate if he chose not to. We would therefore read
these provisions as an expression of congressional desire
that the President seek to eliminate foreign availability of
goods or technology controlled for national security reasons.
Congress can constitutionally condition the authority to
impose or maintain export controls on the elimination of
foreign availability, as both the cited subsections do. But
it remains in the President's discretion whether to seek to
eliminate the foreign availability through negotiation with
foreign governments. We call this qualification to your
attention now because it may be important in the future to
those administering these export control provisions.
2. Section 108 (a) (3), amending § 6(a) of the 1979 Act,
50 U.S.C. App. § 2405 (a), adds a provision that any export
control imposed for foreign policy reasons shall apply to
transactions or activities undertaken with the intent to
evade that control, even if the export control would not
otherwise apply to that transaction or activity. The meaning
and scope of application of this provision are unclear, and,
in certain circumstances, could raise due process problems.
Although we do not believe that comment on this provision
would be necessary in the signing statement, we note the
problem here for future reference in the administration
of the bill.
3. Section 108(b) of the bill would amend § 6(b) of the
1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2905 (b), to identify the criteria
for the future imposition of export controls for foreign
policy reasons. The bill provides that the President may
impose foreign policy controls only if he makes certain
determinations relating to the likely effects of such controls.
In brief, the President must determine (1) that the purpose
of such controls can be achieved, (2) that the controls are
compatible with other foreign policy objectives, (3) that the
reaction of other countries will not render the controls
ineffective or counterproductive, (4) that the effect of the
controls on the competitive position of the United States will
not exceed the benefit, and (5) that the United States has
the ability to enforce the controls effectively. Under
current law, the President is directed to consider some
similar factors but is not required to make a determination
regarding the likely effect, in terms of the factors, of the
imposition of controls. Although changed in form, this
section may not be very different in substance because no
specific criteria are proposed for the guidance of these
presidential decisions. We assume, both because of this
silence as well as the constitutional implications of a
contrary assumption, that such decisions are left to the
President's unreviewable discretion according to whatever
criteria he deems appropriate. We think that it might be
well to include in a signing statement proposed for the
President an interpretation of § 6(b) to the effect that,
because the determination whether the criteria are met in a
particular case is committed to the President's sole discretion,
§ 6(b) amounts to an expression by Congress of the factors
that it deems important to the President's decision to impose
export controls for foreign policy reasons.
-2-
4. Section (d) of the bill, which amends § (g) (3)
of the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2406(g) (3), relates to the
imposition of short supply controls on agricultural commodities.
Section 110(d) requires the President to report to Congress
upon the imposition of such controls, setting forth the
reasons for the controls and specifying the period of time,
up to one year, that the controls are proposed to be in
effect. Section 110(d) further provides that if Congress,
within 60 days of the date of receipt of the report adopts a
joint resolution approving the imposition of controls, such
control may remain in effect for the period specified in the
President's report unless he terminates the controls sooner.
If Congress fails within 60 days to adopt a joint resolution
of approval, the controls expire at the end of the 60-day
period. This procedure is not inconsistent with INS V.
Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), and does not present constitutional
problems. We do not believe that this section need be noted in
a signing statement.
5. Section 113 provides the enforcement authority for
the export control laws. Section 113 (a) amends § 12 (a) of
the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2411 (a), to provide, essentially
that the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is given jurisdiction
over investigations at places within the United States other
than ports, and over investigations involving pre-licensing,
post-shipment, or foreign enforcement at places outside the
United States. The United States Customs Service (Customs) is
given jurisdiction over investigations at the ports of entry
and exit and places outside the United States where it is
authorized, pursuant to agreements or arrangements with
foreign countries, to perform enforcement activities. The
power to enforce the export laws by searches and seizures is
conferred upon both Commerce and Customs. In general, this
authority is consistent with Fourth Amendment limitations,
although specific analysis and qualification are necessary
with regard to both Commerce and Customs.
Customs is authorized to stop, search, and examine
vehicles and persons, and search packages and containers,
on the basis of reasonable cause to suspect a violation of
the export laws, and seize goods of technology for trial on
the basis of probable cause. Such authority is fully
constitutional when exercised at the ports of entry and exit.
See United States V. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1971) (importation
through the mails; warrantless search based on reasonable
cause) ; United States V. Martinez-Fuente, 428 U.S. 453 (1976)
(illegal entry of aliens by automobile; warrantless stop of
vehicle and questioning of occupants at fixed checkpoint
without individual suspicion). Similar standards have been
-3-
applied in the courts of appeals to exit searches at the
ports. See, e.g., United States V. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971,
976-77 (9th Cir. 1982) ; United States V. Ajlouny, 629 F.2d
830, 833-34 (2d Cir. 1979) see also California Bankers Ass'n
V. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 63 (1974) (dictum).
This same enforcement authority is conferred on Customs
for enforcement in countries outside the United States which
have authorized Customs to operate. Under certain circumstances,
the exercise by Customs of search and seizure authority in
overseas enforcement activities in the absence of a warrant
will exceed the limitations imposed by the Fourth Amendment.
In Reid V. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5 (1957), the Court "reject| [ed]
the idea that when the United States acts against citizens
abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights." In reliance
on Reid, one lower court, considering the Fourth Amendment
issues involved in the context of warrantless electronic
surveillance of American citizens and organizations, held
that [t]here is no question
that the Constitution
applies to actions by United States officials taken against
American citizens overseas." Berlin Democratic Club V.
Rumsfeld, 410 F. Supp. 144, 157 n.6 (D.D.C. 1976). We believe
that this standard would apply to physical searches as well.
Cf. United States V. United States District Court (Keith),
407 U.S. 297 (1972) Katz V. United States, 389 U.S. 347
(1967). See also Powell V. Zuckert, 125 U.S. App D.C. 55,
366 F.2d 634, 640 (1966) ; Birdsell V. United States, 346
F.2d 775, 782 (5th Cir. 1965) cf. United States V. Emery,
591 F.2d 1266, 1267-68 (9th Cir. 1978) (Fifth Amendment).
In our view, these cases demonstrate that, depending
on the facts, a warrantless search and seizure directed
against U.S. citizens abroad may not meet Fourth Amendment
standards in the absence of a recognized exception to the
warrant requirement. Cf. Mincey V. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385,
390 (1978). In such cases, an agreement or arrangement with
a foreign government would not alter the applicable constitutional
standard. See Reid V. Covert, 354 U.S. at 16.
To our knowledge, the Supreme Court has never adressed
the constitutional restrictions on search and seizures directed
at non-U.S. citizens abroad. We think that such enforcement
measures would be held to be constitutionally sufficient if
they are reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment
and conform to local law or restrictions imposed by the
foreign country and to international law. In this regard, we
think that the search and seizure of foreign vessels on the
high seas is an apt analogy. See, e.g., United States V.
Williams, 617 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc) (permission
by foreign sovereign renders search reasonable).
-4-
With regard to Commerce, a similar problem exists in
certain circumstances because of the apparent authorization
of warrantless searches and seizures. The Secretary of
Commerce, however, is specifically authorized to designate
officers and employees of Commerce to execute warrants in the
enforcement of the Act. We believe that this provision
should be read to impose the warrant requirement on authorized
searches and seizures in the absence of facts supporting a
search or seizure without a warrant. As thus interpreted,
the enforcement provisions relating to Commerce would meet
constitutional standards.
Specifically, Commerce's authority exists in three
contexts: (1) at places within the United States; (2) at
ports, and places outside the United States, with the concurrence
of Customs; and (3) certain other specific overseas enforcement
activities. 1/ The interpretation suggested above, as
applied in these three contexts, would generally require a
warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement for searches
and seizures at all places within the United States other
than ports, and outside the United States at least if United
States citizens are involved. For certain specific authorized
enforcement activities outside the United States, such as
prelicense or post-shipment investigations, a licensing
provision providing consent to a search might serve as an
exception to the warrant requirement. No warrant would be
required at the ports, and most likely, at places outside the
United States if non-citizens are involved.
In summary, we believe that an explanation of the
enforcement authority should be included in a signing statement.
For that purpose, it would be sufficient simply to state
the understanding that all enforcement authority will be
exercised consistent with whatever Fourth Amendment standards
may be applicable on the particular facts. We offer the
fuller discussion here for reference in the administration of
the export laws.
6. Finally, we have repeatedly opined on the technical
data provisions, such as is contained in § 117 of the bill,
1/ It is not clear from the wording of Commerce's authority
whether search and seizure powers are provided in the conduct
of pre-license or post-shipment investigations or the
enforcement of foreign boycott provisions. For purposes of
this discussion, we assume that such powers are provided.
-5-
amending § 16 of the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2415. Section
117 provides an amended definition of "technology" and a new
definition of "export." The effect of the definitions contained
in the bill presents First Amendment questions. We suggest
that the signing statement contain a direction to those who
will administer the licensing system to develop regulations
to restrict the scope of the definitions to conform to consti-
tutional limitations.
7. We are concerned that section 105, amending § 5 of
the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2404, does not require that
Commerce officials consult with the Attorney General or
his designee prior to conducting investigations of foreign
countries' embassies believed to be attempting to obtain
strategic items on the open market. In the absence of such a
requirement, Commerce's activities under this section could
have a substantial adverse impact on ongoing Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) counterintelligence investigations.
Additionally, we note that the Act does not define the term
"affiliates" when used in discussing the activities of foreign
"embassies and affiliates of controlled countries."
8. Section 105(j), amending § 5 of the 1979 Act,
50 U.S.C. App. § 2404, by adding a new paragraph (n), provides
that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the
Commissioner of Customs and the Director of the FBI, shall
provide advice and technical assistance in developing security
systems to persons engaged in the manufacture or handling of
goods or technology subject to export controls under the
section. The security systems would be designed to prevent
violations or evasions of applicable export controls. We are
uncertain as to what the FBI's responsibilities would be
under this section.
9. Section 113, amending § 12(a) of the 1979 Act,
50 U.S.C. App. § 2411(a), would give the Secretary of Commerce
the authority to designate Commerce employees to perform
designated law enforcement activities such as execution of
warrants, arrests, searches and seizures, and carrying firearms.
We continue to believe that such authority is unnecessary for
Commerce to carry out its responsibilities under this bill.
Efforts by agencies other than the Department to gain jurisdiction
over criminal activities could tend to divert resources from
the Department, making a coordinated approach to resolving
criminal justice problems more difficult. We believe that
police powers should be given only to those personnel directly
and specifically involved in the enforcement of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, and then only after they have
received appropriate training.
-6-
10. Sections 105 (a) (1), amending $ 5 (a) (1) of the 1979
Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2404 (a) (1), and 117 (4), amending $ 16
of the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. § 2415, authorize export controls
on transfers of technology to embassies and subsidiaries of
foreign companies in the United States. This authority
implies that Commerce will investigate activities involving
these entities. Because the FBI has primary counterintelligence
responsibilites in this area, we have included language in
the proposed signing statement stating that Commerce investigations
involving these entities will be coordinated with the FBI.
11. Section (b) (2), amending § (c) (3) of the 1979 Act,
50 U.S.C. App. § 2411, would require all agencies to provide
Commerce with information relevant to enforcement of this
Act, "including information pertaining to any investigation."
The amendments would also require, in 113 (b) (4), the Attorney
General to consult on a continuing basis with the Secretary
of Commerce, Commissioner of Customs, and other department
and agency heads to facilitate the exchange of "licensing and
enforcement information." These changes are laudatory if
their intent is to encourage greater sharing of export control -
enforcement information between Customs and Commerce, with
the FBI sharing in their data. However, these provisions may
also be read to require the FBI to share sensitive investigative
materials with Commerce even when information relating to
export controls may only be a minor element in a counterintelligence
investigation of major national security importance.
Section 113 (a) (5), adding § (7) to § 12 (a) of the
1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2411 (a), authorizes the Secretary
of Commerce to publish procedures, with the concurrence of
the Secretary of Treasury, for sharing enforcement information.
We have included language in the proposed signing statement
noting the necessity of involving the Attorney General, not
only as a consultant on means to facilitate the exchange of
enforcement information under 113 (b) (4), but also in the
development of procedures under 113 (a) (5) in order to ensure
protection of important FBI interests.
The Department of Justice recommends Executive approval
of this bill.
Sincerely,
Pay
Phillip D. Brady
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Attachment
SIGNING STATEMENT
There are several provisions in S. 883 that will require
close coordination between the Department of Commerce and
other agencies. I expect the Department of Commerce to
consult regularly with the Attorney General and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation with regard to implementation of
sections 105(a)(1), 113, and 117(4), including coordination of
investigations and development of appropriate regulations.
Section 108(b) of the bill identifies factors that the
President should consider when deciding whether to impose
export controls for foreign policy reasons. It is my
understanding that the determination whether the criteria are
met in a particular case is committed to the President's
discretion and the factors listed are simply an expression
by Congress of the factors it deems important for the President -
to consider.
The bill also contains broad language empowering the
Department of Commerce to conduct certain searches and
seizures. It is my understanding that all enforcement
authority will be exercised in a manner consistent with the
Fourth Amendment.
Finally, section 117, amending § 16 of the 1979 Act,
50 U.S.C. App. § 2415, presents novel issues under the
First Amendment. Administration of the licensing system
and development of regulations under this section should
insure that the definitions conform to constitutional
limitations.
Mar. 30 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984
the creation of a scenic highway along the
my from the excessive drain of scarce mate-
routes described in that section.
rials and reduce the serious economic
The Secretary and the Governor recom-
impact of foreign demand, it is hereby or-
mend that no such scenic highway be estab-
dered as follows:
lished and, further, that the Congress move
Section 1. Notwithstanding the expiration
immediately to repeal the public lands
of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
withdrawal from mining and mineral leas-
amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.), the
ing imposed by section 1311. I concur in
provisions of that Act, the provisions for ad-
those recommendations.
ministration of that Act and the delegations
Sincerely,
of authority set forth in Executive Order
Ronald Reagan
No. 12002 of July 7, 1977 and Executive
Order No. 12214 of May 2, 1980, shall, to
Note: This is the text of identical letters
the extent permitted by law, be incorporat-
addressed to Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker
ed in this Order and shall continue in full
of the House of Representatives, and George
force and effect.
Bush, President of the Senate.
Sec. 2. All rules and regulations issued or
continued in effect by the Secretary of
Commerce under the authority of the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended, including those published in Title
Continuation of Export Control
15, Chapter III, Subchapter C, of the Code
Regulations
of Federal Regulations, Parts 368 to 399
inclusive, and all orders, regulations, li-
Executive Order 12470. March 30, 1984
censes and other forms of administrative
action issued, taken or continued in effect
By the authority vested in me as Presi-
pursuant thereto, shall, until amended or
dent by the Constitution and laws of the
revoked by the Secretary of Commerce,
United States of America, including section
remain in full force and effect, the same as
203 of the International Emergency Eco-
if issued or taken pursuant to this Order,
nomic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) (herein-
except that the provisions of sections
after referred to as "the Act"), and 22
203(b)(2) and 206 of the Act (50 U.S.C.
U.S.C. 287c,
1702(b)(2) and 1705) shall control over any
I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United
inconsistent provisions in the regulations
States of America, find that the unrestricted
with respect to, respectively, certain dona-
access of foreign parties to United States
tions to relieve human suffering and civil
commercial goods, technology, and techni-
and criminal penalties for violations subject
cal data and the existence of certain boycott
to this Order. Nothing in this section shall
practices of foreign nations constitute, in
affect the continued applicability of admin-
light of the expiration of the Export Admin-
istration Act of 1979, an unusual and ex-
istrative sanctions provided for by the regu-
lations described above.
traordinary threat to the national security,
foreign policy and economy of the United
Sec. 3. Provisions for the administration of
States and hereby declare a national eco-
section 38(e) of the Arms Export Control
nomic emergency to deal with that threat.
Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(e)) may be made and
Accordingly, in order (a) to exercise the
shall continue in full force and effect until
necessary vigilance over exports from the
amended or revoked under the authority of
standpoint of their significance to the na-
section 203 of the Act (50 U.S.C. 1702). To
tional security of the United States; (b) to
the extent permitted by law, this Order also
further significantly the foreign policy of
shall constitute authority for the issuance
the United States, including its policy with
and continuation in full force and effect of
respect to cooperation by United States per-
all rules and regulations by the President or
sons with certain foreign boycott activities,
his delegate, and all orders, licenses, and
and to fulfill its international responsibil-
other forms of administrative action issued,
ities; and (c) to protect the domestic econo-
taken or continued in effect pursuant there-
452
Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 / Mar. 30
to, relating to the administration of section
boycott requests. This would seriously harm
38(e).
our foreign policy interests, particularly in
Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective as of
the Middle East. Controls established in 15
midnight between March 30 and March 31,
C.F.R. 368-399, and continued by this
1984, and shall remain in effect until termi-
action, include the following:
nated. It is myaintention to terminate this
National security export controls
Order upon the enactment into law of a bill
aimed at restricting the export of goods
reauthorizing the authorities contained in
and technologies which would make a
the Export Administration Act. a
significant contribution to the military
Ronald Reagan
potential of any other country and
which would prove detrimental to the
The White House,
national security of the United States;
March 30, 1984.
Foreign policy controls which further
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Regis-
the foreign policy objectives of the
ter, 3:07 p.m., March 30, 1984]
United States or its declared interna-
tional obligations in such widely recog-
nized areas as human rights, anti-ter-
rorism, and regional stability;
Continuation of Export Control
Nuclear nonproliferation controls
Regulations
that are maintained for both national
security and foreign policy reasons, and
Message to the Congress. March 30, 1984
which support the objectives of the Nu-
clear Nonproliferation Act;
To the Congress of the United States:
Short supply controls that protect do-
Pursuant to section 204(b) of the Interna-
mestic supplies; and
tional Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50
Anti-boycott regulations that prohibit
U.S.C. 1703, I hereby report to the Con-
compliance with foreign boycotts
gress that I have today exercised the au-
aimed at countries friendly to the
thority granted by this Act to continue in
United States.
effect the system of controls contained in
3. Consequently, I have issued an Execu-
15 C.F.R. Parts 368-399, including restric-
tive Order (a copy of which is attached) to
tions on participation by United States per-
continue in effect all rules and regulations
sons in certain foreign boycott activities,
issued or continued in effect by the Secre-
which heretofore has been maintained
tary of Commerce under the authority of
under the authority of the Export Adminis-
the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
tration Act of 1979, as amended, 50 U.S.C.
amended, and all orders, regulations, li-
App. 2401 et seq. In addition, I have made
censes, and other forms of administrative
provision for the administration of Section
actions under that Act, except where they
38(e) of the Arms Export Control Act, 22
are inconsistent with sections 203(b) and
U.S.C. 2778(e).
206 of the International Emergency Eco-
1. The exercise of this authority is necessi-
nomic Powers Act.
tated by the expiration of the Export Ad-
4. The Congress and the Executive have
ministration Act on March 30, 1984, and
not permitted export controls to lapse since
the resulting lapse of the system of controls
they were enacted under the Export Con-
maintained under that Act.
trol Act of 1949. Any termination of con-
2. In the absence of controls, foreign par-
trols could permit transactions to occur that
ties would have unrestricted access to
would be seriously detrimental to the na-
United States commercial products, technol-
tional interests we have heretofore sought
ogy and technical data, posing an unusual
to protect through export controls and re-
and extraordinary threat to national secu-
strictions on compliance by United States
rity, foreign policy, and economic objectives
persons with certain foreign boycotts. I be-
critical to the United States. In addition,
lieve that even a temporary lapse in this
United States persons would not be prohib-
system of controls would seriously damage
ited from complying with certain foreign
our national security, foreign policy and
453
Mar. 30 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984
economic interests and undermine our
committees for consideration, and enacted.
credibility in meeting our international obli-
I also request that the Congress note the
gations.
agreements subsidiary to the Compact. Also
5. The countries affected by this action
enclosed is a section-by-section analysis to
vary depending on the objectives sought to
facilitate your consideration of the Com-
be achieved by the system of controls insti-
pact.
tuted under the Export Administration Act.
The defense and land use provisions of
Potential adversaries are seeking to acquire
the Compact extend indefinitely the right
sensitive United States goods and technol-
of the United States to foreclose access to
ogies. Other countries serve as conduits for
the area to third countries for military pur-
the diversion of such items. Still other coun-
poses. These provisions are of great impor-
tries have policies that are contrary to
tance to our strategic position in the Pacific
United States foreign policy or nuclear non-
proliferation objectives, or foster boycotts
and enable us to continue preserving re-
against friendly countries. For some goods
gional security and peace.
or technologies, controls could apply even
Since 1947, the islands of Micronesia have
to our closest allies in order to safeguard
been administered by the United Statés
against diversion to potential adversaries.
under a Trusteeship Agreement with the
6. It is my intention to terminate the Ex-
United Nations Security Council. This Com-
ecutive Order upon enactment into law of a
pact of Free Association with the govern-
bill reauthorizing the authorities contained
ments of the Federated States of Micronesia
in the Export Administration Act.
and the Republic of the Marshall Islands
would fulfill our commitment under that
Ronald Reagan
agreement to bring about self-government.
The White House,
Upon termination of the Trusteeship Agree-
March 30, 1984.
ment, another political jurisdiction of the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the
Northern Mariana Islands, will become a
commonwealth of the United States.
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
The Compact of Free Association was
signed for the United States by Ambassador
Message to the Congress Transmitting
Fred M. Zeder, II, on October 1, 1982, with
the Federated States of Micronesia, and on
Proposed Legislation To Approve a
Compact of Free Association.
June 25, 1983, with the Republic of the
March 30, 1984
Marshall Islands. It is the result of negotia-
tions between the United States and broad-
To the Congress of the United States:
ly representative groups of delegates from
There is enclosed a draft of a Joint Reso-
the prospective freely associated states.
lution to approve the "Compact of Free As-
In 1983, United Nations-observed plebi-
sociation," the negotiated instrument set-
scites produced high voter participation,
ting forth the future political relationship
and the Compact was approved by impres-
between the United States and two political
sive majorities. In addition to approval in
jurisdictions of the Trust Territory of the
the plebiscites, the Compact has been ap-
Pacific Islands.
proved by the governments of the Republic
The Compact of Free Association is the
of the Marshall Islands and the Federated
result of more than fourteen years of con-
States of Micronesia in accordance with
tinuous and comprehensive negotiations,
their constitutional processes.
spanning the administrations of four Presi-
Enactment of the draft Joint Resolution
dents. The transmission of the proposed
approving the Compact of Free Association
Joint Resolution to you today marks the last
would be a major step leading to the termi-
step in the Compact approval process.
nation of the Trusteeship Agreement with
The full text of the Compact is part of the
the United Nations Security Council, which
draft Joint Resolution, which I request be
the United States entered into by Joint Res-
introduced, referred to the appropriate
olution on July 18, 1947. Therefore, I urge
454
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 27, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS JSR
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Notice Regarding Continuing Export Controls
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
Notice, and has no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
ID # 27125755
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o - OUTGOING
H # INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Dave chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: notice M cantinuing Expart controls
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CIRHOLL
ORIGINATOR
85,03,27
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
R
85,03,27
S 85,03,27
4pm
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A. Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
-
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central FReference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No. 271257ss
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 3/27/85
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
4:00 P.M. TODAY
SUBJECT: NOTICE RE CONTINUING EXPORT CONTROLS
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
McMANUS
REGAN
MURPHY
DEAVER
OGLESBY
STOCKMAN
ROLLINS
BUCHANAN
SPEAKES
CHEW
P
SS SVAHN
FIELDING
TUTTLE
FRIEDERSDORF
VERSTANDIG
FULLER
WHITTLESEY
HICKEY
CLERK
-
HICKS
KINGON
McFARLANE
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/recommendations on the attached by 4:00 p.m.
today, March 27th. Thank you.
(Note: The attached notice is an advance copy. Justice will be clearing
this afternoon. This notice must be published in the Federal Register
tomorrow.)
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
1885 HAR 27 FII 12:
Ext. 2702
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
EXECUTIVE
BAS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
ReceivedSS
March 27, 1985
ITS MAR 27 PM 04
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
DAVID A. STOCKMAN AS
SUBJECT:
NOTICE CONTINUING EXPORT CONTROLS
SUMMARY: Enclosed for your consideration is a Notice, along with
the required transmittal letters to the Congress, continuing the
national emergency declared on March 30, 1984, in order to
continue in effect the current system of export controls.
BACKGROUND: The Export Administration Act of 1979 (Act)
authorizes regulation of the export of goods and technical data
and of conduct by U.S. persons related to certain boycott
practices of foreign nations. Authority under the Act lapsed on
March 30, 1984, at which time the President issued Executive
Order No. 12470, declaring a National Emergency and, pursuant to
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ordering
the system of export controls continued. This emergency will now
terminate on March 30, 1985, pursuant to Section 202(d) of the
National Emergencies Act, unless the President continues the
emergency in effect. If the President continues the emergency,
he must also publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the
Congress a Notice stating that the emergency is to continue.
Although Congress has been considering a renewal of the Act, it
appears that action will not be completed by March 30, 1985. If
the emergency were to lapse, exports of commercial goods and
technical data could occur without restriction, thereby posing
serious detrimental effects to our national security, foreign
policy, and the domestic economy. Additionally, compliance with
foreign boycott practices would no longer be prohibited by
legislation specifically directed at such conduct.
The attached documents, which were prepared by the Department of
Commerce, would continue the emergency in effect. They should be
signed no later than March 28, 1985, so that the Notice of
Emergency Extension can be published in the Federal Register by
March 29, 1985, prior to the expiration of the current authority.
Due to time constraints, the Notice and letters were not
submitted for review by the affected agencies.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that you sign the attached letters
to Congress transmitting the Notice of Emergency Extension and
submit the Notice of Extension of the national emergency beyond
March 30, 1985, to the Federal Register.
Attachment
White House
Dear Mr. President,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq. ) Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable George Bush
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
White House
Dear Mr. Speaker,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.). Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Notice of March , 1985
Continuation of Emergency Declared in
Executive Order No. 12470 Regarding
Export Control Regulations
On March 30, 1984, by Executive Order No. 12470, I declared a
national emergency to deal with an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of
the United States in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979. Because the Export Administration Act
has not been replaced by the Congress, the national emergency
declared on March 30, 1984, must continue in effect beyond March
30, 1985. Therefore, in accordance with Section 202(d) of the
National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1622(d)], I am continuing the
national emergency in order to deal with the threat posed by the
unrestricted access of foreign parties to United States commercial
goods, technology and technical data and by certain boycott
practices of foreign nations.
RONALD REAGAN
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March , 1985.
White House
Dear Mr. President,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.). Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable George Bush
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
White House
Dear Mr. Speaker,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq. ) Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
EXECUTIVE
HAVE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
March 27, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
DAVID A. STOCKMAN
GAS
SUBJECT:
NOTICE CONTINUING EXPORT CONTROLS
SUMMARY: Enclosed for your consideration is a Notice, along with
the required transmittal letters to the Congress, continuing the
national emergency declared on March 30, 1984, in order to
continue in effect the current system of export controls.
BACKGROUND: The Export Administration Act of 1979 (Act)
authorizes regulation of the export of goods and technical data
and of conduct by U.S. persons related to certain boycott
practices of foreign nations. Authority under the Act lapsed on
March 30, 1984, at which time the President issued Executive
Order No. 12470, declaring a National Emergency and, pursuant to
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ordering
the system of export controls continued. This emergency will now
terminate on March 30, 1985, pursuant to Section 202(d) of the
National Emergencies Act, unless the President continues the
emergency in effect. If the President continues the emergency,
he must also publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the
Congress a Notice stating that the emergency is to continue.
Although Congress has been considering a renewal of the Act, it
appears that action will not be completed by March 30, 1985. If
the emergency were to lapse, exports of commercial goods and
technical data could occur without restriction, thereby posing
serious detrimental effects to our national security, foreign
policy, and the domestic economy. Additionally, compliance with
foreign boycott practices would no longer be prohibited by
legislation specifically directed at such conduct.
The attached documents, which were prepared by the Department of
Commerce, would continue the emergency in effect. They should be
signed no later than March 28, 1985, so that the Notice of
Emergency Extension can be published in the Federal Register by
March 29, 1985, prior to the expiration of the current authority.
Due to time constraints, the Notice and letters were not
submitted for review by the affected agencies.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that you sign the attached letters
to Congress transmitting the Notice of Emergency Extension and
submit the Notice of Extension of the national emergency beyond
March 30, 1985, to the Federal Register.
Attachment
White House
Dear Mr. President,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.). Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable George Bush
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
White House
Dear Mr. Speaker,
On March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470
declaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.). Under Section 202 (d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon
the anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal
Register and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.
I am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the
emergency concerning the continuation in effect of export
regulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Notice of March , 1985
Continuation of Emergency Declared in
Executive Order No. 12470 Regarding
Export Control Regulations
On March 30, 1984, by Executive Order No. 12470, I declared a
national emergency to deal with an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of
the United States in light of the expiration of the Export
Administration Act of 1979. Because the Export Administration Act
has not been replaced by the Congress, the national emergency
declared on March 30, 1984, must continue in effect beyond March
30, 1985. Therefore, in accordance with Section 202(d) of the
National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1622(d)], I am continuing the
national emergency in order to deal with the threat posed by the
unrestricted access of foreign parties to United States commercial
goods, technology and technical data and by certain boycott
practices of foreign nations.
RONALD REAGAN
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March , 1985.
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
March 27, 1985
Honorable Edwin Meese, III
United States Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
Enclosed for your consideration is a Notice, along with the
required transmittal letters to the Congress, continuing the
national emergency declared on March 30, 1984, in order to
continue in effect the current system of export controls.
The Export Administration Act of 1979 (Act) authorizes regulation
of the export of goods and technical data and of conduct by U.S.
persons related to certain boycott practices of foreign nations.
Authority under the Act lapsed on March 30, 1984, at which time
the President issued Executive Order No. 12470, declaring a
National Emergency and, pursuant to the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ordering the system of export
controls continued. This emergency will now terminate on
March 30, 1985, pursuant to Section 202(d) of the National
Emergencies Act, unless the President continues the emergency in
effect. If the President continues the emergency, he must also
publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a
Notice stating that the emergency is to continue.
Although Congress has been considering a renewal of the Act, it
appears that action will not be completed by March 30, 1985. If
the emergency were to lapse, exports of commercial goods and
technical data could occur without restriction, thereby posing
serious detrimental effects to our national security, foreign
policy, and the domestic economy. Additionally, compliance with
foreign boycott practices would no longer be prohibited by
legislation specifically directed at such conduct.
The attached documents, which were prepared by the Department of
Commerce, would continue the emergency in effect. They should be
signed no later than March 28, 1985, so that the Notice of
Emergency Extension can be published in the Federal Register by
March 29, 1985, prior to the expiration of the current authority.
Your staff may direct any questions concerning this proposed
Notice to Mr. Charles Kolb of this office (395-5600).
This proposed Notice has the approval of the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Horowitz
Counsel to the Director
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 887ab6c2ac0f0502
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 118568404
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "118568404",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568404",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "JGR/Export Administration (5 of 6)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568404",
"identifierLocal": "485",
"collections": [
"Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
"John Roberts' Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-024-023-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-024-023-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-024-023-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "118568404",
"label": "JGR/Export Administration (5 of 6)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568404"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "118568404",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568404",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "JGR/Export Administration (5 of 6)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568404",
"identifierLocal": "485",
"collections": [
"Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
"John Roberts' Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-024-023-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-024-023-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-024-023-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568404",
"naId": 118568404,
"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/6908381/40-485-6908381-024-023-2017.pdf",
"mediaId": "887ab6c2ac0f0502",
"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: JGR/Export Administration\n(5 of 6)\nBox: 24\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/\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFor Immediate Release\nMarch 19, 1984\nTO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:\nThis report is submitted pursuant to section 204 of the\nInternational Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1703)\nand section 401 (c) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.\n1641 (c)) to account for government expenditures attributable\nto the national economic emergency that I declared following\nthe lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended\n(50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.) (EAA) on October 14, 1983. On\nthat date, I issued Executive Order No. 12444 to continue in\neffect the system of controls that had been established under\nthe EAA. In view of the extension by Public Law 98-207\n(December 5, 1983) of the authorities contained in the EAA,\nthis emergency authority was no longer needed, and on\nDecember 20, 1983, I issued Executive Order No. 12451, a copy\nof which is attached, rescinding the declaration of economic\nemergency and revoking Executive Order No. 12444.\nThe EAA export controls were not expanded during the\nemergency period, and the administration of the system of\ncontrols continued in the normal course. Accordingly, the\ngovernment spent no funds over and above what would have been\nspent had the EAA remained in force without interruption.\nRONALD REAGAN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nMarch 19, 1984.\n#\n#\n#\n#\n#\nVGK\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 30, 1984\nFOR:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nPETER J. RUSTHOVEN 646\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Executive Order Entitled\nContinuation of Export Control Regulations\nRichard Darman's office asked for comments by 10:00 a.m. today\non the above-referenced proposed Executive Order, which would\ndeclare a national economic emergency for the purpose of\ncontinuing in effect the system of export controls established\npursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979.\nThe Executive Order would be issued if, as is now anticipated,\nthe Congress fails to extend the Act before midnight tonight,\nat which time the most recent temporary extension will expire.\nAlthough the Department of Justice has not formally approved\nthe proposed Order and the accompanying draft message to the\nCongress, these documents are substantively identical to those\nsigned when Congress allowed the Act to lapse last October,\nwhich our office reviewed and approved.\nThe legal and other issues presented now are identical to\nthose involved at that time. Aside from recommending that the\nmessage to the Congress be modified slightly simply to reflect\nthat a copy of the Executive Order is being forwarded with\nthat message, I see no legal or other problem requiring\ncomment by our office.\nA memorandum for Darman is attached for your review and\nsignature.\nAttachment\nCC: Richard A. Hauser\nJohn G. Roberts, Jr.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 30, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND\nDEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Executive Order Entitled\nContinuation of Export Control Regulations\nOur office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed Executive\nOrder and the accompanying message to the Congress. Subject\nto formal approval by the Department of Justice -- which, as\nthese documents are substantively identical to those signed in\nparallel circumstances last October, should be forthcoming --\nwe have no legal or other substantive objection to either the\nproposed Order or the draft message.\nI would recommend, however, that numbered paragraph 3 of the\nmessage be modified slightly simply to reference the fact that\na copy of the Executive Order is being forwarded to the\nCongress with the message.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 30, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND\nDEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING Orig- signed by FFF\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Executive Order Entitled\nContinuation of Export Control Regulations\nOur office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed Executive\nOrder and the accompanying message to the Congress. Subject\nto formal approval by the Department of Justice -- which, as\nthese documents are substantively identical to those signed in\nparallel circumstances last October, should be forthcoming --\nwe have no legal or other substantive objection to either the\nproposed Order or the draft message.\nI would recommend, however, that numbered paragraph 3 of the\nmessage be modified slightly simply to reference the fact that\na copy of the Executive Order is being forwarded to the\nCongress with the message.\nFFF: PJR:pr 3/30/84\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nRAHauser\nSubject\nPJRusthoven\nChron.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 18, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS JJC\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nReport to the Congress Regarding\nIran Emergency\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced report to\nCongress, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.\nID #. 27139355 CU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no . OUTGOING\nH . INTERNAL\nI a INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent: Dave Chew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Repart to the Cangress re: Iran\nEmergency\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency (Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode YY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR 85,04,17\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 18\nR 85,04,17\n5 85,04,19\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA . Appropriate Action\nI into Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\n271393ss\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE:\n4/17/85\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:\nFriday, April 19\nSUBJECT:\nREPORT TO THE CONGRESS RE IRAN EMERGENCY\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nOGLESBY\nREGAN\nROLLINS\nDEAVER\nSPEAKES\nSTOCKMAN\nSVAHN\nBUCHANAN\nTUTTLE\nCHEW\nP\n55\nVERSTANDIG\nFIELDING\nWHITTLESEY\nFRIEDERSDORF\nRYAN\nHICKEY\nDANIELS\nHICKS\nKINGON\nMcFARLANE\nREMARKS:\nPlease provide any comments/recommendations by Friday, April 19th.\nThank you.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\n1985 APR 17 PII 4: 26\nExt. 2702\nOF\nTHE\nReceived SS\nTHE SECRETARY OF, THE TREASURY\nTHE REASURE\nWASHINGTON 20220\nHES APR 17 AM 11/0:27 10:\n1789\nAR 17 2 03\nApril 16, 1985\nDear Mr. President:\nUnder Section 204(c) of the International Emergency\nEconomic Powers Act, the President is required to submit\na report to the Congress concerning the Iran emergency\nonce every six months. A proposed report, which summa-\nrizes developments concerning the Iran emergency during\nthe past six months, is enclosed at Tab A. Your last\nreport to Congress, dated October 31, 1984, is enclosed\nfor your reference at Tab B.\nI recommend that you forward the proposed report to\nCongress by May 14, 1985, the end of the current six-month\nperiod.\nSincerely,\nJanus James A. Baker, III III\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nEnclosures\nTO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:\nPursuant to Section 204(c) of the International Emergency\nEconomic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. Section 1703 (c), I\nhereby report to the Congress on developments since my last\nreport of October 31, 1984, concerning the national emergency\nwith respect to Iran that was declared in Executive Order\nNo. 12170 of November 14, 1979.\n1. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, established\nat The Hague pursuant to the Claims Settlement Agreement of\nJanuary 19, 1981 (the \"Algiers Accords\"), continues to make\nprogress in arbitrating the claims before it. Since my last\nreport, the Tribunal has rendered 18 more decisions for a\ntotal of 169 final decisions. Of these, 125 have been awards\nin favor of American claimants; 89 were awards on agreed\nterms, authorizing and approving payment of settlements\nnegotiated by the parties; and 36 were adjudicated decisions.\nAs of March 31, 1984, total payments to successful American\nclaimants from the Security Account stood at over\n$337 million. Of the remaining 44 decisions, 22 dismissed\nclaims for lack of jurisdiction, 3 partially dismissed claims\nfor lack of jurisdiction, 13 dismissed claims on the merits,\none approved the withdrawal of a claim, four were awards in\nfavor of the Government of Iran, and one was an award in favor\nof the United States Government.\n2. In the past six months, there have been significant\nchanges in the composition of the Tribunal. As I noted in my\nlast report, Professor Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the Federal\nRepublic of Germany was selected to replace President Gunnar\nLagergren, who resigned effective October 1, 1984. On\nDecember 1, 1984, Professor Bockstiegel was designated\nPresident of the Tribunal, in addition to his duties as\nChairman of Chamber One. On November 29, 1984, the Government\nof Iran appointed two new arbitrators to replace Judges\nMahmoud M. Kashani and Shafei Shafeiei, whose qualifications\n2\nhad been challenged by the United States following their\nunprecedented attack on one of the third-party arbitrators,\nJudge Mangard, in September 1984. The two new Iranian\narbitrators, Hamid Bahrami Ahmadi and Seyed Mohsen Mostafavi\nTafreshi, assumed their duties on January 15, 1985. In\naddition, the Chairman of Chamber Two, Willem Riphagen,\nsubmitted his resignation for health reasons, effective\nApril 1, 1985, and the Chairman of Chamber Three, Nils\nMangard, has submitted his resignation for personal reasons,\neffective no later than July 1, 1985. Swiss lawyer Robert\nBriner and French law professor Michel Virally have recently\naccepted invitations from the U.S. and Iranian arbitrators to\njoin the Tribunal in place of Chairmen Riphagen and Mangard.\n3. In spite of the disruptions that I described in my\nlast report, the Tribunal made some progress in arbitrating\nthe claims of U.S. nationals for $250,000 or more. The\nSpecial Chamber, which was established to consider requests\nfor withdrawals or terminations of claims and for awards on\nagreed terms, rendered 13 awards on agreed terms prior to its\ndissolution on January 15, 1985. With the arrival of the two\nnew Iranian arbitrators, the Chambers have once again begun\nhearing and deciding cases. On March 1, the Tribunal\nawarded R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. an additional $12 million\nin interest on its claim, the decision in which was described\nin my last report. In total, more than 35 percent of the\nclaims for over $250,000 have now been disposed of through\nadjudication, settlement, or voluntary withdrawal, leaving 344\nsuch claims on the docket.\n4. The Tribunal has continued with the arbitration of\nthe claims of U.S. nationals against Iran of less than\n$250,000 each. In addition to 18 test cases, the Tribunal has\nselected 100 other claims for active arbitration. In 62 of\nthese claims, the Department of State has submitted Supple-\nmental Statements of Claim, containing more than 16,000 pages\n3\nof text and evidence. Additional pleadings are being filed\nweekly. Although Iran repeatedly seeks extensions of time\nwithin which to file its responsive pleadings to these claims,\nthe Tribunal has continued to press for their resolution. At\nthe Tribunal, three senior legal officers and a law clerk work\nexclusively on these claims. Finally, since my last report,\nanother seven of these claimants have received awards on\nagreed terms, bringing the total to ten.\n5. The Department of State continues to coordinate the\nefforts of concerned governmental agencies in presenting U.S.\nclaims against Iran as well as responses by the U.S.\nGovernment to claims brought against it by Iran. Since my\nlast report, the Department has filed pleadings in seven\ngovernment-to-government claims based on contracts for the\nprovision of goods and services. These claims include a claim\non behalf of the Agency for International Development for over\n$38 million based on outstanding developmental loans to the\nGovernment of Iran. In addition, the Department of State,\nworking together with the Department of the Treasury and the\nDepartment of Justice, filed responsive pleadings in two major\ninterpretive disputes. One related to Iran's claim to over\n$400 million remaining from funds transferred pursuant to the\nAlgiers Accords for payment of Iran's syndicated debt. The\nother was in response to Iran's allegations that the United\nStates breached its obligation under the Algiers Accords to\nterminate litigation against Iran. The Department of State\nalso filed pleadings in four other interpretive disputes. The\nTribunal held one hearing in an interpretive dispute on\nwhether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to arbitrate approxi-\nmately 111 claims brought by Iran directly against U.S. banks\nwhich do not involve standby letters of credit. Finally, two\nof the Tribunal's chambers have confirmed that action will be\ntaken on or about May 20 to strike or otherwise dispose of 248\nclaims brought by Iran against U.S. banks based on standby\nletters of credit.\n4\n6. The Algiers Accords also provided for direct\nnegotiations between U.S. banks and Bank Markazi Iran\nconcerning the payment of nonsyndicated debt claims of U.S.\nbanks against Iran from Dollar Account No. 2 (the interest-\nbearing escrow account established at the Bank of England in\nJanuary 1981 with the deposit of $1.418 billion of previously\nblocked Iranian funds). As of April 10, 1985, three\nadditional settlements had been reached since my last report\nbetween Iran and U.S. banks. The three settling banks, Irving\nTrust Company, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, and Banker's\nTrust Company, received a total of $81.91 million from Dollar\nAccount No. 2 in payment of their claims against Iran. From\nthis amount, $73.595 million was subsequently paid by these\nbanks to Iran in settlement of Iran's claims against them,\nprimarily for interest on Iran's domestic deposits with these\nbanks. (One of these banks paid Iran an additional $8.45\nmillion from other funds.) Thus, as of April 10, 1985, there\nhave been 29 bank settlements resulting in payments to the\nsettling banks of approximately $1.5 billion from Dollar\nAccount No. 2. From that amount, the banks have paid\napproximately $693 million to Iran in settlement of Iran's\nclaims against them. About 17 banks have yet to settle their\nclaims. In addition, attorneys from the Department of the\nTreasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have been\nnegotiating an \"Agreed Clarification\" with Bank Markazi to\nallow the payment from Dollar Account No. 2 of certain amounts\nstill owing on Iran's syndicated debt.\n7. There have been no changes in the Iranian Assets\nControl Regulations since my last report.\n8. Although the attack on Judge Mangard in September\nseriously disrupted and delayed proceedings for three months,\nthe Tribunal resumed full operation in January of this year\nand the two Iranian arbitrators who committed the attack were\n5\nremoved by the Government of Iran. Since that time, the\nTribunal has actively pursued the arbitration of both private\nand government claims. Prehearing conferences and hearings\nthat had been cancelled are being rescheduled. The Tribunal\nhas made provision for the issuance of awards in cases heard\nprior to the removal of the two Iranian arbitrators and the\nresignations of President Lagergren and Chairmen Riphagen and\nMangard. This resumption of Tribunal activities provides\nreason to expect that more progress will be made in the coming\nmonths.\n9. Financial and diplomatic aspects of the relationship\nwith Iran continue to present an unusual challenge to the\nnational security and foreign policy of the United States. I\nshall continue to exercise the powers at my disposal to deal\nwith these problems and will continue to report periodically\nto the Congress on significant developments.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nAdministration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 / Oct. 31\nary 19, 1981, continues to make 'some\nprogress in arbitrating the 3,848 claims\nwhich have been filed before it. In total,\n330 claims have been resolved through\naward or withdrawal. Since my last report,\nthe Tribunal has rendered 33 more deci-\nsions, for a total of 151 final decisions. Of\nthese decisions, 111 have resulted in awards\nin favor of American claimants, of which 76\nwere awards on agreed terms, authorizing\nand approving payment of settlements ne-\ngotiated by the parties, and 35 were adjudi-\ncated. Total payments to successful Ameri-\ncan claimants from the Security Account\nstood at just over $306 million as of Sep-\ntember 30, 1984. Of the remaining 40 deci-\nsions, 19 dismissed claims for lack of juris-\ndiction, three partially dismissed claims for\nlack of jurisdiction, 13 dismissed claims on\nthe merits, one approved withdrawal of a\nclaim, three were awards in favor of the\nGovernment of Iran, and one was an award\nin favor of the United States Government.\n2. In the past six months, the Tribunal has\ncontinued to make progress in arbitrating\nthe claims of U.S. nationals for $250,000 or\nmore. More than 33 percent of these claims\nhave been disposed of through adjudication,\nsettlement, or voluntary withdrawal, leav-\ning 362 such claims on the docket. On\nAugust 6, 1984, the Tribunal rendered its\nlargest non-bank award, almost $50 million,\nin favor of the R.J. Reynolds Co. In a signifi-\ncant development, Iran agreed to withdraw\nall of the cases that it had filed in the Dutch\ncourts seeking to set aside certain Tribunal\nNational Emergency With Respect to\nawards in favor of U.S. claimants. It also\nIran\nagreed to stay proceedings in Iranian courts\nagainst two U.S. claimants, as requested by\nLetter to the Speaker of the House and the\nthe Tribunal, but has not yet complied with\nPresident of the Senate. October 31, 1984\nsimilar Tribunal requests in other cases.\n3. The Tribunal has proceeded with its\nDear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)\npreviously adopted test-case approach for\nPursuant to Section 204(c) of the Interna-\narbitrating the claims of U.S. nationals\ntional Emergency Economic Powers Act\nagainst Iran for less than $250,000. The De-\n(IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. Section 1703(c), I hereby\npartment of State has submitted Supple-\nreport to the Congress with respect to de-\nmental Statements of Claim in 33 of these\nvelopments since my last report of May 3,\nclaims (including 14 of the 18 test cases\n1984, concerning the national emergency\nselected by the Tribunal), and has filed\nwith respect to Iran declared in Executive\nmajor factual and legal memoranda in sup-\nOrder No. 12170 of November 14, 1979.\nport of those claims. Supplemental State-\n1. The Iran-United States Claims Tribu-\nments of Claim are being prepared for 91\nnal, established at The Hague pursuant to\nadditional claims. While Iran continues to\nthe Claims Settlement Agreement of Janu-\nresist efforts to resolve these claims expedi-\n1711\nOct. 31 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984\ntiously, we are pressing for early Tribunal\n1984, President Lagergren appointed Pro-\naction. A third senior legal officer has re-\nfessor Bockstiegel as \"acting President\"\ncently been hired by the Tribunal to work\npending a determination by the Tribunal\nexclusively on these claims. Finally, the Tri-\n(or, if necessary, the Appointing Authority)\nbunal recently issued three awards on\non whether he will serve as President. Pro-\nagreed terms, reflecting settlements be-\nfessor Bockstiegel held the Chair of Interna-\ntween U.S. claimants and Iran of these\ntional Business Law and served as director\nclaims.\nof the Institute of Air and Space Law at\n4. The Department of State continues to\nCologne University.\ncoordinate the efforts of concerned govern-\n6. The January 19, 1981, agreements with\nmental agencies in presenting U.S. claims\nIran also provided for direct negotiations\nagainst Iran as well as U.S. responses to\nbetween U.S. banks and Bank Markazi Iran\nclaims brought by Iran. Since my last\nconcerning the payment of nonsyndicated\nreport, the Tribunal has resolved three gov-\ndebt claims of U.S. banks against Iran from\nernment-to-government claims based on\nthe $1.418 billion escrow account presently\ncontracts for the provision of goods and\nheld by the Bank of England. Since my last\nservices. In one case, the United States re-\nreport, only one additional settlement has\nceived an award for costs incurred in pro-\nbeen reached. Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh\nviding instruction to Iranian students at the\nreceived $12.4 million in settlement of its\nUnited States Coast Guard Academy. Of the\nclaim, of which $2.8 million was subse-\nother two claims (both brought by Iran),\nquently paid to Iran, primarily for interest\none (against the National Aeronautics and\non Iran's domestic deposits with the bank.\nSpace Administration) was dismissed on the\nThus, as of September 30, 1984, there have\nmerits, and the other (against the Atomic\nbeen 26 bank settlements, totaling approxi-\nEnergy Commission) resulted in an award\nmately $1.4 billion. Iran has received $619\nto Iran. As in the past, these awards were\nmillion in settlement of its claims against\nrendered solely on the pleadings. The Tri-\nthe banks. About 20 bank claims remain\nbunal has in addition set filing dates for\npleadings in 10 government-to-government\noutstanding.\nclaims through the end of 1984. Although\n7. On May 21, 1984, the Department of\ntwo hearings were scheduled in cases con-\nthe Treasury amended Section 535.215 of\ncerning the interpretation and implementa-\nthe Iranian Assets Control Regulations to\ntion of the Algiers Accords, the Tribunal has\nprohibit any transfer, except under license\npostponed these hearings indefinitely. The\nfrom the Office of Foreign Assets Control,\nUnited States, however, is fully prepared to\nof blocked tangible property in which, Iran\nproceed with these hearings and is also pre-\nhas any interest whatsoever, the export of\nparing rejoinders for submission to the Tri-\nwhich requires the issuance of any specific\nbunal in two other cases.\nlicense under U.S. law. This amendment\n5. In the last six months, there has also\nwas promulgated in order to help assure\nbeen a change in the composition of the\ncompliance with the export restrictions of\nTribunal. On April 27, 1984, Gunnar Lager-\nU.S. law, particularly those with respect to\ngren, the President of the Tribunal and\nproperties having potential military applica-\nChairman of Chamber One, resigned effec-\ntion.\ntive October 1, 1984. Despite several\n8. Significant developments have oc-\nrounds of discussion, the six party-appointed\ncurred at the Tribunal since my last report.\narbitrators were unable to agree on a suc-\nOn September 3, 1984, two Iranian arbitra-\ncessor. Accordingly, pursuant to the Tribu-\ntors, Mahmoud M. Kashani and Shafei Sha-\nnal's Rules of Procedure, the United States\nfeiei, assaulted Judge Nils Mangard, a third-\nrequested the independent Appointing Au-\ncountry arbitrator, in an attempt to exclude\nthority, M.J.A. Moons, the Chief Judge of\nhim from the Tribunal. This unprovoked\nthe Netherlands Supreme Court, to desig-\nand unprecedented attack resulted in an in-\nnate a successor. On September 1, 1984,\ndefinite suspension of Tribunal proceedings\nJudge Moons appointed Karl-Heinz Bock-\nfrom September 5. In response to the\nstiegel, a West German national, as a\nattack, the United States filed a formal chal-\nmember of the Tribunal. On September 25,\nlenge seeking the removal of the two Irani-\n1712\nAdministration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 / Nov. /\nan arbitrators in the event that the Govern-\nment of Iran does not voluntarily remove\nthem. A special chamber has been estab-\nlished to consider requests for withdrawals\nor terminations of claims and for awards on\nagreed terms until regular proceedings are\nreestablished.\n9. Although the Tribunal made some\nprogress in arbitrating the claims before it\nin the first few months of this reporting\nperiod, the attack on Judge Mangard in\nSeptember has seriously disrupted and de-\nlayed proceedings. Significant American in-\nterests remain unresolved. Prehearing con-\nferences and hearings scheduled for Sep-\ntember and October have been postponed\nindefinitely. However, should the status of\nthe two Iranian arbitrators who perpetrated\nthe attack be resolved expeditiously, we be-\nlieve that the Tribunal will be restored to\nits full functioning.\n10. Financial and diplomatic aspects of\nthe relationship with Iran continue to\npresent an unusual challenge to the nation-\nal security and foreign policy of the United\nStates. I shall continue to exercise the\npowers at my disposal to deal with these\nproblems and will continue to report peri-\nodically to the Congress on significant de-\nvelopments.\nSincerely,\nRonald Reagan\nNote: This is the text of identical letters\naddressed to Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker\nof the House of Representatives, and George\nBush, President of the Senate.\n1713\nU.S. Department of Justice\nOffice of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs\nOffice of the Assistant Attorney General\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nHonorable David A. Stockman\nJUL 3 1985\nDirector\nOffice of Management and Budget\nWashington, D.C. 20503\nDear Mr. Stockman:\nIn compliance with your request, we have examined a\ncopy of the conference report on S. 883, the Export\nAdministration Amendments Act of 1985, a bill to extend the\nExport Administration Act of 1979 (1979 Act). 131 Cong.\nRec. H 4905 (June 25, 1985). The Department of Justice\n(Department) recommends Executive approval of this bill. We\nI\ndo, however, have the following comments, some of which are\nincluded in a proposed signing statement (attached).\n1. Two subsections of the bill, § 107 (c) and § 107 (h),\nto amend §§ 5(f)(4) and 5(h)(6), respectively, of the 1979\nAct, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2404(f)(4) and (h) (6), purport to\nrequire the President, at the time that export controls\nare imposed for national security reasons or maintained, or\nif thereafter a good or technology becomes available from a\nforeign source, actively to pursue negotiations with the\ngovernments of foreign countries to eliminate the foreign\navailability such goods or technology. The purpose and the\neffect of these provisions is somewhat unclear. These provisions\nare not necessary to authorize the President to negotiate\nwith foreign governments, nor could the President be directed\nto negotiate if he chose not to. We would therefore read\nthese provisions as an expression of congressional desire\nthat the President seek to eliminate foreign availability of\ngoods or technology controlled for national security reasons.\nCongress can constitutionally condition the authority to\nimpose or maintain export controls on the elimination of\nforeign availability, as both the cited subsections do. But\nit remains in the President's discretion whether to seek to\neliminate the foreign availability through negotiation with\nforeign governments. We call this qualification to your\nattention now because it may be important in the future to\nthose administering these export control provisions.\n2. Section 108 (a) (3), amending § 6(a) of the 1979 Act,\n50 U.S.C. App. § 2405 (a), adds a provision that any export\ncontrol imposed for foreign policy reasons shall apply to\ntransactions or activities undertaken with the intent to\nevade that control, even if the export control would not\notherwise apply to that transaction or activity. The meaning\nand scope of application of this provision are unclear, and,\nin certain circumstances, could raise due process problems.\nAlthough we do not believe that comment on this provision\nwould be necessary in the signing statement, we note the\nproblem here for future reference in the administration\nof the bill.\n3. Section 108(b) of the bill would amend § 6(b) of the\n1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2905 (b), to identify the criteria\nfor the future imposition of export controls for foreign\npolicy reasons. The bill provides that the President may\nimpose foreign policy controls only if he makes certain\ndeterminations relating to the likely effects of such controls.\nIn brief, the President must determine (1) that the purpose\nof such controls can be achieved, (2) that the controls are\ncompatible with other foreign policy objectives, (3) that the\nreaction of other countries will not render the controls\nineffective or counterproductive, (4) that the effect of the\ncontrols on the competitive position of the United States will\nnot exceed the benefit, and (5) that the United States has\nthe ability to enforce the controls effectively. Under\ncurrent law, the President is directed to consider some\nsimilar factors but is not required to make a determination\nregarding the likely effect, in terms of the factors, of the\nimposition of controls. Although changed in form, this\nsection may not be very different in substance because no\nspecific criteria are proposed for the guidance of these\npresidential decisions. We assume, both because of this\nsilence as well as the constitutional implications of a\ncontrary assumption, that such decisions are left to the\nPresident's unreviewable discretion according to whatever\ncriteria he deems appropriate. We think that it might be\nwell to include in a signing statement proposed for the\nPresident an interpretation of § 6(b) to the effect that,\nbecause the determination whether the criteria are met in a\nparticular case is committed to the President's sole discretion,\n§ 6(b) amounts to an expression by Congress of the factors\nthat it deems important to the President's decision to impose\nexport controls for foreign policy reasons.\n-2-\n4. Section (d) of the bill, which amends § (g) (3)\nof the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2406(g) (3), relates to the\nimposition of short supply controls on agricultural commodities.\nSection 110(d) requires the President to report to Congress\nupon the imposition of such controls, setting forth the\nreasons for the controls and specifying the period of time,\nup to one year, that the controls are proposed to be in\neffect. Section 110(d) further provides that if Congress,\nwithin 60 days of the date of receipt of the report adopts a\njoint resolution approving the imposition of controls, such\ncontrol may remain in effect for the period specified in the\nPresident's report unless he terminates the controls sooner.\nIf Congress fails within 60 days to adopt a joint resolution\nof approval, the controls expire at the end of the 60-day\nperiod. This procedure is not inconsistent with INS V.\nChadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), and does not present constitutional\nproblems. We do not believe that this section need be noted in\na signing statement.\n5. Section 113 provides the enforcement authority for\nthe export control laws. Section 113 (a) amends § 12 (a) of\nthe 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2411 (a), to provide, essentially\nthat the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is given jurisdiction\nover investigations at places within the United States other\nthan ports, and over investigations involving pre-licensing,\npost-shipment, or foreign enforcement at places outside the\nUnited States. The United States Customs Service (Customs) is\ngiven jurisdiction over investigations at the ports of entry\nand exit and places outside the United States where it is\nauthorized, pursuant to agreements or arrangements with\nforeign countries, to perform enforcement activities. The\npower to enforce the export laws by searches and seizures is\nconferred upon both Commerce and Customs. In general, this\nauthority is consistent with Fourth Amendment limitations,\nalthough specific analysis and qualification are necessary\nwith regard to both Commerce and Customs.\nCustoms is authorized to stop, search, and examine\nvehicles and persons, and search packages and containers,\non the basis of reasonable cause to suspect a violation of\nthe export laws, and seize goods of technology for trial on\nthe basis of probable cause. Such authority is fully\nconstitutional when exercised at the ports of entry and exit.\nSee United States V. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1971) (importation\nthrough the mails; warrantless search based on reasonable\ncause) ; United States V. Martinez-Fuente, 428 U.S. 453 (1976)\n(illegal entry of aliens by automobile; warrantless stop of\nvehicle and questioning of occupants at fixed checkpoint\nwithout individual suspicion). Similar standards have been\n-3-\napplied in the courts of appeals to exit searches at the\nports. See, e.g., United States V. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971,\n976-77 (9th Cir. 1982) ; United States V. Ajlouny, 629 F.2d\n830, 833-34 (2d Cir. 1979) see also California Bankers Ass'n\nV. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 63 (1974) (dictum).\nThis same enforcement authority is conferred on Customs\nfor enforcement in countries outside the United States which\nhave authorized Customs to operate. Under certain circumstances,\nthe exercise by Customs of search and seizure authority in\noverseas enforcement activities in the absence of a warrant\nwill exceed the limitations imposed by the Fourth Amendment.\nIn Reid V. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5 (1957), the Court \"reject| [ed]\nthe idea that when the United States acts against citizens\nabroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights.\" In reliance\non Reid, one lower court, considering the Fourth Amendment\nissues involved in the context of warrantless electronic\nsurveillance of American citizens and organizations, held\nthat [t]here is no question\nthat the Constitution\napplies to actions by United States officials taken against\nAmerican citizens overseas.\" Berlin Democratic Club V.\nRumsfeld, 410 F. Supp. 144, 157 n.6 (D.D.C. 1976). We believe\nthat this standard would apply to physical searches as well.\nCf. United States V. United States District Court (Keith),\n407 U.S. 297 (1972) Katz V. United States, 389 U.S. 347\n(1967). See also Powell V. Zuckert, 125 U.S. App D.C. 55,\n366 F.2d 634, 640 (1966) ; Birdsell V. United States, 346\nF.2d 775, 782 (5th Cir. 1965) cf. United States V. Emery,\n591 F.2d 1266, 1267-68 (9th Cir. 1978) (Fifth Amendment).\nIn our view, these cases demonstrate that, depending\non the facts, a warrantless search and seizure directed\nagainst U.S. citizens abroad may not meet Fourth Amendment\nstandards in the absence of a recognized exception to the\nwarrant requirement. Cf. Mincey V. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385,\n390 (1978). In such cases, an agreement or arrangement with\na foreign government would not alter the applicable constitutional\nstandard. See Reid V. Covert, 354 U.S. at 16.\nTo our knowledge, the Supreme Court has never adressed\nthe constitutional restrictions on search and seizures directed\nat non-U.S. citizens abroad. We think that such enforcement\nmeasures would be held to be constitutionally sufficient if\nthey are reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment\nand conform to local law or restrictions imposed by the\nforeign country and to international law. In this regard, we\nthink that the search and seizure of foreign vessels on the\nhigh seas is an apt analogy. See, e.g., United States V.\nWilliams, 617 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc) (permission\nby foreign sovereign renders search reasonable).\n-4-\nWith regard to Commerce, a similar problem exists in\ncertain circumstances because of the apparent authorization\nof warrantless searches and seizures. The Secretary of\nCommerce, however, is specifically authorized to designate\nofficers and employees of Commerce to execute warrants in the\nenforcement of the Act. We believe that this provision\nshould be read to impose the warrant requirement on authorized\nsearches and seizures in the absence of facts supporting a\nsearch or seizure without a warrant. As thus interpreted,\nthe enforcement provisions relating to Commerce would meet\nconstitutional standards.\nSpecifically, Commerce's authority exists in three\ncontexts: (1) at places within the United States; (2) at\nports, and places outside the United States, with the concurrence\nof Customs; and (3) certain other specific overseas enforcement\nactivities. 1/ The interpretation suggested above, as\napplied in these three contexts, would generally require a\nwarrant or an exception to the warrant requirement for searches\nand seizures at all places within the United States other\nthan ports, and outside the United States at least if United\nStates citizens are involved. For certain specific authorized\nenforcement activities outside the United States, such as\nprelicense or post-shipment investigations, a licensing\nprovision providing consent to a search might serve as an\nexception to the warrant requirement. No warrant would be\nrequired at the ports, and most likely, at places outside the\nUnited States if non-citizens are involved.\nIn summary, we believe that an explanation of the\nenforcement authority should be included in a signing statement.\nFor that purpose, it would be sufficient simply to state\nthe understanding that all enforcement authority will be\nexercised consistent with whatever Fourth Amendment standards\nmay be applicable on the particular facts. We offer the\nfuller discussion here for reference in the administration of\nthe export laws.\n6. Finally, we have repeatedly opined on the technical\ndata provisions, such as is contained in § 117 of the bill,\n1/ It is not clear from the wording of Commerce's authority\nwhether search and seizure powers are provided in the conduct\nof pre-license or post-shipment investigations or the\nenforcement of foreign boycott provisions. For purposes of\nthis discussion, we assume that such powers are provided.\n-5-\namending § 16 of the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2415. Section\n117 provides an amended definition of \"technology\" and a new\ndefinition of \"export.\" The effect of the definitions contained\nin the bill presents First Amendment questions. We suggest\nthat the signing statement contain a direction to those who\nwill administer the licensing system to develop regulations\nto restrict the scope of the definitions to conform to consti-\ntutional limitations.\n7. We are concerned that section 105, amending § 5 of\nthe 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2404, does not require that\nCommerce officials consult with the Attorney General or\nhis designee prior to conducting investigations of foreign\ncountries' embassies believed to be attempting to obtain\nstrategic items on the open market. In the absence of such a\nrequirement, Commerce's activities under this section could\nhave a substantial adverse impact on ongoing Federal Bureau\nof Investigation (FBI) counterintelligence investigations.\nAdditionally, we note that the Act does not define the term\n\"affiliates\" when used in discussing the activities of foreign\n\"embassies and affiliates of controlled countries.\"\n8. Section 105(j), amending § 5 of the 1979 Act,\n50 U.S.C. App. § 2404, by adding a new paragraph (n), provides\nthat the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the\nCommissioner of Customs and the Director of the FBI, shall\nprovide advice and technical assistance in developing security\nsystems to persons engaged in the manufacture or handling of\ngoods or technology subject to export controls under the\nsection. The security systems would be designed to prevent\nviolations or evasions of applicable export controls. We are\nuncertain as to what the FBI's responsibilities would be\nunder this section.\n9. Section 113, amending § 12(a) of the 1979 Act,\n50 U.S.C. App. § 2411(a), would give the Secretary of Commerce\nthe authority to designate Commerce employees to perform\ndesignated law enforcement activities such as execution of\nwarrants, arrests, searches and seizures, and carrying firearms.\nWe continue to believe that such authority is unnecessary for\nCommerce to carry out its responsibilities under this bill.\nEfforts by agencies other than the Department to gain jurisdiction\nover criminal activities could tend to divert resources from\nthe Department, making a coordinated approach to resolving\ncriminal justice problems more difficult. We believe that\npolice powers should be given only to those personnel directly\nand specifically involved in the enforcement of the Export\nAdministration Act of 1979, and then only after they have\nreceived appropriate training.\n-6-\n10. Sections 105 (a) (1), amending $ 5 (a) (1) of the 1979\nAct, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2404 (a) (1), and 117 (4), amending $ 16\nof the 1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. § 2415, authorize export controls\non transfers of technology to embassies and subsidiaries of\nforeign companies in the United States. This authority\nimplies that Commerce will investigate activities involving\nthese entities. Because the FBI has primary counterintelligence\nresponsibilites in this area, we have included language in\nthe proposed signing statement stating that Commerce investigations\ninvolving these entities will be coordinated with the FBI.\n11. Section (b) (2), amending § (c) (3) of the 1979 Act,\n50 U.S.C. App. § 2411, would require all agencies to provide\nCommerce with information relevant to enforcement of this\nAct, \"including information pertaining to any investigation.\"\nThe amendments would also require, in 113 (b) (4), the Attorney\nGeneral to consult on a continuing basis with the Secretary\nof Commerce, Commissioner of Customs, and other department\nand agency heads to facilitate the exchange of \"licensing and\nenforcement information.\" These changes are laudatory if\ntheir intent is to encourage greater sharing of export control -\nenforcement information between Customs and Commerce, with\nthe FBI sharing in their data. However, these provisions may\nalso be read to require the FBI to share sensitive investigative\nmaterials with Commerce even when information relating to\nexport controls may only be a minor element in a counterintelligence\ninvestigation of major national security importance.\nSection 113 (a) (5), adding § (7) to § 12 (a) of the\n1979 Act, 50 U.S.C. App. $ 2411 (a), authorizes the Secretary\nof Commerce to publish procedures, with the concurrence of\nthe Secretary of Treasury, for sharing enforcement information.\nWe have included language in the proposed signing statement\nnoting the necessity of involving the Attorney General, not\nonly as a consultant on means to facilitate the exchange of\nenforcement information under 113 (b) (4), but also in the\ndevelopment of procedures under 113 (a) (5) in order to ensure\nprotection of important FBI interests.\nThe Department of Justice recommends Executive approval\nof this bill.\nSincerely,\nPay\nPhillip D. Brady\nActing Assistant Attorney General\nAttachment\nSIGNING STATEMENT\nThere are several provisions in S. 883 that will require\nclose coordination between the Department of Commerce and\nother agencies. I expect the Department of Commerce to\nconsult regularly with the Attorney General and the Federal\nBureau of Investigation with regard to implementation of\nsections 105(a)(1), 113, and 117(4), including coordination of\ninvestigations and development of appropriate regulations.\nSection 108(b) of the bill identifies factors that the\nPresident should consider when deciding whether to impose\nexport controls for foreign policy reasons. It is my\nunderstanding that the determination whether the criteria are\nmet in a particular case is committed to the President's\ndiscretion and the factors listed are simply an expression\nby Congress of the factors it deems important for the President -\nto consider.\nThe bill also contains broad language empowering the\nDepartment of Commerce to conduct certain searches and\nseizures. It is my understanding that all enforcement\nauthority will be exercised in a manner consistent with the\nFourth Amendment.\nFinally, section 117, amending § 16 of the 1979 Act,\n50 U.S.C. App. § 2415, presents novel issues under the\nFirst Amendment. Administration of the licensing system\nand development of regulations under this section should\ninsure that the definitions conform to constitutional\nlimitations.\nMar. 30 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984\nthe creation of a scenic highway along the\nmy from the excessive drain of scarce mate-\nroutes described in that section.\nrials and reduce the serious economic\nThe Secretary and the Governor recom-\nimpact of foreign demand, it is hereby or-\nmend that no such scenic highway be estab-\ndered as follows:\nlished and, further, that the Congress move\nSection 1. Notwithstanding the expiration\nimmediately to repeal the public lands\nof the Export Administration Act of 1979, as\nwithdrawal from mining and mineral leas-\namended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.), the\ning imposed by section 1311. I concur in\nprovisions of that Act, the provisions for ad-\nthose recommendations.\nministration of that Act and the delegations\nSincerely,\nof authority set forth in Executive Order\nRonald Reagan\nNo. 12002 of July 7, 1977 and Executive\nOrder No. 12214 of May 2, 1980, shall, to\nNote: This is the text of identical letters\nthe extent permitted by law, be incorporat-\naddressed to Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker\ned in this Order and shall continue in full\nof the House of Representatives, and George\nforce and effect.\nBush, President of the Senate.\nSec. 2. All rules and regulations issued or\ncontinued in effect by the Secretary of\nCommerce under the authority of the\nExport Administration Act of 1979, as\namended, including those published in Title\nContinuation of Export Control\n15, Chapter III, Subchapter C, of the Code\nRegulations\nof Federal Regulations, Parts 368 to 399\ninclusive, and all orders, regulations, li-\nExecutive Order 12470. March 30, 1984\ncenses and other forms of administrative\naction issued, taken or continued in effect\nBy the authority vested in me as Presi-\npursuant thereto, shall, until amended or\ndent by the Constitution and laws of the\nrevoked by the Secretary of Commerce,\nUnited States of America, including section\nremain in full force and effect, the same as\n203 of the International Emergency Eco-\nif issued or taken pursuant to this Order,\nnomic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) (herein-\nexcept that the provisions of sections\nafter referred to as \"the Act\"), and 22\n203(b)(2) and 206 of the Act (50 U.S.C.\nU.S.C. 287c,\n1702(b)(2) and 1705) shall control over any\nI, Ronald Reagan, President of the United\ninconsistent provisions in the regulations\nStates of America, find that the unrestricted\nwith respect to, respectively, certain dona-\naccess of foreign parties to United States\ntions to relieve human suffering and civil\ncommercial goods, technology, and techni-\nand criminal penalties for violations subject\ncal data and the existence of certain boycott\nto this Order. Nothing in this section shall\npractices of foreign nations constitute, in\naffect the continued applicability of admin-\nlight of the expiration of the Export Admin-\nistration Act of 1979, an unusual and ex-\nistrative sanctions provided for by the regu-\nlations described above.\ntraordinary threat to the national security,\nforeign policy and economy of the United\nSec. 3. Provisions for the administration of\nStates and hereby declare a national eco-\nsection 38(e) of the Arms Export Control\nnomic emergency to deal with that threat.\nAct (22 U.S.C. 2778(e)) may be made and\nAccordingly, in order (a) to exercise the\nshall continue in full force and effect until\nnecessary vigilance over exports from the\namended or revoked under the authority of\nstandpoint of their significance to the na-\nsection 203 of the Act (50 U.S.C. 1702). To\ntional security of the United States; (b) to\nthe extent permitted by law, this Order also\nfurther significantly the foreign policy of\nshall constitute authority for the issuance\nthe United States, including its policy with\nand continuation in full force and effect of\nrespect to cooperation by United States per-\nall rules and regulations by the President or\nsons with certain foreign boycott activities,\nhis delegate, and all orders, licenses, and\nand to fulfill its international responsibil-\nother forms of administrative action issued,\nities; and (c) to protect the domestic econo-\ntaken or continued in effect pursuant there-\n452\nAdministration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 / Mar. 30\nto, relating to the administration of section\nboycott requests. This would seriously harm\n38(e).\nour foreign policy interests, particularly in\nSec. 4. This Order shall be effective as of\nthe Middle East. Controls established in 15\nmidnight between March 30 and March 31,\nC.F.R. 368-399, and continued by this\n1984, and shall remain in effect until termi-\naction, include the following:\nnated. It is myaintention to terminate this\nNational security export controls\nOrder upon the enactment into law of a bill\naimed at restricting the export of goods\nreauthorizing the authorities contained in\nand technologies which would make a\nthe Export Administration Act. a\nsignificant contribution to the military\nRonald Reagan\npotential of any other country and\nwhich would prove detrimental to the\nThe White House,\nnational security of the United States;\nMarch 30, 1984.\nForeign policy controls which further\n[Filed with the Office of the Federal Regis-\nthe foreign policy objectives of the\nter, 3:07 p.m., March 30, 1984]\nUnited States or its declared interna-\ntional obligations in such widely recog-\nnized areas as human rights, anti-ter-\nrorism, and regional stability;\nContinuation of Export Control\nNuclear nonproliferation controls\nRegulations\nthat are maintained for both national\nsecurity and foreign policy reasons, and\nMessage to the Congress. March 30, 1984\nwhich support the objectives of the Nu-\nclear Nonproliferation Act;\nTo the Congress of the United States:\nShort supply controls that protect do-\nPursuant to section 204(b) of the Interna-\nmestic supplies; and\ntional Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50\nAnti-boycott regulations that prohibit\nU.S.C. 1703, I hereby report to the Con-\ncompliance with foreign boycotts\ngress that I have today exercised the au-\naimed at countries friendly to the\nthority granted by this Act to continue in\nUnited States.\neffect the system of controls contained in\n3. Consequently, I have issued an Execu-\n15 C.F.R. Parts 368-399, including restric-\ntive Order (a copy of which is attached) to\ntions on participation by United States per-\ncontinue in effect all rules and regulations\nsons in certain foreign boycott activities,\nissued or continued in effect by the Secre-\nwhich heretofore has been maintained\ntary of Commerce under the authority of\nunder the authority of the Export Adminis-\nthe Export Administration Act of 1979, as\ntration Act of 1979, as amended, 50 U.S.C.\namended, and all orders, regulations, li-\nApp. 2401 et seq. In addition, I have made\ncenses, and other forms of administrative\nprovision for the administration of Section\nactions under that Act, except where they\n38(e) of the Arms Export Control Act, 22\nare inconsistent with sections 203(b) and\nU.S.C. 2778(e).\n206 of the International Emergency Eco-\n1. The exercise of this authority is necessi-\nnomic Powers Act.\ntated by the expiration of the Export Ad-\n4. The Congress and the Executive have\nministration Act on March 30, 1984, and\nnot permitted export controls to lapse since\nthe resulting lapse of the system of controls\nthey were enacted under the Export Con-\nmaintained under that Act.\ntrol Act of 1949. Any termination of con-\n2. In the absence of controls, foreign par-\ntrols could permit transactions to occur that\nties would have unrestricted access to\nwould be seriously detrimental to the na-\nUnited States commercial products, technol-\ntional interests we have heretofore sought\nogy and technical data, posing an unusual\nto protect through export controls and re-\nand extraordinary threat to national secu-\nstrictions on compliance by United States\nrity, foreign policy, and economic objectives\npersons with certain foreign boycotts. I be-\ncritical to the United States. In addition,\nlieve that even a temporary lapse in this\nUnited States persons would not be prohib-\nsystem of controls would seriously damage\nited from complying with certain foreign\nour national security, foreign policy and\n453\nMar. 30 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984\neconomic interests and undermine our\ncommittees for consideration, and enacted.\ncredibility in meeting our international obli-\nI also request that the Congress note the\ngations.\nagreements subsidiary to the Compact. Also\n5. The countries affected by this action\nenclosed is a section-by-section analysis to\nvary depending on the objectives sought to\nfacilitate your consideration of the Com-\nbe achieved by the system of controls insti-\npact.\ntuted under the Export Administration Act.\nThe defense and land use provisions of\nPotential adversaries are seeking to acquire\nthe Compact extend indefinitely the right\nsensitive United States goods and technol-\nof the United States to foreclose access to\nogies. Other countries serve as conduits for\nthe area to third countries for military pur-\nthe diversion of such items. Still other coun-\nposes. These provisions are of great impor-\ntries have policies that are contrary to\ntance to our strategic position in the Pacific\nUnited States foreign policy or nuclear non-\nproliferation objectives, or foster boycotts\nand enable us to continue preserving re-\nagainst friendly countries. For some goods\ngional security and peace.\nor technologies, controls could apply even\nSince 1947, the islands of Micronesia have\nto our closest allies in order to safeguard\nbeen administered by the United Statés\nagainst diversion to potential adversaries.\nunder a Trusteeship Agreement with the\n6. It is my intention to terminate the Ex-\nUnited Nations Security Council. This Com-\necutive Order upon enactment into law of a\npact of Free Association with the govern-\nbill reauthorizing the authorities contained\nments of the Federated States of Micronesia\nin the Export Administration Act.\nand the Republic of the Marshall Islands\nwould fulfill our commitment under that\nRonald Reagan\nagreement to bring about self-government.\nThe White House,\nUpon termination of the Trusteeship Agree-\nMarch 30, 1984.\nment, another political jurisdiction of the\nTrust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the\nNorthern Mariana Islands, will become a\ncommonwealth of the United States.\nTrust Territory of the Pacific Islands\nThe Compact of Free Association was\nsigned for the United States by Ambassador\nMessage to the Congress Transmitting\nFred M. Zeder, II, on October 1, 1982, with\nthe Federated States of Micronesia, and on\nProposed Legislation To Approve a\nCompact of Free Association.\nJune 25, 1983, with the Republic of the\nMarch 30, 1984\nMarshall Islands. It is the result of negotia-\ntions between the United States and broad-\nTo the Congress of the United States:\nly representative groups of delegates from\nThere is enclosed a draft of a Joint Reso-\nthe prospective freely associated states.\nlution to approve the \"Compact of Free As-\nIn 1983, United Nations-observed plebi-\nsociation,\" the negotiated instrument set-\nscites produced high voter participation,\nting forth the future political relationship\nand the Compact was approved by impres-\nbetween the United States and two political\nsive majorities. In addition to approval in\njurisdictions of the Trust Territory of the\nthe plebiscites, the Compact has been ap-\nPacific Islands.\nproved by the governments of the Republic\nThe Compact of Free Association is the\nof the Marshall Islands and the Federated\nresult of more than fourteen years of con-\nStates of Micronesia in accordance with\ntinuous and comprehensive negotiations,\ntheir constitutional processes.\nspanning the administrations of four Presi-\nEnactment of the draft Joint Resolution\ndents. The transmission of the proposed\napproving the Compact of Free Association\nJoint Resolution to you today marks the last\nwould be a major step leading to the termi-\nstep in the Compact approval process.\nnation of the Trusteeship Agreement with\nThe full text of the Compact is part of the\nthe United Nations Security Council, which\ndraft Joint Resolution, which I request be\nthe United States entered into by Joint Res-\nintroduced, referred to the appropriate\nolution on July 18, 1947. Therefore, I urge\n454\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 27, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS JSR\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nNotice Regarding Continuing Export Controls\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced\nNotice, and has no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nID # 27125755\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no - OUTGOING\nH # INTERNAL\nI . INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent: Dave chew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: notice M cantinuing Expart controls\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCIRHOLL\nORIGINATOR\n85,03,27\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 18\nR\n85,03,27\nS 85,03,27\n4pm\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA - Appropriate Action\nI - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA. Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\n-\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central FReference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No. 271257ss\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE: 3/27/85\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:\n4:00 P.M. TODAY\nSUBJECT: NOTICE RE CONTINUING EXPORT CONTROLS\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nMcMANUS\nREGAN\nMURPHY\nDEAVER\nOGLESBY\nSTOCKMAN\nROLLINS\nBUCHANAN\nSPEAKES\nCHEW\nP\nSS SVAHN\nFIELDING\nTUTTLE\nFRIEDERSDORF\nVERSTANDIG\nFULLER\nWHITTLESEY\nHICKEY\nCLERK\n-\nHICKS\nKINGON\nMcFARLANE\nREMARKS:\nPlease provide any comments/recommendations on the attached by 4:00 p.m.\ntoday, March 27th. Thank you.\n(Note: The attached notice is an advance copy. Justice will be clearing\nthis afternoon. This notice must be published in the Federal Register\ntomorrow.)\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\n1885 HAR 27 FII 12:\nExt. 2702\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nEXECUTIVE\nBAS\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nReceivedSS\nMarch 27, 1985\nITS MAR 27 PM 04\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nDAVID A. STOCKMAN AS\nSUBJECT:\nNOTICE CONTINUING EXPORT CONTROLS\nSUMMARY: Enclosed for your consideration is a Notice, along with\nthe required transmittal letters to the Congress, continuing the\nnational emergency declared on March 30, 1984, in order to\ncontinue in effect the current system of export controls.\nBACKGROUND: The Export Administration Act of 1979 (Act)\nauthorizes regulation of the export of goods and technical data\nand of conduct by U.S. persons related to certain boycott\npractices of foreign nations. Authority under the Act lapsed on\nMarch 30, 1984, at which time the President issued Executive\nOrder No. 12470, declaring a National Emergency and, pursuant to\nthe International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ordering\nthe system of export controls continued. This emergency will now\nterminate on March 30, 1985, pursuant to Section 202(d) of the\nNational Emergencies Act, unless the President continues the\nemergency in effect. If the President continues the emergency,\nhe must also publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the\nCongress a Notice stating that the emergency is to continue.\nAlthough Congress has been considering a renewal of the Act, it\nappears that action will not be completed by March 30, 1985. If\nthe emergency were to lapse, exports of commercial goods and\ntechnical data could occur without restriction, thereby posing\nserious detrimental effects to our national security, foreign\npolicy, and the domestic economy. Additionally, compliance with\nforeign boycott practices would no longer be prohibited by\nlegislation specifically directed at such conduct.\nThe attached documents, which were prepared by the Department of\nCommerce, would continue the emergency in effect. They should be\nsigned no later than March 28, 1985, so that the Notice of\nEmergency Extension can be published in the Federal Register by\nMarch 29, 1985, prior to the expiration of the current authority.\nDue to time constraints, the Notice and letters were not\nsubmitted for review by the affected agencies.\nRECOMMENDATION: I recommend that you sign the attached letters\nto Congress transmitting the Notice of Emergency Extension and\nsubmit the Notice of Extension of the national emergency beyond\nMarch 30, 1985, to the Federal Register.\nAttachment\nWhite House\nDear Mr. President,\nOn March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export\nAdministration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470\ndeclaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations\nunder the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.\n1701 et seq. ) Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies\nAct (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) the national emergency terminates upon\nthe anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal\nRegister and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.\nI am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the\nemergency concerning the continuation in effect of export\nregulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.\nRonald Reagan\nPresident of the United States\nHonorable George Bush\nPresident of the Senate\nWashington, D.C. 20510\nWhite House\nDear Mr. Speaker,\nOn March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export\nAdministration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470\ndeclaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations\nunder the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.\n1701 et seq.). Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies\nAct (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon\nthe anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal\nRegister and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.\nI am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the\nemergency concerning the continuation in effect of export\nregulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.\nRonald Reagan\nPresident of the United States\nHonorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nNotice of March , 1985\nContinuation of Emergency Declared in\nExecutive Order No. 12470 Regarding\nExport Control Regulations\nOn March 30, 1984, by Executive Order No. 12470, I declared a\nnational emergency to deal with an unusual and extraordinary\nthreat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of\nthe United States in light of the expiration of the Export\nAdministration Act of 1979. Because the Export Administration Act\nhas not been replaced by the Congress, the national emergency\ndeclared on March 30, 1984, must continue in effect beyond March\n30, 1985. Therefore, in accordance with Section 202(d) of the\nNational Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1622(d)], I am continuing the\nnational emergency in order to deal with the threat posed by the\nunrestricted access of foreign parties to United States commercial\ngoods, technology and technical data and by certain boycott\npractices of foreign nations.\nRONALD REAGAN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nMarch , 1985.\nWhite House\nDear Mr. President,\nOn March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export\nAdministration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470\ndeclaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations\nunder the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.\n1701 et seq.). Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies\nAct (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon\nthe anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal\nRegister and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.\nI am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the\nemergency concerning the continuation in effect of export\nregulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.\nRonald Reagan\nPresident of the United States\nHonorable George Bush\nPresident of the Senate\nWashington, D.C. 20510\nWhite House\nDear Mr. Speaker,\nOn March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export\nAdministration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470\ndeclaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations\nunder the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.\n1701 et seq. ) Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies\nAct (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon\nthe anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal\nRegister and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.\nI am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the\nemergency concerning the continuation in effect of export\nregulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.\nRonald Reagan\nPresident of the United States\nHonorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nPRESIDENT\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nEXECUTIVE\nHAVE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nMarch 27, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nDAVID A. STOCKMAN\nGAS\nSUBJECT:\nNOTICE CONTINUING EXPORT CONTROLS\nSUMMARY: Enclosed for your consideration is a Notice, along with\nthe required transmittal letters to the Congress, continuing the\nnational emergency declared on March 30, 1984, in order to\ncontinue in effect the current system of export controls.\nBACKGROUND: The Export Administration Act of 1979 (Act)\nauthorizes regulation of the export of goods and technical data\nand of conduct by U.S. persons related to certain boycott\npractices of foreign nations. Authority under the Act lapsed on\nMarch 30, 1984, at which time the President issued Executive\nOrder No. 12470, declaring a National Emergency and, pursuant to\nthe International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ordering\nthe system of export controls continued. This emergency will now\nterminate on March 30, 1985, pursuant to Section 202(d) of the\nNational Emergencies Act, unless the President continues the\nemergency in effect. If the President continues the emergency,\nhe must also publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the\nCongress a Notice stating that the emergency is to continue.\nAlthough Congress has been considering a renewal of the Act, it\nappears that action will not be completed by March 30, 1985. If\nthe emergency were to lapse, exports of commercial goods and\ntechnical data could occur without restriction, thereby posing\nserious detrimental effects to our national security, foreign\npolicy, and the domestic economy. Additionally, compliance with\nforeign boycott practices would no longer be prohibited by\nlegislation specifically directed at such conduct.\nThe attached documents, which were prepared by the Department of\nCommerce, would continue the emergency in effect. They should be\nsigned no later than March 28, 1985, so that the Notice of\nEmergency Extension can be published in the Federal Register by\nMarch 29, 1985, prior to the expiration of the current authority.\nDue to time constraints, the Notice and letters were not\nsubmitted for review by the affected agencies.\nRECOMMENDATION: I recommend that you sign the attached letters\nto Congress transmitting the Notice of Emergency Extension and\nsubmit the Notice of Extension of the national emergency beyond\nMarch 30, 1985, to the Federal Register.\nAttachment\nWhite House\nDear Mr. President,\nOn March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export\nAdministration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470\ndeclaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations\nunder the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.\n1701 et seq.). Under Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies\nAct (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon\nthe anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal\nRegister and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.\nI am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the\nemergency concerning the continuation in effect of export\nregulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.\nRonald Reagan\nPresident of the United States\nHonorable George Bush\nPresident of the Senate\nWashington, D.C. 20510\nWhite House\nDear Mr. Speaker,\nOn March 30, 1984, in light of the expiration of the Export\nAdministration Act of 1979, I issued Executive Order No. 12470\ndeclaring a national emergency and continuing export regulations\nunder the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.\n1701 et seq.). Under Section 202 (d) of the National Emergencies\nAct (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates upon\nthe anniversary of its declaration unless I publish in the Federal\nRegister and transmit to the Congress notice of its continuation.\nI am hereby advising the Congress that I have extended the\nemergency concerning the continuation in effect of export\nregulations. Attached is a copy of the notice of extension.\nRonald Reagan\nPresident of the United States\nHonorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nNotice of March , 1985\nContinuation of Emergency Declared in\nExecutive Order No. 12470 Regarding\nExport Control Regulations\nOn March 30, 1984, by Executive Order No. 12470, I declared a\nnational emergency to deal with an unusual and extraordinary\nthreat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of\nthe United States in light of the expiration of the Export\nAdministration Act of 1979. Because the Export Administration Act\nhas not been replaced by the Congress, the national emergency\ndeclared on March 30, 1984, must continue in effect beyond March\n30, 1985. Therefore, in accordance with Section 202(d) of the\nNational Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1622(d)], I am continuing the\nnational emergency in order to deal with the threat posed by the\nunrestricted access of foreign parties to United States commercial\ngoods, technology and technical data and by certain boycott\npractices of foreign nations.\nRONALD REAGAN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nMarch , 1985.\nPRESIDENT\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nMarch 27, 1985\nHonorable Edwin Meese, III\nUnited States Attorney General\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nDear Mr. Attorney General:\nEnclosed for your consideration is a Notice, along with the\nrequired transmittal letters to the Congress, continuing the\nnational emergency declared on March 30, 1984, in order to\ncontinue in effect the current system of export controls.\nThe Export Administration Act of 1979 (Act) authorizes regulation\nof the export of goods and technical data and of conduct by U.S.\npersons related to certain boycott practices of foreign nations.\nAuthority under the Act lapsed on March 30, 1984, at which time\nthe President issued Executive Order No. 12470, declaring a\nNational Emergency and, pursuant to the International Emergency\nEconomic Powers Act (IEEPA), ordering the system of export\ncontrols continued. This emergency will now terminate on\nMarch 30, 1985, pursuant to Section 202(d) of the National\nEmergencies Act, unless the President continues the emergency in\neffect. If the President continues the emergency, he must also\npublish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a\nNotice stating that the emergency is to continue.\nAlthough Congress has been considering a renewal of the Act, it\nappears that action will not be completed by March 30, 1985. If\nthe emergency were to lapse, exports of commercial goods and\ntechnical data could occur without restriction, thereby posing\nserious detrimental effects to our national security, foreign\npolicy, and the domestic economy. Additionally, compliance with\nforeign boycott practices would no longer be prohibited by\nlegislation specifically directed at such conduct.\nThe attached documents, which were prepared by the Department of\nCommerce, would continue the emergency in effect. They should be\nsigned no later than March 28, 1985, so that the Notice of\nEmergency Extension can be published in the Federal Register by\nMarch 29, 1985, prior to the expiration of the current authority.\nYour staff may direct any questions concerning this proposed\nNotice to Mr. Charles Kolb of this office (395-5600).\nThis proposed Notice has the approval of the Director of the\nOffice of Management and Budget.\nSincerely,\nMichael J. Horowitz\nCounsel to the Director"
}