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
135839868
label
Chron File (03/16/1984-03/22/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839868
contentType
document
title
Chron File (03/16/1984-03/22/1984)
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
135839868
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
0222851bec8068ba
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 (03/16/1984-03/22/1984)
Box: 63
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 (03/16/1984 - 03/22/1984)
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
COOK
49IGP
DOC
Doc Type
Document Description
No of
Doc Date Restrictions
NO
Pages
1
MEMO
ROBERTS TO HOLLAND RE
1 3/16/1984
B6
756
AMBASSADOR TO CONGO (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
March 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Jim Coyne
Jim Coyne has asked for guidance from our office concerning
his plans to travel to Japan with other Private Sector
Initiatives staffers and advisory committee members to
establish the Ronald Reagan scholarship program. According
to Coyne, the President's Advisory Council on Private Sector
Initiatives has recommended that a scholarship program be
established to promote the education of American students in
Japan, and that the program be called the "Reagan Scholar-
ships." Coyne has been actively attempting to implement
this decision. The first step, as Coyne sees it, is to
travel to Japan to begin work on the details. Accordingly,
he has contacted Pan Am to see if that airline would be
willing to donate travel for himself and others to go to
Japan. He has not yet received a definite answer, but it
occurred to him to raise the matter with our office to see
if there could possibly be any legal concerns.
Coyne wants to know if the private sector can provide his
travel and that of advisory committee members. If this
cannot be done directly, can it be done indirectly, through
a 501 (c) (3) organization such as the Asian Studies Foundation,
on whose board he serves?
I told Coyne that the basic rule was that official travel by
Government employees must be paid for by appropriated funds.
Any other arrangement presented supplementation of appro-
priations and/or conflicts problems. Coyne responded that
he paid for his official travel to Grenada out of his own
pocket.
Reviewing a Coyne proposal is very similar to taking a
typical law school torts examination. The fact situation in
both instances is filled with countless legal issues and the
key is to spot as many as possible. The following occur to
me in this case:
1. Although the project seems fairly well advanced, we
cannot approve calling any government-sponsored scholarship
program the "Reagan Scholarships." You will recall that we
- 2 -
recently advised Mr. Wick that it would not be appropriate
to name a government program -- also a "Reagan Scholarships"
proposal -- for an incumbent President; that precedent
clearly controls this case.
2. Coyne should not have called Pan Am to ask for free
travel. Provision of travel by Pan Am would not only be an
illegal supplementation of appropriations but would also
raise serious appearance and conflicts problems. The same
concerns would apply with respect to advisory committee
members on official business.
3. In my view, the private sector cannot pay for
Coyne's contemplated activities by funneling donations
through a 501 (c) (3) organization, even if a willing
501 (c) (3) organization without the obvious conflict of
having Coyne on its board could be found. The statute
authorizing 501 (c) (3) organizations to pay travel expenses
of Government employees authorizes such payment for expenses
"incident to attendance at meetings." 5 U.S.C. § 4111.
This provision typically applies when government employees
attend a meeting sponsored by the organization in question.
I have examined the legislative history of 5 U.S.C. § 4111,
and while that history sheds little light on the question I
think it safe to say that the provision was not intended to
authorize 501 (c) (3) organizations to fund general travel by
government employees. Furthermore, Coyne's proposal would
violate the rule in the White House Travel Handbook that
payment by a 501 (c) (3) organization "shall never be
solicited by a staff member."
4. I discussed Coyne's remark about his Grenada travel
with Larry Garrett, who reviewed the question when it arose.
Larry advised me that Coyne went to Grenada on vacation,
only incidentally attempting to further the mission of his
office while there. Since the trip was predominantly
personal in nature, Coyne was required to pay his own travel
expenses. Coyne should be reminded of this fact and told to
stop representing that he paid for his own official travel
-- a violation of the anti-supplementation rules.
A draft memorandum to Coyne is attached. The memorandum
advises Coyne that (1) the contemplated scholarship program
cannot be named for the President, (2) his official travel
and that of advisory committee members traveling on official
business must be paid for out of appropriated funds, (3) a
501 (c) (3) organization can reimburse travel expenses only
for attendance at meetings sponsored by that organization,
and not general official travel, and (4) he should cease
stating that he paid for his official travel to Grenada.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. COYNE
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
"Ronald Reagan Scholarship Program"
and Related Travel Proposals
You recently raised several questions with this office
concerning contemplated travel by you, members of your
staff, and members of the President's Advisory Council on
Private Sector Initiatives to Japan in connection with the
establishment of a scholarship program for United States
students to study in Japan. You noted that the program
would be known as the "Reagan Scholarships."
As an initial matter I must advise you that it would be
inappropriate to name the proposed scholarship program after
the President. The White House adheres to a policy of not
permitting any government-sponsored or government-endorsed
program to be named after the incumbent President, for what
I had thought were obvious reasons. Indeed, the White House
recently declined a request from another agency to establish
a "Reagan Scholarship" program, even though the funds would
be provided by private sources. That precedent controls
this case.
Travel by you, members of your staff, or members of the
Advisory Council on official business may not be donated by
private carriers. The White House Travel Handbook is quite
explicit on this point: "Whenever you are traveling on
official business of the government, traveling to attend a
function, or giving a speech as the representative of the
White House, or the Administration, all travel-related
expenses must be paid from appropriated funds" (emphasis in
original). (The one exception to this rule is discussed
infra.) Provision of travel by private carriers would
violate rules against supplementation of appropriations, and
raise serious conflict of interest concerns in light of the
significant regulatory role of the CAB, FAA, and other
Federal agencies with respect to the activities of private
carriers. You should never contact such carriers about
- 2 -
providing free service to you or anyone else, and should
terminate any discussions you may have commenced on this
topic immediately. The foregoing also applies to lodging
and any other travel expenses.
In certain limited circumstances travel expenses may be
reimbursed by a 501 (c) (3) organization, providing that such
reimbursement does not create an actual or apparent conflict
of interest. As the White House Travel Handbook makes quite
clear, however, such reimbursement "shall never be solicited
by a staff member." It is not permissible to inquire of a
501 (c) (3) organization concerning the willingness of the
organization to pay for official travel. Reimbursement may
not be accepted from any organization solicited in violation
of this rule.
Furthermore, the statute authorizing payment of official
travel expenses by a 501 (c) (3) organization does so only for
expenses "incident to attendance at meetings." 5 U.S.C.
§ 4111. The statute does not authorize a 501 (c) (3)
organization to pay for official travel in general, simply
because the organization considers that travel beneficial to
its interests. Once again, the White House Travel Handbook
is quite explicit: "If you are traveling to attend a
training seminar, meeting or conference sponsored by a
nonprofit organization granted tax-exempt status under the
law (Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue code), that
organization may pay for your normal, reasonable travel
expenses under most circumstances unless the acceptance of
such expenses creates an actual or apparent conflict of
interest with your official duties" (emphasis supplied).
I should note that the rule that official travel must
generally be paid for out of appropriated funds prohibits
individuals paying for their own official travel. Your
comment that you paid for your official travel to Grenada
is not accurate. When you raised the question of your
travel to Grenada with our office, you stated that you were
traveling there for "a Christmas week vacation." The travel
was accordingly private, not official.
I recognize that it is the unique mission of your office to
promote private sector charitable activities. As the
foregoing demonstrates, however, your official duties and
those of your staff cannot be funded by the private sector
as if those duties were themselves charitable in nature.
FFF:JGR:aea 3/16/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS ore
SUBJECT:
Southern District of New York
Judgeships
Mike Horowitz called me this morning to register his outrage
at the possibility that the President would nominate William
Hellerstein for a vacancy on the Southern District (see
attached article). Horowitz stated that his friends in New
York tell him Hellerstein is an extreme liberal whose
predilections have been solidified by his service as head of
the Legal Aid appeals office. I told Horowitz I would
convey his concerns to the appropriate people in our office,
and hereby do SO.
Attachment
CC: Sherrie M. Cooksey
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR DIANNA G. HOLLAND
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 256
COPY - Reagan Presidential Record
SUBJECT:
Nomination of Alan W. Lukens
to be Ambassador to Congo
I have reviewed the SF-278 and related materials submitted
by Alan W. Lukens in connection with his prospective nomin-
ation to be Ambassador to Congo, and have no objection to
proceeding with the nomination.
b6
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
832
SUBJECT:
Jim Coyne
Jim Coyne has asked for guidance from our office concerning
his plans to travel to Japan with other Private Sector
Initiatives staffers and advisory committee members to
establish the Ronald Reagan scholarship program. According
to Coyne, the President's Advisory Council on Private Sector
Initiatives has recommended that a scholarship program be
established to promote the education of American students in
Japan, and that the program be called the "Reagan Scholar-
ships." Coyne has been actively attempting to implement
this decision. The first step, as Coyne sees it, is to
travel to Japan to begin work on the details. Accordingly,
he has contacted Pan Am to see if that airline would be
willing to donate travel for himself and others to go to
Japan. He has not yet received a definite answer, but it
occurred to him to raise the matter with our office to see
if there could possibly be any legal concerns.
Coyne wants to know if the private sector can provide his
travel and that of advisory committee members. If this
cannot be done directly, can it be done indirectly, through
a 501 (c) (3) organization such as the Asian Studies Foundation,
on whose board he serves?
I told Coyne that the basic rule was that official travel by
Government employees must be paid for by appropriated funds.
Any other arrangement presented supplementation of appro-
priations and/or conflicts problems. Coyne responded that
he paid for his official travel to Grenada out of his own
pocket.
Reviewing a Coyne proposal is very similar to taking a
typical law school torts examination. The fact situation in
both instances is filled with countless legal issues and the
key is to spot as many as possible. The following occur to
me in this case:
1. Although the project seems fairly well advanced, we
cannot approve calling any government-sponsored scholarship
program the "Reagan Scholarships." You will recall that we
- 2 -
recently advised Mr. Wick that it would not be appropriate
to name a government program -- also a "Reagan Scholarships"
proposal -- for an incumbent President; that precedent
clearly controls this case.
2. Coyne should not have called Pan Am to ask for free
travel. Provision of travel by Pan Am would not only be an
illegal supplementation of appropriations but would also
raise serious appearance and conflicts problems. The same
concerns would apply with respect to advisory committee
members on official business.
3. In my view, the private sector cannot pay for
Coyne's contemplated activities by funneling donations
through a 501 (c) (3) organization, even if a willing
501 (c) (3) organization without the obvious conflict of
having Coyne on its board could be found. The statute
authorizing 501 (c) (3) organizations to pay travel expenses
of Government employees authorizes such payment for expenses
"incident to attendance at meetings." 5 U.S.C. § 4111.
This provision typically applies when government employees
attend a meeting sponsored by the organization in question.
I have examined the legislative history of 5 U.S.C. § 4111,
and while that history sheds little light on the question I
think it safe to say that the provision was not intended to
authorize 501 (c) (3) organizations to fund general travel by
government employees. Furthermore, Coyne's proposal would
violate the rule in the White House Travel Handbook that
payment by a 501 (c) (3) organization "shall never be
solicited by a staff member."
4. I discussed Coyne's remark about his Grenada travel
with Larry Garrett, who reviewed the question when it arose.
Larry advised me that Coyne went to Grenada on vacation,
only incidentally attempting to further the mission of his
office while there. Since the trip was predominantly
personal in nature, Coyne was required to pay his own travel
expenses. Coyne should be reminded of this fact and told to
stop representing that he paid for his own official travel
-- a violation of the anti-supplementation rules.
A draft memorandum to Coyne is attached. The memorandum
advises Coyne that (1) the contemplated scholarship program
cannot be named for the President, (2) his official travel
and that of advisory committee members traveling on official
business must be paid for out of appropriated funds, (3) a
501 (c) (3) organization can reimburse travel expenses only
for attendance at meetings sponsored by that organization,
and not general official travel, and (4) he should cease
stating that he paid for his official travel to Grenada.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. COYNE
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
"Ronald Reagan Scholarship Program"
and Related Travel Proposals
You recently raised several questions with this office
concerning contemplated travel by you, members of your
staff, and members of the President's Advisory Council on
Private Sector Initiatives to Japan in connection with the
establishment of a scholarship program for United States
students to study in Japan. You noted that the program
would be known as the "Reagan Scholarships."
As an initial matter I must advise you that it would be
inappropriate to name the proposed scholarship program after
the President. The White House adheres to a policy of not
permitting any government-sponsored or government-endorsed
program to be named after the incumbent President, for what
I had thought were obvious reasons. Indeed, the White House
recently declined a request from another agency to establish
a "Reagan Scholarship" program, even though the funds would
be provided by private sources. That precedent controls
this case.
Travel by you, members of your staff, or members of the
Advisory Council on official business may not be donated by
private carriers. The White House Travel Handbook is quite
explicit on this point: "Whenever you are traveling on
official business of the government, traveling to attend a
function, or giving a speech as the representative of the
White House, or the Administration, all travel-related
expenses must be paid from appropriated funds" (emphasis in
original). (The one exception to this rule is discussed
infra.) Provision of travel by private carriers would
violate rules against supplementation of appropriations, and
raise serious conflict of interest concerns in light of the
significant regulatory role of the CAB, FAA, and other
Federal agencies with respect to the activities of private
carriers. You should never contact such carriers about
- 2 -
providing free service to you or anyone else, and should
terminate any discussions you may have commenced on this
topic immediately. The foregoing also applies to lodging
and any other travel expenses.
In certain limited circumstances travel expenses may be
reimbursed by a 501 (c) (3) organization, providing that such
reimbursement does not create an actual or apparent conflict
of interest. As the White House Travel Handbook makes quite
clear, however, such reimbursement "shall never be solicited
by a staff member." It is not permissible to inquire of a
501 (c) (3) organization concerning the willingness of the
organization to pay for official travel. Reimbursement may
not be accepted from any organization solicited in violation
of this rule.
Furthermore, the statute authorizing payment of official
travel expenses by a 501 (c) (3) organization does so only for
expenses "incident to attendance at meetings." 5 U.S.C.
§ 4111. The statute does not authorize a 501 (c) (3)
organization to pay for official travel in general, simply
because the organization considers that travel beneficial to
its interests. Once again, the White House Travel Handbook
is quite explicit: "If you are traveling to attend a
training seminar, meeting or conference sponsored by a
nonprofit organization granted tax-exempt status under the
law (Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue code), that
organization may pay for your normal, reasonable travel
expenses under most circumstances unless the acceptance of
such expenses creates an actual or apparent conflict of
interest with your official duties" (emphasis supplied).
I should note that the rule that official travel must
generally be paid for out of appropriated funds prohibits
individuals paying for their own official travel. Your
comment that you paid for your official travel to Grenada
is not accurate. When you raised the question of your
travel to Grenada with our office, you stated that you were
traveling there for "a Christmas week vacation." The travel
was accordingly private, not official.
I recognize that it is the unique mission of your office to
promote private sector charitable activities. As the
foregoing demonstrates, however, your official duties and
those of your staff cannot be funded by the private sector
as if those duties were themselves charitable in nature.
FFF:JGR:aea 3/16/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
R
SUBJECT:
Statement of Samuel T. Currin
Concerning Food Stamp Fraud in
North Carolina
We have been provided with a copy of testimony Samuel T.
Currin, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, proposes to deliver before a hearing of the Senate
Agriculture Committee on food stamp fraud and abuse. In his
well-prepared testimony Currin describes "Operation Stampout,"
an undercover operation conducted by his office that resulted
in a large number of indictments for food stamp abuse.
Based on the results of Operation Stampout, Currin concludes
that a black market exists for food stamps, with an exchange
rate of about $0.50 for $1 worth of stamps. Stamps are used
to purchase illegal guns, drugs, automobiles, alcohol --
anything that money can buy. Procedures to guard against
abuse -- such as the requirement that food stamp users show
their eligibility card when using the stamps -- are uniformly
ignored. Currin calls for unspecified legislation to
address these problems. I have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Samuel T. Currin
Concerning Food Stamp Fraud in
North Carolina
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced testimony,
and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 3/16/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS are
SUBJECT:
Southern District of New York
Judgeships
Mike Horowitz called me this morning to register his outrage
at the possibility that the President would nominate William
Hellerstein for a vacancy on the Southern District (see
attached article). Horowitz stated that his friends in New
York tell him Hellerstein is an extreme liberal whose
predilections have been solidified by his service as head of
the Legal Aid appeals office. I told Horowitz I would
convey his concerns to the appropriate people in our office,
and hereby do SO.
Attachment
CC: Sherrie M. Cooksey
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSQX
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 47 --
Shipping Act of 1984
Richard Darman has asked for comments by noon today on the
above-referenced enrolled bill. This major legislation is
the product of the Administration's effort to reform regu-
lation of the merchant marine. The bill would increase the
authority of the shipping conferences, which set prices and
allocate routes and cargoes. The bill would clarify and
expand the antitrust immunity enjoyed by the conferences,
and expedite review of conference schedules by the Federal
Maritime Commission (FMC). Filed schedules will go into
effect within 45 days unless blocked by the FMC because they
contain specified illegal provisions, such as boycotts. The
FMC may sue to block a conference agreement as anticompeti-
tive, but must prove that the effect of the reduction in
competition will be an unreasonable reduction in service or
increase in cost.
Among the other provisions in the bill of particular interest,
section 9 empowers the FMC to suspend tariffs filed by
shippers on the ground that they are unjust and unreasonable.
Any such order suspending tariffs is to be sent to the
President, who has ten days to demand a stay of the order
for reasons of national defense or foreign policy, which
reasons must be specified. During the stay, the President
is to attempt to resolve the matter through negotiations.
The contemplated procedure is not unlike Presidential review
of CAB orders, and we will want to consider establishing
internal procedures for review of FMC orders similar to
those in effect for review of CAB orders. If you agree, I
will contact the FMC to discuss the matter.
Section 18 of the bill would establish, in 5½ years, an
Advisory Commission on Conferences in Ocean Shipping, to
review progress under the Act. The Advisory Commission
would be composed of a cabinet level officer appointed by
the President, 8 members from the private sector appointed
by the President, 4 members from the Senate appointed by the
President pro tempore, and 4 members from the House appointed
by the Speaker. Although the Advisory Commission will have
the power to issue subpoenas, its responsibilities are
limited to conducting a study and making recommendations.
-2-
This mitigates any Appointments Clause problems, and OMB
reports that Justice has no objections. Private sector
members of the Advisory Commission are exempted from 18
U.S.C. § 208, which underscores the purely advisory nature
of the commission.
Transportation has submitted a draft signing statement,
praising the bill for removing regulatory burdens and
bringing United States shipping practices more in line with
those prevailing in the rest of the world. The statement
also thanks the members of the pertinent Congressional
committees, the broad coalition of supporters from the
shipping industry, Drew Lewis and Elizabeth Dole, FMC
Chairman Punch Green, and Maritime Administrator Hal Shear.
There has been some publicity recently concerning Shear's
receipt of a severance payment when he entered government
service. Larry Garrett advises me that he, OGE, and Trans-
portation have all reviewed the matter and determined that
there was no impropriety. Under the circumstances, I have
no objections to including Shear in the list of people
responsible for the successful passage of this broad legis-
lative package.
All affected agencies either recommend approval or have no
objection. I have reviewed the memorandum for the President
submitted by David Stockman, the bill itself, and the draft
signing statement, and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 19, 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:
Enrolled Bill S. 47 --
Shipping Act of 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and the accompanying draft signing statement, and
finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 20, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS ase
SUBJECT:
Statement of Francis Mullen, Jr. re:
Drug Enforcement Administration in
International Drug Control Efforts
We have been provided with a copy of a brief statement DEA
Administrator Bud Mullen proposes to deliver on March 21 at
a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee on the interna-
tional drug control effort. The three-page statement simply
stresses the importance of reducing the availability of
drugs and briefly reviews DEA's efforts toward this end in
drug source countries. I have reviewed the proposed state-
ment and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 20, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR GREG JONES
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Francis Mullen, Jr., re:
Drug Enforcement Administration in
International Drug Control Efforts
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
perspective. testimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 20, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Statement of Frank V. Monastero
on Drug Interdiction Intelligence
We have been provided with a copy of testimony DEA Assistant
Administrator Frank Monastero proposes to deliver on March 23
before the Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice
and Agriculture of the House Government Operations Committee.
The testimony concerns DEA's role in providing intelligence
on drug movements to the National Narcotics Border Interdiction
System (NNBIS). Monastero reviews the assignment of DEA
agents with intelligence responsibilities, and cites several
examples of intelligence efforts of particular significance
to the interdiction effort (e.g., airstrip inventories,
consultations with officials in source countries, etc.).
The testimony also discusses the El Paso Intelligence Center
(EPIC), which is run by a DEA Special Agent in Charge. I
have reviewed the testimony and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 20, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR GREG JONES
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Frank V. Monastero
on Drug Interdiction Intelligence
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
testimony and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 20, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DSR
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 820 -- Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act and Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act Authorizations
Richard Darman has asked for comments by 5:00 p.m. today on
the above-referenced enrolled bill. The bill authorizes
appropriations for fiscal years 1984 and 1985 for earthquake
hazards reduction programs and fire prevention programs.
The amounts authorized exceed the Administration's requests,
but no affected agency objects and the 1984 authorizations
are, in any event, moot. The bill also expresses the sense
of Congress that volunteer fire departments should receive
special recognition for their contributions to public
safety.
OMB, FEMA, Interior and Defense recommend approval; the
National Science Foundation has no objection and Commerce
defers. I have reviewed the memorandum for the President
prepared by OMB Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
James M. Frey, and the bill itself, and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 20, 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:
Enrolled Bill S. 820 -- Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act and Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act Authorizations
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR ROB STEINBERG
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
H.R. 3655
Attached for your information is a copy of the signing
statement for H.R. 3655 as delivered by the President.
Many thanks for your help in pulling this together.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 19, 1984
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I am pleased to approve H.R. 3655, a bill that will
create seven new judgeships on the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, and also raise the mandatory retirement
age from 70 to 74 for judges on that Court and on the District
of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Superior Court is a unique
Federal Court with important judicial responsibilities in the
Nation's Capital. The growing backlog of criminal and civil
litigation in the Superior Court is accordingly a matter of
both local and Federal concern, and this legislation will help
alleviate the backlog. It is my hope that the District of
Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission will act promptly in
submitting lists of qualified individuals for nomination to
these new judgeships, so that the new judges can be in place,
reducing the backlog, as soon as possible.
While this legislation will ease the caseload problem in
the Superior Court, it does not provide a cure for that
problem or the similar problems plaguing most of our Nation's
courts. The staggering increase in litigation has strained
the capacity of our courts and threatened their ability to
settle disputes. One of America's greatest lawyers, Abraham
Lincoln, once said: "Discourage litigation. Persuade your
neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them
how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees,
expenses, and waste of time." We must continue to search for
alternative means of settling disputes. If we fail to do so,
the costs and delays of litigation in our overcrowded courts
will effectively close the courthouse doors to all but the
wealthy and those that seek to use delay to their advantage.
We must not permit meritorious claims deserving of prompt
judicial resolution to become lost in a sea of frivolous suits
or disputes that could more quickly and efficiently be
resolved in other forums.
#
#
#
#
#
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSMA
SUBJECT:
Statement of Alan Nelson Concerning
Consolidation of Primary Inspections
and Land Patrol Functions for
Immigration on March 22, 1984
We have been provided with a copy of testimony INS Commis-
sioner Alan C. Nelson proposes to deliver on March 22 before
the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International
Law of the House Judiciary Committee. The testimony dis-
cusses the Administration proposal to reorganize and con-
solidate certain responsibilities of the INS and the Customs
Service. At present INS handles immigration and visa
matters and Customs handles inspection and smuggling matters
at all border entry points. The Administration proposal
would substitute a geographic for the current subject matter
allocation of jurisdiction. INS would handle immigration
and customs matters at all land border entry points and
Customs would handle immigration and customs matters at all
air and sea entry points. Nelson's testimony argues that
this will make border processing easier and more efficient
since one agency will handle all matters at any one point.
Nelson contends that the transfer of responsibilities will
be conducted with a minimum of personnel disruption, since
INS and Customs officers are already extensively cross-
trained. I have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Alan Nelson Concerning
Consolidation of Primary Inspections
and Land Patrol Functions for
Immigration on March 22, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
testimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 3/21/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
RICHARD A. HAUSER
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
826R
SUBJECT:
Statement of Irving R. Kaufman
Concerning H.J. Res. 490, Subpoena
Power for Commission on Crime,
March 22, 1984
We have been provided with a copy of testimony Commissioner
Kaufman of the President's Commission on Organized Crime
proposes to deliver on March 22 before the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime. The testimony briefly reviews the
establishment and composition of the Commission, as well as
the progress of its first two sets of public hearings. In
his testimony Kaufman urges favorable consideration of H.J.
Res. 490, the resolution introduced by Chairman Rodino --
also a member of the Commission -- at the request of the
Department of Justice. This resolution would give the
Commission subpoena authority, including the authority to
initiate contempt proceedings for failing to comply with
subpoenas, and the authority to compel testimony from
witnesses invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Kaufman goes beyond H.J. Res. 490, however, and also re-
quests authority to obtain transcripts of wiretaps author-
ized pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520. I con-
tacted Tex Lezar, Counselor to the Attorney General, to
ensure that this request had been approved by Justice.
Lezar advised that Justice approved of the request, noting
that access would be limited to closed cases in which
disclosure would not affect the integrity of any ongoing
investigation or prosecution. Kaufman's testimony reflects
this limitation. Lezar also noted that express approval of
the Attorney General must be obtained prior to release of
any transcripts to the Commission, a protection not
reflected in Kaufman's statements. Kaufman simply notes
that the Commission "would seek the approval of the appro-
priate agency on a case by case basis when access or dis-
closure is sought."
- 2 -
Lezar indicated he would seek to have Kaufman's testimony
revised to reflect accurately the agreement with Justice; we
should aid in this effort by conditioning our approval of
the testimony on such a revision.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Irving R. Kaufman
Concerning H.J. Res. 490, Subpoena
Power for Commission on Crime,
March 22, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
testimony. In this testimony Chairman Kaufman of the
President's Commission on Organized Crime requests authority
for the Commission to have access to transcripts of wiretaps
authorized under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520. As noted
in the testimony, access would be limited to closed cases in
which disclosure would not affect the integrity of any
ongoing investigation or prosecution.
The testimony fails to note, however, that no Title III
material will be released to the Commission without the
express approval of the Attorney General. It is our
understanding that a condition of the Justice Department
support for Kaufman's request for access to Title III
material is that such express approval by the Attorney
General be required. The testimony should accordingly be
revised to reflect this requirement. It is hardly enough to
state, as Kaufman does on page 7, that the Commission "would
seek the approval of the appropriate agency on a case by
case basis when access or disclosure is sought." Express
approval by the Attorney General is an added protection
against abuse of the highly unusual right of access to
sensitive Title III wiretap material, and that protection
should be insisted upon and made explicit.
CC: Michael M. Uhlmann
Special Assistant to the President
Assistant Director for Legal Policy
Office of Policy Development
FFF:JGR:aea 3/21/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSQ2
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 2809 -- National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act
Richard Darman has asked for comments by 10:00 a.m. March 22
on the above-referenced enrolled bill. We have also received
communications from Ted Olson and Bob McConnell conveying
Justice's serious reservations about this bill.
H.R. 2809, opposed by the Administration during consider-
ation by Congress, would establish a National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation. According to the bill, the Foundation
"is a charitable and nonprofit corporation and is not an
agency or establishment of the United States." The Founda-
tion is to accept and administer gifts for the benefit of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and otherwise promote
conservation of fish and wildlife. The Secretary of the
Interior appoints the nine-member Board of Directors of the
Foundation, and the Attorney General is authorized to sue
the Foundation to compel it to discharge its statutory
obligations.
Justice objects to the hermaphroditic nature of the Founda-
tion, which is neither purely private nor purely governmental
in character. Despite the express statement in the bill
that the Foundation "is not an agency or establishment of
the United States," Olson concludes that it must be regarded
as an agency within the Executive branch, because of the
manner in which the directors are appointed and the various
authorities of and exemptions for the Foundation. If the
Foundation is an executive agency, section 7(c), authorizing
the Attorney General to sue the Foundation, is constitution-
ally suspect, since the Executive does not sue itself.
Justice thinks a veto is justified but stops short of
insisting on one. As an alternative, Justice proposes a
signing statement asserting that the Foundation is an
executive agency and that its compliance with the statute
will be enforced by removal of the directors rather than
suit by the Attorney General. The assertion that the
Foundation is an agency is, of course, directly contradicted
by the language of the bill itself.
- 2 -
I am not inclined to recommend a veto of the bill on the
legal grounds discussed above, particularly since Justice's
opposition to the bill is so lukewarm. On the other hand,
it must be recognized that the proposed signing statement is
exceedingly awkward, since it employs an assumption expressly
contradicted by the bill -- that the Foundation is an
executive agency -- to read out another express provision of
the bill, the authorization of suit by the Attorney General.
It would seem more logical to conclude that the Foundation
is not a government agency, precisely because the bill
specifies that it may be sued by the Attorney General.
I suppose our institutional interests lie on the side of
arguing that the Foundation is an executive agency, if the
President is going to sign the bill, and accordingly I have
no objection to the Justice signing statement. My point is
that I doubt the Justice position will prevail if challenged
in court. The test would come if the President or the
Secretary of the Interior were to attempt to remove directors
of the Foundation. I can easily see a court disagreeing
with the Justice interpretation and ruling that the directors
are not removable, because they are given fixed terms, the
bill states that the Foundation "is not an agency or estab-
lishment of the United States," and the Attorney General is
authorized to sue the Foundation, which would be totally
unnecessary were the directors removable by the Executive.
In light of the limited responsibilities of the Foundation,
however, it seems likely that a serious confrontation can be
avoided.
The attached memorandum for Darman notes our dubitante
concurrence with Justice's recommended signing statement.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 2809 -- National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referended enrolled
bill and proposed signing statement. We agree with the
Department of Justice that the ambiguous character of the
Foundation raises serious legal concerns. We are less
confident than Justice that a court will determine that the
governmental character of the Foundation predominates,
rendering the directors removable and making unnecessary any
resort to the provision authorizing suit by the Attorney
General -- a constitutionally suspect provision if the
Foundation is an agency. Indeed, it seems at least as
probable that a court would determine that the Foundation is
not a government agency, as stated in the bill, and that the
directors are not removable, precisely because the bill
authorizes suit by the Attorney General.
If the President is to sign the bill, however, it is in our
institutional interest to resolve the ambiguities in the
Foundation's status in favor of it being treated as a
government agency. Justice's proposed signing statement
does so, putting the best face on what must be conceded to
be an awkward argument. Largely because serious confronta-
tions over the Foundation's status seem unlikely, we ac-
quiesce in approval of the bill and issuance of the Justice
signing statement.
We recommend adding "I have not done so because the Attorney
General has advised that the bill can be given a constitu-
tional construction" at the bottom of the first page of the
signing statement. This sentence seems to have been in-
advertently dropped from the draft submitted by Justice.
FFF:JGR:aea 3/21/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS D262
SUBJECT:
Draft Proclamation: National
Child Abuse Prevention Month
April 1984
Dodie Livingston has asked for comments on the above-
referenced draft proclamation by close of business March 23.
The proclamation, requested and authorized by S.J. Res. 161,
was submitted by HHS and has been approved by OMB. The
proclamation notes that child abuse occurs among all seg-
ments of our society, and that solutions must be found at
the community level. I have reviewed the draft proclamation,
and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR DODIE LIVINGSTON
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGES
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Proclamation: National
Child Abuse Prevention Month
April 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
proclamation, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 3/21/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 22, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 2562
SUBJECT:
Address: Independent Insurance Agents
of America (3/22 -- 11:30 a.m. Draft)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott
by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. The remarks review the progress of
the economic recovery, urge passage of the anti-crime
package by the House, discuss the need for the defense
build-up, and reaffirm the President's continuing commitment
to restoring the right to pray in public schools. In the
third paragraph on page 1, the President refers by name to
his own independent insurance agent, Jim Norris of California.
In what may be an excess of caution I recommend deleting the
agent's name. There is no reason to give him such free
advertising, and deleting specific mention of the name
avoids even the appearance of Presidential endorsement of
Norris's insurance agency.
At the top of page 3 the President quotes Calvin Coolidge
and quips "[n]ow contrary to some reports on my age, Cal
didn't tell me that personally." The joke is funny when
quoting Washington or Jefferson, but President Reagan was as
old as 22 during Coolidge's lifetime. Cal easily could have
told him that personally. I recommend deleting the joke.
On page 6, the remarks urge "a constitutional amendment
requiring a balanced Federal budget. Thirty-two of the
States have this already.' No State, of course, has a
constitutional amendment requiring a balanced Federal
budget. The sentence should read: "Thirty-two of the
States already have such a requirement for their own bud-
gets." I am also concerned about the accuracy of the 32
figure. Thirty-two states have filed petitions under
Article V calling for a convention to propose a balanced
budget amendment to the Federal Constitution. It may be
true that the exact same number have balanced budget amend-
ments in their own constitutions, but it would be quite a
coincidence. I have asked Research to double-check the
figure.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 22, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Address: Independent Insurance Agents
of America (3/22 -- 11:30 a.m. Draft)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
remarks. On page 1, paragraph 3, we recommend deleting
specific reference to Jim Norris. This is necessary to
avoid the appearance of Presidential endorsement of Norris's
insurance agency. In the second line of the paragraph, "Jim
Norris" should be deleted, and in the third line, "Jim"
should be changed to "him."
At the top of page 3, the joke about the President's age
does not ring true in this instance. The quip works well
when Washington or Jefferson is quoted, but in fact the
President was as old as 22 during Coolidge's lifetime. We
recommend deleting the second paragraph on page 3.
The last sentence of the first full paragraph on page 6 is
inartfully worded. No State has a constitutional amendment
requiring a balanced Federal budget. The sentence should
read: "Thirty-two of the States already have such a require-
ment for their own budgets."
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF: JGR:aea 3/22/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 22, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ord
SUBJECT:
S. 1098 as Passed by the House
to Include H.R. 2853 (Establishing
a National Oceans Policy Commission)
OMB has asked for our views by close of business on S. 1098
as passed by the House to include H.R. 2853. S. 1098 is
basically an authorization bill for certain activities
conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration within the Department of Commerce, and raises no
significant legal issues. H.R. 2853, however, tacked on to
S. 1098 in the House, would create a National Oceans Policy
Commission. The Commission would be comprised of five
Cabinet members and 14 members appointed by the President,
including three from nonprofit organizations, five from
commercial organizations, two Governors from coastal states,
two academics, and two individuals chosen "at large." The
Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate are
each to submit lists of 14 names, and the President is to
choose seven members from each list. The Speaker and
Majority Leader are also to select seven members from their
respective Houses to serve as "Congressional advisers" to
the Commission. The Chairman is to be "jointly selected" by
the President, the Speaker, and the Majority Leader.
All of the foregoing would raise serious Constitutional
concerns if the members of the Commission were considered
officers of the United States. The functions of the Com-
mission appear to be purely advisory, however, so its
members would not be officers in the Constitutional sense.
Nonetheless, we should still note that the bill should be
interpreted as meaning that the President retains ultimate
responsibility for his appointments, so that he can require
additional lists from the Speaker and Majority Leader if he
is dissatisfied with the lists presented to him. On
June 27, 1983, the Justice Department sent a letter to the
Chairman of the House Committee considering H.R. 2853,
making this point and several other less significant ones.
I recommend that we advise OMB that we share the concerns
raised in that letter, none of which have yet been addressed
by Congress. As noted, the purely advisory character of the
Commission basically relegates these concerns to the level
of policy rather than Constitutional objections.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 22, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM A. MAXWELL
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
S. 1098 as Passed by the House
to Include H.R. 2853 (Establishing
a National Oceans Policy Commission)
You have asked for our views on S. 1098, as passed by the
House to include H.R. 2853. The Administration previously
recommended several changes in H.R. 2853 in a June 27, 1983
letter from the Department of Justice to Chairman Jones of
the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Those
changes have not as yet been made, and they should be
reiterated in any expression of Administration views.
FFF:JGR:aea 3/22/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron