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
135839852
label
Chron File (01/26/1984-01/31/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839852
contentType
document
title
Chron File (01/26/1984-01/31/1984)
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
135839852
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
90108eb9fb8d3fae
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 (01/26/1984-01/31/1984)
Box: 62
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
IGP
8/30/2005
File Folder
CHRON FILE (01/26/1984 01/31/1984)
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
COOK
43IGP
DOC Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
COPY - Reagan Presidential Record
NO
Pages
1 MEMO
ROBERTS TO FIELDING RE TAX
1 1/27/1984 B6
668
PROTEST
2 MEMO
ROBERTS TO HAUSER RE
1 1/27/1984 B6
670
AMBASSADOR TO GUATEMALA
(PARTIAL)
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose Internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial Information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted Invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose Information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose Information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical Information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 26, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS Jop
SUBJECT:
National Knife Magazine Fundraising Drive
for Marine Beirut Relief Fund
The President has received a telegram from James V. Allday,
editor and publisher of National Knife Magazine, the
official monthly journal of the non-profit National Knife
Collectors Association. The telegram advised that the
magazine has begun a nationwide drive to raise funds for the
families of the Marines who died in the Beirut bombing.
Allday asks the President to endorse and support the drive,
and to lend his name as a co-sponsor.
Commandant Kelley's military secretary, Colonel Joseph
Alexander, advised me that Allday plans to have a
well-respected knife maker create a commemorative knife, to
be auctioned on June 2, probably for $15,000-$30,000.
Copies at different quality levels would then be made and
sold. All proceeds over actual cost would be donated to the
Marine Beirut Relief Fund. This private fund has been
established at Camp Le Jeune with the blessings of the
Corps, and has been accepting donations from a wide variety
of sources for the families of those killed in Lebanon.
Colonel Alexander advised Allday that the Marine Corps could
not officially sanction his efforts, although they were
happy to establish a liaison to accept the donations.
Alexander believes Allday to be very sincere and notes that
the Corps is appreciative of his interest and efforts.
Our general policy is to avoid involving the President in
private fundraising efforts, not only because accepting one
request would precipitate a flood of equally meritorious
ones, but also because the White House cannot supervise the
activities of the fundraising groups who would use the
President's name. This case, however, strikes me as one in
which the President might be inclined to make an exception.
I would not recommend that the President agree to be listed
as a co-sponsor of the drive, since that implies some degree
of personal involvement in the fundraising scheme. I have
no objection, however, to a note from the President to
Allday, commending him in a general way for his efforts to
help the families of the fallen Marines. The note should
- 2 -
refer not to the particulars of Allday's scheme but rather
to the Marine Beirut Relief Fund.
I have drafted a memorandum for your signature to Anne
Higgins, advising her that our office has no legal objection
to the preparation of a Presidential letter to Allday,
commending him for his efforts on behalf of the survivors of
those Marines killed in Beirut. We leave to Higgins whether
such a letter should be sent, although our office should
review any letter before it is sent. We should await a
response from Higgins before sending a reply to Allday. Our
reply to Allday will advise him that the President cannot be
a co-sponsor of his fundraising plan and, depending on
Higgins's decision, either note that a letter from the
President commending his efforts will be forthcoming or that
even such a letter would not be appropriate.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 26, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR ANNE HIGGINS
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Telegram to the President from
James V. Allday
James V. Allday, editor and publisher of National Knife
Magazine, the monthly journal of the National Knife
Collectors Association, has written the President requesting
him to co-sponsor or endorse a fundraising drive by the
magazine for the families of the Marines killed in the
Beirut bombing. We have been advised that Allday plans to
have a knife maker produce a valuable commemorative knife
that will be auctioned off. Copies of the knife will then
be produced and sold. All proceeds over actual costs will
be donated to the Marine Beirut Relief Fund.
The President should not be listed as a co-sponsor of this
fundraising effort. We have no legal objection, however, to
a letter from the President to Allday, commending in a
general way his efforts on behalf of the families of the
fallen Marines. The letter should avoid reference to
Allday's particular fundraising scheme, although it may
refer to the Marine Beirut Relief Fund. We leave to your
judgment whether such a letter should be sent, but our
office should review any proposed letter before it is sent.
When you advise us of your decision, we will prepare a
response from this office to Allday, noting that the
President cannot be listed as a co-sponsor and advising
Allday of your office's decision on a commendatory letter.
FFF:JGR:aea 1/26/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
226R
SUBJECT:
Correspondence from Arthur J. Goldberg
on a Constitutional Convention to Propose
a Balanced Budget Amendment
Arthur Goldberg has written you to express his deep concern
over the imminent possibility of a Constitutional Convention
to propose a balanced budget amendment. Article V of the
Constitution specifies two routes for proposing Constitu-
tional amendments: a two-thirds vote of both Houses of
Congress or a Convention called by two-thirds of the States.
In either case proposed amendments must be ratified by
three-fourths of the States. By one popular count, 32 of
the requisite 34 states have called for a convention to
propose a balanced budget amendment. Whether this count is
accurate depends on open questions concerning how similar
and how contemporaneous state applications under Article V
must be to be aggregated.
Goldberg, like many commentators, is concerned that if a
Convention is called it may become a "runaway" convention,
proposing broad revision of the entire Constitution rather
than adhering to a limited mandate to propose a balanced
budget amendment. Goldberg correctly notes that the
convention amendment route has never been tried, so it is
surrounded with unanswered legal questions. It is not clear
if an Article V convention may be limited to a single topic,
if an Article V convention is bound by limitations imposed
by Congress, or what role the courts have in deciding such
questions. The Office of Legal Counsel has concluded that
an Article V convention would be required to respect
limitations imposed by the states applying for a convention,
3 O.L.C. Ops. 390 (1979), but such opinions understandably
furnish little solace to those who, like Goldberg, recall
that the 1787 Convention itself was called for the expressly
limited purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation.
Goldberg notes that the President has called for a balanced
budget amendment. He urges the President to make clear that
he means an amendment proposed by a two-thirds vote of both
Houses of Congress, rather than by the untried and hazardous
route of a convention. Goldberg enclosed with his letter a
mailing from Californians for a Balanced Federal Budget, a
- 2 -
group mounting an initiative campaign to have California
become the thirty-third state to call for an Article V
convention. The mailing quotes the President's statement on
October 7, 1983: "Let us urge the American people to keep
working at the grassroots for a Constitutional amendment
mandating a balanced budget. If you want it to happen, it
will happen." Goldberg argues that the mailing could leave
the impression the President supports the drive for a
Constitutional Convention.
I do not know whether the President does or not. Mike
Uhlmann advises that the Administration has scrupulously
avoided taking a position on the question. This strikes me
as sagacious, particularly since the President has no formal
legal role in the Article V amendment process. We should
hardly depart from this course simply because Arthur
Goldberg has asked us to.
I have drafted an innocuous reply to Goldberg, thanking him
for sharing his wisdom and noting that we have referred his
letter to the Justice Department for their edification. The
draft reply does not refer to the California mailing. The
quotation of the President is accurate and is not taken out
of context. I do not think any action against the sponsors
would be appropriate or desirable.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1984
Dear Mr. Justice:
Thank you for your letter of January 17. In that letter you
noted that thirty-two of the requisite thirty-four states
have applied, pursuant to Article V, for a Constitutional
Convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. You
expressed concern at the possibility that such a convention
might be held, in light of the many unanswered legal ques-
tions surrounding this method of amending our Constitution.
It is true that the Article V convention route is somewhat
shrouded in mystery, largely because it has never been
tried. We certainly appreciate having the benefit of your
views on this topic, and will give them the careful
consideration merited by their source. In that regard, I
have taken the liberty of sharing your letter with the
Department of Justice.
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Arthur J. Goldberg
2801 New Mexico Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
FFF:JGR:aea 1/27/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWARD C. SCHMULTS
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Correspondence from Arthur J. Goldberg
on a Constitutional Convention to Propose
a Balanced Budget Amendment
We received the attached correspondence from Arthur J.
Goldberg, and submit it to you, together with a copy of
my reply, for whatever review and action, if any, you
deem appropriate.
Many thanks.
FFF:JGR:aea 1/27/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
Q3R
SUBJECT:
Address: International Concrete
and Aggregates Show Convention
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by close
of business today. The remarks stress opposition to big
government, central planning, and regulation, and support
for free enterprise and unleashing the profit motive. The
remarks also review the progress of the economic recovery,
and express support for line-item veto authority (the form
is not specified) and a constitutional amendment mandating a
balanced Federal budget.
On page 9, line 7, the President refers to his support for
the creation of a "bipartisan commission" to deal with the
deficit. What the President proposed in his State of the
Union address was the designation by the congressional
leadership of a bipartisan group of congressional repre-
sentatives to meet with administration representatives. Use
of the term "bipartisan commission" suggests an advisory
committee along the lines of the Scowcroft, Social Security,
and Kissinger Commissions. I think we should avoid use of
the "bipartisan commission" label to avoid the confusion
about exactly what the President meant that characterized
media reports after the address. I would delete "by
supporting the creation of a bipartisan commission" and
substitute "by urging the congressional leadership to
designate a bipartisan group of congressional repre-
sentatives to work with my representatives on this
question."
The attached memorandum includes this suggestion and two
more minor grammatical ones.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Address: International Concrete
and Aggregates Show Convention
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
remarks. On page 9, line 7, we recommend deleting "by
supporting the creation of a bipartisan commission" and
substituting "by urging the congressional leadership to
designate a bipartisan group of congressional repre-
sentatives to work with my representatives on this
question." What the President proposed in his State of
the Union address was quite different from a "bipartisan
commission" such as the Scowcroft, Social Security, or
Kissinger Commissions. Use of the term "bipartisan
commission" to describe the President's proposal for a
bipartisan group of congressional representatives meeting
with Administration officials would create considerable
confusion over precisely what the President intended.
On page 3, line 11, either "energies" should be "energy" or
"it" should be "them."
On page 3, line 23, "there" should be "therefrom" or "from
it."
cc: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 1/27/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
ROBERTS, JOHN: FILES
IGP 8/5/2005
File Folder
FOIA
CHRON FILE (01/26/1984 - 01/31/1984)
F05-139/01
COOK
Box Number
43IGP
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO Document Description
pages
tions
1 MEMO
1
1/27/1984 B6
668
ROBERTS TO FIELDING RE TAX PROTEST
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWARD C. SCHMULTS
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
John and Betsy Kinker
Tax Protest
We received the attached tax protest/litigation materials
addressed to the President, and submit them to you for
whatever action you deem appropriate. We have not responded
in any fashion.
Many thanks.
FFF:JGR:aea 1/27/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD A. HAUSER
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 256
SUBJECT:
Nomination of Harry W. Shlaudeman to be
Ambassador to Guatemala
I have reviewed the SF-278 and related materials submitted
by Mr. Shlaudeman in connection with his prospective
nomination to be Ambassador to Guatemala, and have no
objections to going forward with the nomination.
ble
Mr. Shlaudeman served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Santiago
during 1969-1973, and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for Inter-American Affairs during 1973-1975, and he notes
that he was identified with the controversial U.S. policy
toward Chile during the Allende period. He volunteers that
he was attacked in Congress and elsewhere for allegedly
attempting to mislead the House Foreign Affairs Committee in
testimony he delivered in 1974 on U.S. involvement in Chile.
Shlaudeman has been confirmed by the Senate for three
different posts since then, so I consider the episode safely
behind him.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
JOR
SUBJECT:
Seal Inquiry
Connie Marshall, of the Juvenile Books division of Random
House, Inc., has requested a copy of the Seal of the
President for possible use on the cover of the upcoming
The Look-It-Up Book of Presidents. Marshall describes the
volume as a children's trade book, and suggests the use of
the Seal would be an "educational use."
Executive Order 11649, section 1 (b), permits use of the Seal
"in encyclopedias, dictionaries, books, journals, pamphlets,
periodicals, or magazines incident to a description or
history of the Presidency.' The contemplated use of the
Seal by Random House thus appears to comply with 18 U.S.C.
§ 713 (b), which prohibits use of the Seal except in accord-
ance with regulations issued by the President.
A separate question is raised under 18 U.S.C. § 713 (a),
however, by the contemplated use of the Seal on the cover of
the book. Section 713 (a) prohibits knowing display of the
Seal for the purpose of conveying or in a manner reasonably
calculated to convey the false impression of governmental
sponsorship. A use of the Seal can comply with 18 U.S.C.
§ 713 (b) and the regulations issued thereunder and still
violate 18 U.S.C. § 713 (a). It is quite easy to imagine a
use of the Seal on a book cover that runs afoul of § 713 (a)
by conveying the impression that the book is a government
sponsored or approved publication.
I recommend sending Marshall a copy of the pertinent statute
and Executive Order along with the Seal, and alerting her to
the concern that the book cover not run afoul of § 713 (a).
I do not, as a general matter, think it advisable for us to
seek pre-publication review of the precise nature of planned
uses of the Seal that comply with § 713 (b) on the ground
that they might violate § 713 (a). In this case that would
involve review of a mock-up of the cover, after which we
would be in the position of giving an advisory opinion on
compliance with a criminal statute -- something I think we
should never do.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1984
Dear Ms. Marshall:
Thank you for your letter of January 25. That letter
requested a full-color photograph of the Seal of the
President, for possible use on the cover of the upcoming
Random House book, The Look-It-Up Book of Presidents.
The permitted uses of the Seal of the President are governed
by Title 18 of the United States Code, section 713. Section
713 (b) generally prohibits the use of the Seal except in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the President.
Those regulations are embodied in Executive Order 11649, as
amended. A copy of the statute and implementing regulations
is enclosed for your information.
You will notice that section 1 (b) of the Executive Order
permits use of the Seal "in encyclopedias, dictionaries,
books, journals, pamphlets, periodicals, or magazines
incident to a description or history of
the Presidency."
Your contemplated use of the Seal appears to fall within
this category of permitted uses.
I must advise you, however, that use of the Seal on the
cover of the book raises the separate concern under section
713 (a) that such use may convey the false impression of
sponsorship or approval of the book by the Government.
Whether this is in fact the case depends upon the precise
manner in which the Seal is displayed and whatever else
appears on the cover.
I have enclosed a full-color photograph of the Seal of the
President, for possible use in The Look-It-Up Book of
Presidents consistent with the above-referenced statutory
provisions.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Ms. Connie Marshall
Juvenile Books
Random House, Inc.
201 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
FFF:JGR:aea 1/30/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
J2R
SUBJECT:
Administration Position Regarding
Immigration Bill (Prepared by OMB)
Richard Darman has asked for our comments by noon today on a
proposed Administration position on H.R. 1510, the House
version of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1983. The draft was prepared by OMB and
reflects that agency's fiscal reservations about the bill.
As discussed at the recent Cabinet Council on Legal Policy
meeting on immigration reform, the House version of the bill
differs from the Senate version in several significant
particulars, each of which markedly increases the antici-
pated costs of the measure.
The proposed position paper notes that the Administration
supports the Senate bill and "strongly opposes the massive
budget add-ons and the weakened enforcement provisions" of
the House bill. The paper then states that the Administra-
tion will seek amendments to (1) eliminate the 100 percent
Federal reimbursement provision in the House bill, in favor
of the block grant approach in the Senate bill (capped at
$1.4 billion for 1984-1988), (2) move back the entry date
for legalization, as provided in the Senate bill, (3)
eliminate the House bill provision allowing employers "one
free bite" at hiring illegal aliens, and (4) delete the
House bill's requirement of a search warrant before INS
officers can investigate "open fields."
I have no objection to the proposed Administration position.
The Senate bill is vastly superior to the House bill, and
Administration lobbyists should work diligently to correct
the excesses of the House bill. What I do object to is
language implying that the President will veto the
immigration bill if our suggested changes are not adopted.
The course of the immigration reform controversy requires
the greatest degree of sensitivity in presenting our
concerns with respect to the House bill.
OMB's position on Simpson-Mazzoli calls to mind what has
been said of the Roman legions: they lost many battles
but they never lost a war, because they never let a war
end until they had won it. We were concerned prior to the
- 2 -
Cabinet Council meeting that Stockman's memorandum strongly
voicing his objections to the House bill would become public
and rekindle controversy over the Administration's sincerity
concerning immigration reform. That is precisely what
occurred. It is perfectly correct to raise concerns and
seek revisions in the legislation as it works its way to the
President's desk; it is disloyal to seek to undermine the
effort to obtain any legislation at all by constantly
raising fiscal risks previously acknowledged and accepted by
the President and his Cabinet.
This is less a question of precise wording in memoranda than
of the manner in which Administration concerns are presented
on the Hill. The attached draft memorandum for Darman
simply notes the need for sensitivity in presenting the
Administration position on the objectionable features of the
House bill, although it does suggest changing "strongly
opposes" in the memorandum to "objects."
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Administration Position Regarding
Immigration Bill (Prepared by OMB)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
Administration position paper. We have no legal objections
to the proposed positions themselves. It is imperative,
however, that Administration spokesmen promoting these
positions be sensitive to the background of the controversy
over immigration reform, and not inadvertently or otherwise
permit the voicing of budgetary concerns to prevent the
legislation from reaching the conference stage. In this
regard, we recommend changing "strongly opposes" on line 4
of the first page of the draft position to "objects."
FFF:JGR:aea 1/30/84
CC: FFFieldng/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Statement of J. Paul McGrath
Regarding Department of Justice
Authorization for Fiscal Year 1985
OMB has asked for our views on the attached testimony that
Assistant Attorney General McGrath plans to deliver before
the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the
House Judiciary Committee on February 2. That Subcommittee
is holding the annual hearings on the Antitrust Division's
authorization.
McGrath's proposed testimony reviews the Division's budget
request and enforcement priorities. Those priorities, as
under William Baxter, focus on cartel activities and review
of mergers. The most significant aspect of McGrath's
testimony concerns resale price maintenance. Baxter pursued
a policy of not treating resale price maintenance as per se
illegal, contending that the Supreme Court decision estab-
lishing the per se rule for such schemes was ill-reasoned
and undermined by later developments. The issue was
presented to the Supreme Court last fall in the Monsanto V.
Spray-Rite case. McGrath announces in his testimony that
he:
will enforce the law as interpreted by the Supreme
Court unless and until its prior interpretation is
altered. Thus, we will enforce existing legal
precedent holding agreements between manufacturers
and distributors regarding the price at which the
manufacturers' products are to be resold to be
unlawful per se.
This should remove for McGrath an issue that had been a
considerable irritant in relations between Baxter and the
Hill.
I have no objection. The resale price maintenance issue is
before the Supreme Court, and there is no reason for McGrath
to confront the issue in the brief interim before the Court
offers guidance.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of J. Paul McGrath
Regarding Department of Justice
Authorization for Fiscal Year 1985
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
testimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 1/30/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR DIANNA G. HOLLAND
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSOR
SUBJECT:
CEQ Report
On December 15, 1983, Anne D. Neal copied Mr. Fielding on a
memorandum she prepared for Kemp Harshman, CEQ Executive
Officer, reviewing suggested changes in a draft CEQ report
on problems associated with the CEQ consolidated working
fund. When this issue first arose some time ago, our office
directed that the matter be handled by CEQ and OA. Neal's
suggestions were adopted by CEQ, and the report, with
several other revisions, has been finalized. I have
included a copy of the final report for the files. There is
no need for action by our office, and this matter may be
closed.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: Birthday Rally/
Dixon, Illinois -- Monday, Feb. 6, 1984
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by
1:00 p.m. today. The remarks are to be delivered at a
birthday rally and appropriately begin with some defusing
comments about the President's age. The bulk of the remarks
are general ones about American values and community spirit,
interspersed with references to the history of Dixon,
Illinois.
In the last full sentence on page 3 the President states
that if the founder of Dixon "had to fill out environmental
impact statements and report to regulatory agencies in
Washington, I'd probably still be calling Dixon's Ferry my
hometown." I think this could easily be misinterpreted as
an adverse reflection on those who never left and never will
leave Dixon. If the point is that Dixon would still be
Dixon's Ferry, i.e., that there would have been no
technological development, it could be made clearer by
changing "I'd probably still be calling Dixon's Ferry my
hometown" to "Dixon would probably still be known as Dixon's
Ferry." I have no legal objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: Birthday Rally/
Dixon, Illinois -- Monday, Feb. 6, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks,
and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
The last full sentence on page 3 may be misconstrued as an
adverse comment on the people who never left and never will
leave Dixon. If the point is that Dixon would still be
known as Dixon's Ferry, because there would have been no
technological progress, it could be made clearer by changing
"I'd probably still be calling Dixon's Ferry my hometown" to
"Dixon would probably still be known as Dixon's Ferry."
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 1/31/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 832
SUBJECT:
Cerami Correspondence Transmitting
Second Interim Report on Special
Trade Study
Charles A. Cerami has written you, enclosing a copy of the
second interim report on the Special Trade Study "that you
helped to make possible." Cerami notes that a State
Department working group will review the report, but asks
for any comments you might have.
The report begins by noting that the current talk of a
"world trade crisis" is exaggerated, as is the belief that
the world is experiencing a "protectionist drift." Part I
of the report outlines politically-based trade restrictions
deliberately used by national governments (an example would
be local content or "Buy American" legislation). The report
concedes that such ingrained practices cannot easily be
extirpated, and urges greater reporting about and
communication concerning the practices, as a first step in
educating governments and peoples about their counter-
productive effects on the nation as a whole.
Part II of the report considers more narrowly-based
restrictions, such as special protection for particular
industries, usually represented by politically influential
legislators. The report is more optimistic about resisting
such restrictions, primarily because the injury to the
nation as a whole is clearer when an isolated industry or
region is protected.
Part III of the report discusses the north-south crisis and
the need to facilitate the provision of credit to the less
developed countries. The report's argument is that the
world trading system desperately needs new markets, and that
such markets cannot develop if the Third World has no means
of paying for goods from the developed countries. This
section of the report also emphasizes the deleterious effect
on world trade of the over-valued U.S. dollar.
Since a State Department working group will be reviewing the
report, it strikes me as somewhat inappropriate for you to
offer substantive comments that may conflict with the
- 2 -
official views of the Government as presented by the working
group. For the same reason I do not recommend a referral to
those in the White House more involved with trade matters.
Accordingly, the attached draft reply is innocuous and
simply thanks Cerami for sharing the report with you.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1984
Dear Charles:
Thank you for your kind letter transmitting the second
interim report on the Special Trade Study. I was pleased
to read on the opening page of the report that talk of a
"world trade crisis" is exaggerated, and that the common
belief in a "protectionist drift" is unwarranted. At the
same time, however, as the bulk of the report makes clear,
there certainly are serious problems and troubling develop-
ments in this area that merit the most careful attention.
For that reason, I was pleased to learn that your impressive
work will be reviewed by a working group organized by the
State Department.
The discussion on page 17 of the report concerning the
counter-productive nature of some retaliatory trade measures
called to mind a favorite analogy of the President's. As
the President stated in his September 27, 1983 address
before the Board of Governors of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund:
[W]e and our trading partners are in the same boat.
If one partner shoots a hcle in the bottom of the
boat, does it make sense for the other partner to
shoot another hole in the boat? Some people say
yes and call it getting tough. I call it getting
wet -- all over.
Once again, thank you for sharing this draft with me. I am
certain that those reviewing it will find it a valuable
contribution to a very important discourse.
With warmest personal regards,
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. Charles A. Cerami
The Atlantic Council of the
United States
1616 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
FFF:JGR:aea 1/31/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Sub j/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSOSR
SUBJECT:
Testimony: Hearing on the FY-1985
Reauthorization of the Drug Enforcement
Administration
OMB has asked for our comments on the attached testimony,
which DEA Administrator Bud Mullen proposes to deliver
tomorrow. The testimony, for DEA's reauthorization
hearings, reviews last year's accomplishments and priorities
for the future. In the former category Mullen stresses the
success of the new DEA-FBI relationship, the establishment
of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, and the
world-wide reduction in methaqualone production. With
respect to objectives Mullen lists five priorities:
1. bringing all available resources to bear on the
drug problem by continually improving coordination
and cooperation among different federal agencies,
2. improving cooperation with state and local
officials,
3. reducing drug supplies in source countries,
4. refining internal DEA procedures to maximize
effective use of existing resources, and
5. becoming more involved in the popular anti-drug
educational and prevention movement.
I have reviewed the testimony, which is still in a fairly
rough form, and have no legal objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Testimony: Hearing on the FY-1985
Reauthorization of the Drug Enforcement
Administration
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
draft testimony, and finds no objection to it from a
legal perspective, although the testimony is still in
rather rough draft form.
FFF:JGR:aea 1/31/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subject/Chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 222
SUBJECT:
Remarks: National Prayer Breakfast
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by
4:00 p.m. today. The remarks reflect upon the importance
of prayer, and stress the success of the Year of the Bible
proclamation. Aside from mention of that proclamation
itself, the only politically controversial reference is one
on page 3, lines 12-13 to "the right of our children to
worship God in their schools." The President simply states
that on this issue we should all work and pray together.
I have no legal objections, although the opening joke --
Churchill's famous quip about how more people would come
to see him hanged than to hear him speak -- strikes me as
inappropriate.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Remarks: National Prayer Breakfast
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks,
and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective. I
would point out, however, that I found the Churchill story
on page one to be somewhat inappropriate.
cc: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 1/31/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron