Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
135839782
label
Chron File (05/16/1983-05/19/1983)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839782
contentType
document
title
Chron File (05/16/1983-05/19/1983)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Chronological Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135839782
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
59ca2925989a1ded
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: Chron File (05/16/1983-05/19/1983)
Box: 60
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
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Proposed Testimony of Assistant
Attorney General Dinkins on S. 267
The above-referenced testimony, to be delivered tomorrow
before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
concerns S. 267, a bill to extend federal eminent domain to
coal slurry pipelines. The testimony reiterates Administra-
tion opposition to such authority, expressed in the last
Congress, while noting that the issue is being reviewed.
The bulk of the testimony considers whether S. 267 adequately
preserves the primary of state water law, concluding that it
does. Much of the testimony is devoted to an analysis of
the recent decisions by the Supreme Court in Sporhase V.
Nebraska and by a federal district court in City of El Paso
V. Reynolds. Both cases struck down state water restric-
tions on the basis of the Commerce Clause. Dinkins concludes
that Sporhase and El Paso require express statements of
Congressional intent to preserve state water laws that would
otherwise constitute an impermissible burden on interstate
commerce, and that S. 267 contains such an express statement.
I see no legal objection.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"President's Commission on Industrial
Competitiveness"
Richard Darman has asked for comments by May 18 on the
above-referenced proposed executive order. The order would
establish an advisory committee to provide recommendations
on increasing the competitiveness of American industry, with
particular emphasis on high technology. This draft includes
the sentence we suggested earlier in the process, making the
private sector appointees representative of industry, to
protect against their being considered government employees.
I have discussed the order with Ralph Tarr and Mike Fitts of
the Office of Legal Counsel. They advised that they had
reviewed the order with the Office of Government Ethics, and
that office had agreed that the private sector appointees
would not be considered government employees. This conclu-
sion was consistent with the earlier advice I had received
from David Scott, who recommended the inclusion of the
sentence we suggested if we did not want the members to be
government employees.
In their memorandum on the executive order, however, Tarr
and Fitts caution about the need to consider the requirement
in 5 U.S.C. App. I § 5 (b) (2) that the membership of advisory
committees be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of
view represented and the functions to be performed by the
advisory committee." It is apparently their view that
making the private members representative of industry
(necessary to avoid their being considered government
employees) creates tension with the requirement that the
commission be balanced. They suggested appointing represen-
tatives of consumer groups to balance the membership.
I pointed out to Tarr and Fitts that the balance requirement
must be considered in light of the purposes of the commission.
Wendell Gunn's office affirmed that the purpose of this
commission was to obtain the views of the high tech industry
-2-
on steps to improve competitiveness, and that in selecting
prospective members they strove to obtain a balanced repre-
sentation of high tech industry: large and small firms and
firms from different market areas. The recent opinion in
National Anti-Hunger Coalition V. Executive Committee of the
President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, rejecting
a challenge based on the balance requirement, concluded:
"Surely Congress did not intend to prohibit the President
from seeking specialized advice and while one may speculate
that different choices might have been made to accomplish
the President's objective the simple gathering of a discrete
group of experts in a particular narrow field is not in
itself enough to render such an advisory committee unbal-
anced in the sense of the FACA.' The fact that the members
of our commission are representative of industry does not
mean they are not also experts -- the executive order
specifies that they "shall have particular knowledge and
expertise concerning the technological factors affecting the
ability of United States firms to meet international competi-
tion at home and abroad."
In sum, I think OLC's "caution" is excessive and unnecessary,
and based on an overly-broad reading of the FACA balance
requirement. Its logic would dictate that whenever we take
action to ensure that advisory committee members not be
treated as government employees the entire nature of the
advisory committee must be changed, so that it represents
all affected interests and not simply those from whom the
President wants advice in light of the particular purpose of
the advisory committee. This advisory committee is balanced
in terms of high tech industries, and its purpose is to
obtain the views of those industries.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"President's Commission on Industrial
Competitiveness"
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
executive order, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aw 5/16/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Proposed Department of Justice Testimony
on Sexual Exploitation of Children and
Child Pornography
The Department of Justice has submitted the above-referenced
proposed testimony. The witness and committee are not
identified. The testimony reviews statistics on child
pornography prosecutions since enactment of the Protection
of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act in 1977, 18
U.S.C. §§ 2251-2253 and 2423. It then discusses legislative
reform proposals, focusing on sections 1502 and 1604 of the
Administration's crime package. These provisions would (1)
delete the commercial purpose requirement from the child
pornography laws, (2) authorize the use of wiretaps in child
pornography cases, and (3) delete the obscenity requirement
from the child pornography statutes. The latter provision
is apt to be the most controversial. In New York V. Ferber,
102 S. Ct. 3348 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that
depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct
could be the basis for a criminal prosecution even if the
material is non-obscene, on the theory that society has a
valid interest in protecting the minor quite apart from any
concern about the status of the material. The statutes on
the books carry an obscenity requirement; the reform
proposals would delete this to take advantage of the Ferber
ruling.
I see no legal objections, and have drafted an appropriate
memorandum to Greg Jones of OMB for your signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Department of Justice Testimony
on Sexual Exploitation of Children and
Child Pornography
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
testimony and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aw 5/16/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
MI MORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS oper
SUBJECT:
Presidential Recipients of Exporting Awards
Richard Darman has asked for any comments on the attached
list of recipients of "E" and "E Star" exporting awards by
5:00 p.m. today. Executive Order 10978 (Dec. 5, 1961) (copy
attached) established a program whereby firms or organiza-
tions expanding export markets for American products receive
Presidential recognition. The program, administered by the
Department of Commerce, has been in place since 1961, and
every President except President Carter has issued awards
under it. President Reagan has issued several "E" and "E
Star" awards, usually in connection with visits to company
plants. An award ceremony is contemplated for next week, at
which the President will bestow awards on the ten specified
companies or organizations.
I called the Department of Commerce to determine what types
of background checks had been undertaken to ensure that the
President would not be embarrassed by subsequent disclosures
concerning the honored companies. A very thorough process
is in place, including checks with the Department of Justice
Criminal and Antitrust Divisions, the IRS, SEC, NLRB, FTC,
Department of Labor, Office of Export Administration and,
where appropriate, the Department of Agriculture. The
candidate firms sign necessary waivers and also an affirma-
tion that they are not complying with any prohibited foreign
boycotts.
I was also concerned about the President appearing to
endorse particular commercial enterprises, but that is
apparently the entire purpose of the program. Indeed, the
Executive Order specifically authorizes award recipients to
display their "E" awards in advertising. Our usual concerns
would thus seem inapplicable in this circumstance.
I have drafted a memorandum to Darman noting that we have no
objection based on assurances received from Commerce con-
cerning clearances.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Presidential Recipients of Exporting Awards
Based on assurances received from the Department of Commerce
that the proposed award recipients have been cleared by the
Departments of Justice, Labor and Agriculture and the IRS,
SEC, FTC, NLRB, and the Office of Export Administration,
Counsel's Office has no legal objection to the proposed list
of recipients.
FFF:JGR:aw 5/16/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR DIANNA G. HOLLAND
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Appointment of Hoyt Gardner as
Alternate Delegate, World Health
Organization Executive Board
I have reviewed the Personal Data Statement submitted by
Hoyt Gardner for appointment as the alternate delegate to
the World Health Organization Executive Board. The President
is authorized to appoint such an alternate delegate by 22
U.S.C. § 290a. Dr. Gardner serves on the boards of National
Blue Cross and Blue Shield and Kentucky Blue Cross and Blue
Shield. I consulted with Darrel Grinstead, the designated
agency ethics official of the Department of Health and Human
Services, concerning whether this would present a conflict
with the duties of the alternate delegate to the WHO
executive board. Mr. Grinstead was of the view that no
conflict was presented, and that the concerns of Blue Cross
and Blue Shield were unrelated to the activities of the WHO.
Under 22 U.S.C. § 290a, "no person shall serve as [a]
representative, delegate, or alternate until such person has
been investigated as to loyalty and security by the Office
of Personnel Management." Dr. Gardner must be so investiga-
ted before he can commence service.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 255
SUBJECT:
Presidential Letter on Freedoms Foundation
and Enterprise America Merger
Justin Dart has sent the President a draft of a letter to be
sent over the President's signature to those on the mailing
lists of the Freedoms Foundation and Enterprise America,
announcing the merger of the two groups. The President is
honorary chairman of both groups, although the organizations
are inexplicably missing from the current honorary chairman-
ship list. Both groups are 501 (c) (3) organizations.
I do not think the President should agree to sign the
letter. The role of honorary chairman does not include
advising members of events such as this merger, which should
be done by those actively involved in managing the groups.
The letter suggests a greater degree of personal involvement
by the President in the affairs of the two organizations
than is warranted by the facts. The fifth and sixth para-
graphs are particularly objectionable. The fifth paragraph
is a thinly-veiled plea for funds. The White House has not
been provided with any of the information referred to in the
sixth paragraph, and accordingly we cannot clear it. We
also have no conception of who is on these mailing lists,
which could easily include individuals doing business with
the White House, or subject to federal regulatory
activities.
If some sort of letter must be sent, it would be far better
to have a shorter letter from the President to a Freedoms
Foundation official or officials, perhaps Mr. Dart himself.
Those officials can then mail it out to their supporters.
This insulates the President from the recipients, and
lessens the appearance of his personal involvement. I have
drafted such a letter, and a transmittal memorandum for your
signature to Darman.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Letter To Those on
Freedoms Foundation and Enterprise America
Mailing Lists (Suggested by Justin Dart)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
letter, and recommend that it not be approved in its present
form. We do not view such a communication to the membership
of the two organizations as consistent with the limited role
of an honorary chairman. We also find the fifth paragraph
objectionable as involving the President in fundraising, and
cannot clear the sixth paragraph because we have not been
provided with the materials in question. In any event, we
do not think the President should be forwarding materials of
private organizations. Finally, we are very concerned about
sending letters over the President's signature to unknown
recipients, some of whom could have business with the White
House or be regulated by the federal government.
If the President is in fact interested in expressing support
for the Freedoms Foundation-Enterprise America merger, it
would be preferable to do so in a letter to an official or
officials of Freedoms Foundation, perhaps Mr. Dart himself.
The letter could then be quoted or used in mailings by that
organization. We have prepared a draft of such a letter,
based on the original draft provided by Mr. Dart.
FFF: JGR:aw 5/17/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
[DATE]
Dear [Freedoms Foundation Official, Perhaps Mr. Dart]:
As Honorary Chairman of both organizations, I was delighted
to learn that Enterprise America will be merged into the
Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. Having pooled their
resources and programs, these two fine groups should form a
stronger nationwide force in support of freedom, the
American private enterprise system and the importance of the
political process to individual freedom.
Both organizations have made valuable contributions to our
society in the past. By weaving Enterprise America into its
ongoing programs, the Freedoms Foundation will strengthen
its operations and reach a larger segment of the national
population.
You have my best wishes for a successful union.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Testimony of Assistant Attorney General
Reynolds Before the House Subcommittees
on Post-Secondary Education and Civil
and Constitutional Rights
The above-referenced testimony is scheduled to be delivered
tomorrow, partly in response to a letter from the subcom-
mittees raising specific questions on civil rights enforce-
ment with respect to higher education. The testimony
reviews the enforcement authorities available to the Depart-
ment of Justice, including Title VI (race), Title IX (gender),
and section 504 (handicap). It discusses consent decrees
and negotiation efforts to correct the existence of predom-
inantly black and white institutions in the college systems
of Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina, noting that
the Department relies on enhancing the quality of education
at predominantly black institutions and out-reach programs
at the white institutions, rather than admissions quotas.
In the gender area the testimony discusses the determination
not to appeal the University of Richmond V. Bell decision,
and the direction to the Department of Education (based on
the North Haven decision) that it may only investigate
specific programs receiving federal financial assistance.
In the handicap area the testimony notes that efforts to
revise 504 regulations for federally assisted programs have
been abandoned, but that the Department has sent federal
agencies prototype regulations for federally conducted
programs, and expects the different agencies to issue such
regulations soon.
The subjects covered by the testimony are always controversial,
but there is nothing new in this testimony. I see no legal
objections.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
828
SUBJECT:
H.J. Res. 219: Support for Soccer
World Cup to Come to U.S. in 1986
Richard Darman has requested comments by close of business
May 18 on enrolled resolution H.J. Res. 219, which declares
the support of the U.S. Government for the efforts of the
U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) to bring the World Cup to the
U.S. in 1986. The prolegomenon of the resolution states,
inter alia, that "the United State is already capable of
meeting all the requirements imposed on a host country." As
you know, and as the State Department notes in its views
letter, this is not quite true. The operative language of
the resolution, however, simply expresses support for the
efforts of the USSF. Section 2 of the bill designates the
Secretary of Commerce as the official representative for
dealing with the Federation Internationale de Football
Association.
OMB and Commerce recommend approval, State has no objection,
and Justice defers. I do not think the above-mentioned
inaccuracy in the resolution should deter the President from
approving it, since it is somewhat vague and in any event
does not commit the government to any specific action.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
H.J. Res. 219: Support for Soccer
World Cup to Come to the U.S. in 1986
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
resolution and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aw 5/17/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 18, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Action by NLRB to Restrict Authority
of NLRB General Counsel
Sherrie Cooksey has conveyed your request that I examine the
legal authority for the NLRB's recent decision to transfer
enforcement and appellate authority from the General Counsel
to the Solicitor. The report of that action is attached at
Tab A, with press stories at Tab B. Briefly, the NLRB
required all pleadings and briefs in proceedings involving
enforcement, review, Supreme Court, contempt, and miscel-
laneous litigation to be reviewed and approved by the
Solicitor. Hitherto such pleadings and briefs had been the
sole responsibility of the General Counsel appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
NLRB also indicated that it "retains for itself the authority
to transfer, promote, discipline, discharge, and take any
other necessary and appropriate personnel action" with
regard to the attorneys performing the above-mentioned
functions. The press reports portrayed the move as one to
restrict the authority of the incumbent Democratic General
Counsel William Lubbers and elevate the Republican Solicitor
Hugh Reilly. Lubbers is the darling of organized labor;
Reilly hails from the Right to Work Legal Defense Fund.
The pertinent provision of the statute states that "The
General Counsel of the Board shall exercise general super-
vision over all attorneys employed by the Board (other than
trial examiners and legal assistants to Board members) and
over the officers and employees in the regional offices. He
shall have final authority, on behalf of the Board, in
respect of the investigation of charges and issuance of
complaints under section 160 of this title, and in respect
of the prosecution of such complaints before the Board, and
shall have such other duties as the Board may prescribe or
as may be provided by law." The office of General Counsel
was added by the Taft-Hartly Act of 1947 to separate the
investigatory and prosecutorial functions of the NLRB from
the adjudicative functions. As the Conference Report on the
Act noted, "The General Counsel
is to have the final
authority to act in the name of, but independently of any
-2-
direction, control, or review by, the Board in respect of
the investigation of charges and the issuance of complaints
of unfair labor practices
"
H. Rep. No. 510, 80th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). The actions of the General Counsel
in issuing complaints are not reviewable by the Board, see
Vaca V. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 182 (1967).
The Board has apparently drawn a distinction between legal
action with respect to its orders -- primarily enforcement
actions or defenses in the Courts of Appeals -- and the
investigation and filing of an unfair labor practice com-
plaint leading up to a Board order. The statute by its
terms reserves only the latter category of actions to the
General Counsel, and the concern to separate investigatory
and prosecutorial functions from adjudicatory functions only
applies to the latter category. Once the Board issues an
order, it is not in a conflict position with respect to
enforcing it.
The real difficulty with the Board position is with the
statutory provision granting the General Counsel "general
supervision over all attorneys employed by the Board (other
than trial examiners and legal assistants to Board members)
The Board's order essentially transfers supervision of the
appellate and enforcement attorneys to the Solicitor, and
specifically retains for the Board itself "the authority to
transfer, promote, discipline, discharge, and take any other
necessary and appropriate personnel action" with respect to
those attorneys. This seems flatly inconsistent with the
statutory grant of general supervision over all attorneys to
the General Counsel. The exception in the statute for
"legal assistants to Board members" would not seem pertinent,
since the role of those assistants has been generally
understood to be limited to assisting Board members in
drafting Board opinions. The Board styled its action as a
revocation of a 1955 "delegation" memorandum, but it is not
clear that the 1955 memorandum actually delegated the
authority in question as opposed to simply describing the
authority conferred on the General Counsel by law.
I discussed the issues with John Irving, who is convinced
that the Board lacks the authority to do what it did. He
fears a request from the General Counsel for an Attorney
General opinion (which he is confident will be against the
Board) personnel action by the affected attorneys, and
Congressional hearings. Organized labor strongly supports
Lubbers and detests Reilly, so it is unlikely that this
affair will quietly go away. I am not wholly convinced that
the Board is acting illegally, since the General Counsel
-3-
still has independent authority with respect to investiga-
tions and filing complaints -- the basis for the creation of
his office. The conflict with the statute on the super-
vision point is rather stark, however, and at least at this
stage looks like a loser for the Board. The Board would
have to argue that the words "general supervision" in the
statute should be given only a very loose interpretation.
The NLRB is an independent agency, but I recommend you call
Dotson to express your doubts and make sure he has a solid
legal base for his actions.
CC: Sherrie M. Cooksey
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 18, 1983
MEMORNADUM FOR CRAIG L. FULLER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1983
Counsel's Office has received the Cabinet Council on Legal
Policy materials on the above-referenced subject. Based on
the limited amount of time for review, we see no legal
objections.
FFF:JGR:aw 5/18/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 18, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DSR
SUBJECT:
Draft Press Release Re: National
Medal of Science Recipients
Richard Darman has requested comments on the above-referenced
draft press release, including a recommendation as to
whether it should be released by the White House or the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, by close of business
May 19. The release will accompany a ceremony in the East
Room at which the President will present the Medal of
Science to twelve individuals, including Edward Teller,
reportedly the scientific inspiration for the "Star Wars"
speech.
I have no legal objections to the draft press release. I
have no strong views on whether it should be released by the
White House or OSTP, but since the President will award the
medals -- as provided by statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1881 (d) -- it
seems fitting that any announcement emanate from the White
House press office.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 18, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Press Release Re: National
Medal of Science Recipients
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
release and finds no objection to it from a legal perspec-
tive. We have no strong views on whether the announcement
should be released from the Office of Science and Technology
Policy or the White House. Since the President himself will
present the awards, however, it seems fitting that any
announcement emanate from the White House press office.
FFF:JGR:aw 5/18/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 19, 1983
Dear Mr. Messner:
With regard to your prospective appointment
as Assistant Administrator for Administra-
tion at the Environmental Protection Agency,
it will be necessary for you to complete the
enclosed Personal Data Statement and
Financial Disclosure Report. Please return
these forms to me at your earliest convenience.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
(s/
John G. Roberts
Associate Counsel
to the President
Mr. Howard M. Messner
9653 White Acre Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Enclosures
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 19, 1983
Dear Mr. Pendley:
With regard to your prospective appointment
as Assistant Secretary of Interior for
Energy, it will be necessary for you to
complete the enclosed Personal Data Statement
and Financial Disclosure Report. Please
return these forms to me at your earliest
convenience.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
John /s( G. Roberts
Associate Counsel
to the President
Mr. William Perry Pendley
4501 N. 18th Street
Arlington, Virginia 22207
Enclosures
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Draft Omnibus Bill Re: Terrorism
Assistant Attorney General McConnell has submitted a
proposed anti-terrorism bill to OMB for clearances. Title I
of the bill would prohibit conspiring in the United States
to commit a crime of violence against a foreign official
outside the U.S. Title II outlaws providing technology and
training to governments supporting terrorism or to terrorist
groups. The President would identify covered governments
and groups by proclamation. Title II also creates a new
offense of falsely posing as a U.S. intelligence agency
operative and under that guise inducing others to commit
crimes. Title III provides for rewards for those furnishing
information on terrorist acts. Titles IV and V implement
treaties signed by the U.S. governing hijacking (ratified
1972) and the taking of hostages (awaiting ratification),
respectively.
The bill represents the common views of the Departments of
Justice and State, with the exception of Title III. The
State Department has proposed a rewards bill of its own,
covering only foreign terrorism and administered by the
Secretary of State. Under Justice's bill rewards for
domestic terrorism would also be available, and the program
would be run by the Attorney General. In my view it makes
sense to have the Secretary of State run the rewards program
if it is limited to foreign terrorism, while the Attorney
General should run it if it includes domestic acts. We have
not yet been asked to "weigh in" on one side or the other.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Letter from Congressman Goodling on
Department of Justice Antitrust Enforcement
Congressman Goodling (R-Pa.) wrote the President on April 28
to object to the purported decision of the Department of
Justice not to enforce antitrust prohibitions against resale
price maintenance. He asks the President to direct the
Department to return to enforcing the law barring this
practice. Ken Duberstein sent Goodling an interim response
noting that his letter was brought to the President's
attention and was being shared with you.
I recommended asking Justice to draft a response for your
signature. The Antitrust Division has received numerous
complaints concerning Bill Baxter's pronouncements on resale
price maintenance (a legitimate practice, in Baxter's view)
and presumably has a comprehensive response readily avail-
able. I have attached a draft memorandum to the Deputy
Attorney General.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWARD C. SCHMULTS
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Letter from Congressman Goodling on
Department of Justice Antitrust Enforcement
I would appreciate it if the Antitrust Division could
prepare a draft response to the above-referenced letter, for
my signature. Since this issue has surfaced before, I
assume that division has the substance of a response readily
available.
Many thanks.
FFF:JGR:aw 5/19/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
:
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Letter Concerning
Freedoms Foundation-Enterprise America
Merger
Richard Darman's Office has asked that we prepare a cover
letter from the President to Justin Dart, explaining why we
have revised Dart's proposed Presidential letter on the
above-referenced subject and why it is being sent to Dart
rather than the mailing lists of the two groups. A draft is
attached. I believe it to be entirely inoffensive.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Letter Concerning
Freedoms Foundation-Enterprise America
Merger
You have asked that this office prepare a letter to Mr. Dart
for the President's signature, explaining the decision to
send a short letter to Mr. Dart on the Freedoms Foundation-
Enterprise America merger, rather than send Mr. Dart's
proposed letter directly to the membership of the two
groups. A proposed letter is attached.
Attachment
FFF: JGR:aw 5/19/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron