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
135839876
label
Chron File (04/13/1984-04/18/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839876
contentType
document
title
Chron File (04/13/1984-04/18/1984)
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
135839876
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
9b1c3931b884fbc0
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 (04/13/1984-04/18/1984)
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 (04/13/1984 - 04/18/1984)
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
COOK
51IGP
DOC Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
NO
Pages
1 MEMO
ROBERTS TO FIELDING RE NATIONAL
3 4/17/1984 B6
760
CANCER ADVISORY BOARD (PARTIAL)
2 MEMO
ROBERTS TO JOHN HERRINGTON RE
2 4/17/1984 B6
761
NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD
(OPEN IN WHOLE)
Record
onyan
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
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS osa
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Address: Fudan
University (4/12/-- 3:30 p.m. draft)
The attached incorporates the objections you noted to the
above-referenced draft address.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Address: Fudan
University (4/12 -- 3:30 p.m. draft)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks.
We recommend deleting the last sentence on page 10 and the
third sentence on page 11.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 4/13/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS ISQ
SUBJECT:
Administration Floor Position on the
Brooks Wiretap Bill, H.R. 4620
OMB has asked for our views by close of business April 16 on
an Administration floor position on H.R. 4620, as reported
by the Government Operations Committee. As reported H.R.
4620 would essentially codify the GSA regulations pro-
hibiting federal officers or employees from recording
telephone conversations on the federal telephone system
without the consent of all parties. Unlike the regulations,
however, the bill would impose a penalty for a violation --
a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one
year, and mandatory forfeiture of office or employment with
the United States. This penalty provision was added at
committee markup, taking the place of a provision that would
have subjected recordings or transcripts of recordings made
in violation of the act to the Privacy Act.
As you know, the Department of Justice is apoplectic about
the presentation of Administration views on H.R. 4620.
Justice's detailed objections to the bill -- based on its
adverse effects on law enforcement -- were fully communi-
cated to OMB prior to Committee markup, but OMB -- acting on
its own without support from any affected agency -- refused
to allow those objections to be shared with the Committee.
OMB based its position on purported appearance problems
associated with opposition to the bill, and a previously
delivered report in which GSA stated that it had no objection
to codification of the regulations, although other agencies
might have reservations about the bill. Justice notes that
the "no objection to codification" position was added by OMB
after circulation of the GSA proposed report, and was only
cleared telephonically by a staff-level employee at Justice.
(Incidentally, our office was provided with an opportunity
to review only the circulated version of the GSA testimony,
opposing codification. We did not even get the telephone
call Justice did.)
As we have discussed, I have prepared a memorandum for OMB,
recommending that the Administration oppose the bill for the
reasons articulated by Justice and the other affected
agencies. Regardless of whether OMB is right that Justice
- 2 -
should have been more careful to catch the GSA revised
testimony, or Justice is right that OMB manipulated the
clearance process to pursue its own agenda, it was
irresponsible for OMB to permit the bill to be reported
without making the Committee aware of the deeply-held
objections of Justice and Treasury, objections raised by
those agencies with OMB well before markup.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES C. MURR
CHIEF, ECONOMICS-SCIENCE-GENERAL GOVERNMENT
BRANCH, OMB
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Administration Floor Position on the
Brooks Wiretap Bill, H.R. 4620
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced bill
reported by the Government Operations Committee. We re-
commend that the Administration oppose the bill for the
reasons that have been articulated by the Department of
Justice and other affected agencies. It is unfortunate that
those reasons were not shared with the Committee prior to
the reporting of the bill. Whatever the reasons for that,
Justice's objections -- and those of the other affected
agencies -- are of sufficient magnitude that they should be
voiced and the bill opposed.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/13/84
CC: FFFielding;JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS(
SUBJECT:
Letter To James A. Baker, III
Regarding Cities in Schools Program
Kathy Camalier, on behalf of Mr. Baker, has asked for our
views on a letter Robert Baldwin of Morgan Stanley has
requested Mr. Baker to send to Ross Perot. The letter asks
Perot to meet with Baldwin to discuss the Cities in Schools
program, of which Baldwin is a leader. Cities In Schools is
a 501 (c) (3) organization focusing on the problems of school
dropouts and school violence. The draft letter, prepared by
Cities In Schools, states that the Administration supports
Cities In Schools and urges Perot to "consider supporting
this effort along with other leading businessmen."
You may recall that last month Baldwin asked Baker to
arrange a White House luncheon at which Cities In Schools
officials could present their program to business leaders
and seek to obtain their support. We recommended against
such a luncheon by memorandum dated March 12 (attached).
That memorandum noted that such a luncheon would contravene
the White House policy of not endorsing particular charitable
organizations, would violate the policy against use of the
White House for fundraising, and also risked intruding the
White House into the decisions of other agencies on grant
applications involving Cities In Schools.
I see the same problems with the proposed letter. Baldwin
is, quite simply, asking Mr. Baker to use his office to
promote the efforts -- including fundraising efforts -- of a
private charity. Other charities not able to trade on the
prestige of the Presidency to aid their programs will be
understandably resentful or try to get in on the act.
Furthermore, the letter is a general endorsement of Cities
In Schools, even though we know little about the organization
(other than what they have told us) and have no control
whatsoever over its activities.
Camalier asked if there were a compromise letter Mr. Baker
could send in the event we considered Baldwin's draft too
strong. The problem, however, is not so much Baldwin's
- 2 -
particular language but the very idea of using Mr. Baker as
an entree for private fundraising efforts. I recommend
advising Camalier that Mr. Baker stay completely out of the
charitable fundraising business.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR KATHERINE CAMALIER
STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Letter To James A. Baker, III
Regarding Cities in Schools Program
You have asked for our views on a letter that Robert Baldwin
of Morgan Stanley and Cities In Schools, Inc., has requested
Mr. Baker to send to Ross Perot. The letter expresses
Administration support for Cities In Schools, and urges Mr.
Perot to meet with Mr. Baldwin and consider lending his
support to the program.
We are compelled to recommend that Mr. Baker not send the
letter submitted by Mr. Baldwin. In addition, we must
advise that Mr. Baker not otherwise involve himself in
promoting Cities In Schools to Mr. Perot or others. As I
noted in my memorandum to you of March 12, recommending
against a White House event to benefit Cities In Schools,
the White House generally avoids endorsing or otherwise
supporting particular charitable organizations, not only to
preclude charges of favoritism but also because we are not
equipped to monitor the activities of charitable
organizations, which would be necessary to some extent if
the White House were to support a particular organization.
Furthermore, Mr. Baldwin is seeking an entree to Mr. Perot
for fundraising purposes, and the White House generally
avoids participating in the fundraising efforts of
particular charitable organizations, no matter how laudable.
I am certain you will recognize that aiding the fundraising
efforts of one organization would generate a flood of
requests from other equally worthy charitable organizations,
requests that would be that much more difficult to decline.
More significantly, enlisting White House staff members in
support of private fundraising is in essence trading on the
prestige of the Office of the Presidency, and should be
avoided.
FFF: JGR:aea 4/13/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS ord
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Address: Fudan
University (4/12 -- 3:30 p.m. draft)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by noon
today. The remarks begin by discussing Chinese-American
student exchange programs, and announce plans for a Chinese
astronaut to travel on the space shuttle. The President
next discusses the profound impact of Chinese civilization
on America, and the contributions of several prominent
Americans who emigrated from China. The remarks then
provide an overview of American values and beliefs, and
conclude with a recital of the interests and values shared
by China and America.
In the last paragraph on page 10, the President refers to
the role of religion in shaping the American character,
noting that most Americans derive their religious belief
from the Holy Bible. This formulation strikes me as broad
enough to be generally unoffensive (except perhaps to the
ACLU), and in any event the President does state that we are
"a Nation of many religions."
I have reviewed the draft remarks and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Address: Fudan
University (4/12 -- 3:30 p.m. draft)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks,
and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 4/13/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS QSR
SUBJECT:
Presidential Taping: Maine State
Republican Convention/Tuesday,
April 17, 1984
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott
by 5:30 p.m. today. The remarks praise Secretary Dole, who
is participating in the convention, and Margaret Chase
Smith, who is being honored at the convention. The Presi-
dent urges the delegates to work for the re-election of
Maine's Republican Senator Cohen and Representatives Snowe
and McKernan. I have reviewed the brief remarks and have no
objection.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Presidential Taping: Maine State
Republican Convention/Tuesday,
April 17, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks,
and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 4/13/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS Drol
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Remarks:
Welcoming Banquet at Great Hall
(April 12 -- 12:00 noon draft)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by noon
today. The toast discusses the benefits of Chinese-American
cooperation, not only in trade, cultural exchanges, and
technological development but mutual security as well. The
President states that American development "flows from the
creative enterprise we have permitted our people to exercise,"
but recognizes that how far the Chinese move in this direction
is "a matter for your own discussion and debate." I have
reviewed the toast and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Remarks:
Welcoming Banquet at Great Hall
(April 12 -- 12:00 noon draft)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks,
and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 4/13/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ord
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Remarks: Foxboro-
Shanghai Joint Venture (April 12 -- 12:00
noon draft)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced proposed remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott
by noon today. The brief remarks describe the success of
Shanghai-Foxboro, a joint venture between Chinese and
American firms that produces technologically advanced
instrumentation systems. The President states that he hopes
the success of Shanghai-Foxboro will encourage development
of many other similar joint ventures. I have reviewed the
remarks and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Remarks: Foxboro-
Shanghai Joint Venture (April 12 -- 12:00
noon draft)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
remarks, and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 4/13/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 12, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSQSE
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: Victims of Crime
Ceremony, Friday, April 13, 1984
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced proposed remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott
as soon as possible. The brief remarks, to be delivered on
the signing of the Crime Victims Week proclamation, honor
four victims of crime who will be present at the ceremony.
The remarks also refer to the Administration's proposed
Victims of Crime Assistance Act of 1984. I have reviewed
the remarks and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 12, 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: Victims of Crime
Ceremony, Friday, April 13, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
remarks, and finds no objection to them from a legal
perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 4/12/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Judicial Conference Invitation
to Merrie Spaeth
Merrie Spaeth recently joined the White House staff as
Special Assistant to the President for Media Relations and
Planning. She previously was director of the FTC Public
Information Office, and in that capacity was invited to
participate in a panel discussion at the Fifth Circuit
Judicial Conference on "The Media and the Courts." The
Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference has offered to reimburse
Spaeth for her travel and lodging expenses. Spaeth asks (1)
if she may still accept the invitation and (2) if she may
accept reimbursement of expenses.
You will recall that we discussed this question at a recent
staff meeting, and decided that Spaeth may accept the
invitation but should not accept reimbursement of expenses.
Our records confirm that your expenses associated with
attendance at judicial conference meetings were paid for out
of White House travel funds and were not reimbursed by the
Judicial Conference. Justice Department officials, who
often attended judicial conference meetings, also cover
their expenses with appropriated funds and do not accept
reimbursement. A memorandum consistent with our discussion
is attached.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MERRIE SPAETH
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR MEDIA RELATIONS AND PLANNING
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Judicial Conference Invitation
to Merrie Spaeth
You have asked whether you may still accept an invitation to
attend the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference extended to you
while you were serving as Director of the Public Information
Office at the Federal Trade Commission. You were invited to
the Conference to participate in a panel discussion on "The
Media and the Courts," and the Conference offered to reimburse
you for travel and lodging expenses.
We have no legal objection to your acceptance of the
invitation. Your appearance on the panel, however, is
within the scope of your new official duties, and
accordingly your travel expenses must be paid for out of
appropriated funds. Acceptance of reimbursement from the
Conference would raise serious supplementation of
appropriations concerns, and is not permitted. Since you
will be required to obtain Government payment of your travel
expenses, you should, as specified in the White House Travel
Handbook, obtain the approval of the Assistant to the
President for Management and Administration, John F.W.
Rogers, before acceptance of the invitation.
Thank you for raising this matter with us.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/16/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS)X
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Res. S.J. Res. 173 --
Historic American Buildings Survey
Richard Darman has asked for comments on the above-
referenced enrolled resolution by 10:00 a.m. today. This
resolution, which passed both Houses by voice vote, simply
commends the Historic American Buildings Survey. The Survey
is a 51-year old project of the National Park Service, the
Library of Congress, and the American Institute of Architects
to document historic buildings in America, not only for
study purposes but also so that they may be authentically
restored in the event of fire or other damage. OMB and
Interior recommend approval; I have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Res. S.J. Res. 173 --
Historic American Buildings Survey
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
enrolled resolution, and finds no objection to it from a
legal perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/16/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Computer Crime Legislation
H.R. 5112
Assistant Attorney General McConnell has asked for your
assistance in expediting OMB clearance of Justice's proposed
"Federal Computer Systems Protection Act of 1984." Accord-
ing to McConnell, Congressman Hughes plans to move computer
crime legislation through Congress this year, and will mark
up his own bill on April 26 unless the Administration
submits its bill before that date.
The Justice proposal (attached) would add new sections to
Title 18, making it a felony to knowingly devise or intend
to devise a scheme to defraud, obtain money by false pretenses,
or embezzle and to access or attempt to access certain
computers in connection with the scheme. The computers
covered by the bill are those owned by, contracted to, or
operated for the U.S. Government or a federally-insured
financial institution, or those operating in interstate
commerce. The bill authorizes a penalty of up to five years
imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $50,000 or double the
amount derived from the crime, whichever is greater. The
bill also proscribes damage to covered computers or computer
programs, and for a violation of this provision authorizes
the additional penalty of forfeiture of the computer used to
commit the crime. This additional penalty is designed to
deter the junior high school computer whizzes who break into
the Los Alamos computers and do such things as change the
targets on all our nuclear missles to various points in New
Jersey.
McConnell submitted the Justice proposal to OMB on March 16,
1984, so OMB can hardly be accused at this point of inordinate
delay in clearing the bill. Nonetheless, in light of the
imminence of action on this topic in Congress, McConnell
would like to have the package cleared by April 20. I have
reviewed Justice's proposed bill and have no objections.
The attached draft memorandum for Jim Murr notes that we
have no objection to the bill and also nudges OMB to expedite
clearance.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES C. MURR
CHIEF, ECONOMICS-SCIENCE-GENERAL GOVERNMENT
BRANCH, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Computer Crime Legislation
H.R. 5112
Counsel's Office has reviewed the "Federal Computer Systems
Protection Act of 1984," submitted by the Department of
Justice for clearance on March 16. We have no objection to
the bill, the section-by-section analysis, or the transmittal
letter to the Speaker. We are advised by the Department of
Justice that imminent Congressional action on other, flawed
computer crime bills makes it highly desirable to submit an
Administration proposal by April 20, and we would accordingly
appreciate expediting clearance of the Justice proposal.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/16/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS JJQ
SUBJECT:
Video Tape on Voluntarism
Jim Coyne has asked for guidance on the proper way to accept
$20,000 from DuPont to fund a project of the Office of
Private Sector Initiatives. Coyne's office is compiling a
video tape of 13 successful examples of private sector
initiatives from across the country. The video tape will be
widely distributed to encourage others to imitate the
successes depicted on the tape. Group W has volunteered to
reproduce the tapes, which would be distributed by the
National Association of Broadcasters. Production and
distribution costs were estimated at $20,000, so Coyne
sought private sector funding and secured a commitment from
DuPont for the full amount. Coyne suggests either having
the company that will be producing the video tape for his
office bill DuPont directly, or having "[t]he $20,000 going
from DuPont to a 501 (c) (3) group to be drawn down from this
office to cover production and distribution costs."
It seems clear that having DuPont fund an activity of the
Office of Private Sector Initiatives would constitute an
illegal supplementation of appropriations. Just as Coyne
should not have solicited Pan Am to provide free air travel
for him and his staff in the last Coyne matter we considered,
so too here he should not have solicited DuPont to fund this
project. Again Coyne seems to have been led by his office's
mission of promoting charitable activity to consider his
official duties as charitable in nature, and proper subjects
of private sector contributions.
Neither of Coyne's suggested approaches avoids the supple-
mentation problem. Having the company doing the production
work on the video tape bill DuPont would be a direct supple-
mentation. Funneling the money through a 501 (c) (3) organi-
zation, newly created or established, is no less problematic,
since supplementation of appropriations from such organiza-
tions is just as contrary to law as supplementation from
corporations or private individuals.
If Coyne is desirous of producing the video tape, he can
either pay for the production costs out of the funds appro-
priated for his office, or turn over what he has produced
- 2 -
thus far to a private sector charitable entity for
completion. In the latter case the completed tape would be
the property of the private sector entity, not the
government, although Coyne's office could make others aware
of the tape, encourage its use, etc. -- precisely the more
modest function his office was envisioned as having when it
was formed. You may recall that in December of 1982 we
approved a similar arrangement involving the transfer of a
computer databank compiled by the President's Task Force on
Private Sector Initiatives to a 501 (c) (3) organization. We
advised that the transfer could take place, with the
501 (c) (3) organization agreeing to maintain, develop,
expand, and distribute the databank, so long as the
Government retained a set of whatever materials were turned
over.
The draft memorandum for Coyne advises him that having a
private sector entity -- charitable or otherwise -- fund his
office's production of the video tape is not permissible.
It also suggests the alternative of having a private chari-
table organization take over the project, noting that the
product would then be that of the private organization.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. COYNE
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INTIATIVES
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Video Tape on Voluntarism
You have asked for our views on a proposal to complete
production of a video tape depicting 13 successful examples
of community involvement in social and economic issues. You
noted that your office has developed a draft tape but that
further work is necessary to finish the project. You
solicited private sector funding to cover estimated pro-
duction and distribution costs of $20,000, and secured a
funding commitment from DuPont for the entire amount. Now
you have asked how the $20,000 may be accepted, suggesting
either that the production company bill DuPont directly or
that DuPont give the money to a 501 (c) (3) organization and
your office draw funds from that organization.
Either suggested approach would constitute an illegal
supplementation of appropriations. As an office within the
White House the Office of Private Sector Initiatives is,
like most entities within the Federal Government, limited to
using appropriated funds for official activities. Neither
DuPont nor a 501 (c) (3) charitable organization nor any other
private sector entity can fund the official activities of
your office. As I have had occasion to advise you in the
past, the unique mission of your office to encourage private
sector support of charitable activities does not mean that
your official duties are themselves charitable in nature or
a proper subject of private sector financial support,
whether from a corporation or charitable organization.
The fact that you cannot use private sector funds to pay for
your office's production of the tape does not, however, mean
that the tape cannot be produced and distributed. Appro-
priated funds may be used to cover the costs, or the work
you have done thus far may be provided to a 501 (c) (3)
organization for completion by that organization. The
finished product would then be the product of that
organization, not the government. Your office could,
however, alert others to the existence of the tape and
encourage its use, in keeping with the function of your
- 2 -
office to encourage private sector initiatives. If this
latter course is followed, you should be careful to retain a
set of whatever is turned over, to avoid any difficulties
with the law governing alienation or disposal of records. I
would note that a similar approach was taken when the
President's Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives turned
its computer databank over to a 501 (c) (3) organization, for
maintenance and further development. If you have any
questions on implementing such a course of action, please do
not hesitate to contact this office.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/16/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS)
SUBJECT:
Draft Presidential Remarks:
Hispanic Coalition Leadership Luncheon
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-referenced
remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott as soon as possible.
The remarks pay tribute to the contributions of Americans of
Hispanic descent, review the progress of the economic recovery,
and discuss the need for educational reform. The President
notes the need for immigration legislation, and affirms that
any legislation passed by Congress will be applied in a manner
that does not discriminate against Hispanic Americans. The
remarks conclude with a discussion of Central American policy.
I have reviewed the remarks and have no objections. The most
sensitive passage, of course, concerns the immigration bill.
The President's commitment to apply the bill in a non-discrim-
inatory fashion addresses the central objection of Hispanics
to the bill without appearing to give credence to Speaker
O'Neill's fear that the President will veto the bill for
political purposes.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
AND DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Presidential Remarks:
Hispanic Coalition Leadership Luncheon
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
Presidential remarks and has no objection to them from a legal
perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
OR
SUBJECT:
Draft Presidential Remarks:
Great Hall of the People/Beijing, China
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-referenced
remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by noon today. The
lengthy remarks begin with a discussion of the mutual interest
of China and the United States in resisting Soviet expansionism,
and then move to an extended discourse on American values.
The President stresses the importance of economic freedom, and
notes the successes China itself has had in experimenting with
the entreprenuerial spirit. He then discusses how America
stifled this spirit in the 1970's, and how we have enjoyed an
economic renaissance after returning to sounder economic
policies. The remarks conclude by reviewing specific bilateral
initiatives: the industrial and technological accord, expanding
joint economic ventures, the new tax agreement, and the new
plan for cooperation in space.
I have no objection to the President extolling the virtues of
capitalism to the Chinese, although the discussion at the
bottom of page 9 and the top of page 10 about the shift from
the policies of the 1970's to Reaganomics strikes me as a bit
partisan for a foreign address. In particular, the "[w]hen we
took office in January 1981" language should be deleted. I
have no other objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
AND DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Presidential Remarks:
Great Hall of the People/Beijing, China
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
remarks. The last paragraph on page 9 and the first paragraph
on page 10 strike us as too partisan for a foreign address.
In particular, the opening clause on page 10 -- " [w]hen we
took office in January 1981" -- should be deleted.
CC: Richard G. Darman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSJZR
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 1186 -- Restoration of
Coastal Trading Privileges for Two Vessels
Richard Darman has asked for comments by close of business
April 18 on the above-referenced enrolled bill. This
private relief bill would waive certain restrictions of the
Jones Act for two vessels, Dad's Pad and Zorba. The Jones
Act provides in pertinent part that coastwise trade can only
be conducted by ships built in the United States and always
owned by U.S. citizens. 46 U.S.C. § 883. Dad's Pad and
Zorba were both built in the United States and are now owned
by U.S. citizens, but both fell into the hands of aliens at
some point in the past and accordingly lost coastwise
trading rights. This bill directs that Dad's Pad and Zorba
be granted such rights despite 46 U.S.C. § 883, if they
comply with all other legal requirements.
The bill passed both Houses by voice vote; OMB recommends
approval and Transportation has no objection. The bill
erroneously cites 46 U.S.C. § 883 as 46 App. U.S.C. 883, but
I do not see this as a problem since the provision is also
correctly cited as section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of
1920. Also, there is no 46 App. U.S.C. 883, so the intended
reference will be clear. I have reviewed the memorandum for
the President prepared by OMB Assistant Director for Legis-
lative Reference James M. Frey, and the bill itself, and
have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 1186 -- Restoration of
Coastal Trading Privileges for Two Vessels
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/17/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 4169 -- Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
Richard Darman has asked for comments on the above-
referenced enrolled bill by close of business today. This
bill has one major desirable provision and several undesir-
able ones. The desirable provision, sought by the Adminis-
tration, delays the May 1984 cost-of-living adjustment
(COLA) for Federal civilian and military retirees to
December, and makes December the effective date for future
COLAs. The undesirable aspects of the bill include pro-
visions increasing the 3.5 percent pay raise for Federal
employees to 4 percent, retroactive to January 1, 1984,
lowering Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loan
rates and making farm enterprises eligible for them, and
reauthorizing the SBA non-physical disaster loan program,
for businesses adversely affected by such "disasters" as the
Payment-in-Kind (PIK) program or the Mexican peso devaluation.
The bill also requires the President to convene a domestic
economic summit conference on the deficit with Congressional
leaders, and requires that the summit conference report,
within 45 days, a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficits.
SBA recommends a veto, arguing that the expansion in SBA
loan programs will result in a dramatic increase in demand
for SBA loans, and that Congress is likely to appropriate
funds to cover the demand. Agriculture and Treasury share
SBA's concerns but do not go so far as to recommend disap-
proval. OPM opposes the new pay raises but recommends
approval to obtain the COLA savings. OMB, Defense, and CIA
also recommend approval; State and Justice have no objections.
OMB has submitted a draft signing statement, noting that the
COLA shift is a key part of the deficit reduction downpayment.
The statement objects to the pay raise as unnecessary, and
argues that the provision requiring a domestic economic
summit -- drafted last year -- is "obsolete" and that such a
summit should be regarded as already having taken place.
Finally, the statement objects to the SBA provisions as
unacceptably costly, urges SBA to control costs through
regulations, and notes that Congressional action may be
necessary to modify these provisions.
- 2 -
In this bill Congress is forcing the Administration to
swallow quite a bit to obtain the COLA deficit reductions.
The question is whether the savings from the COLA shift
outweigh the costs of the additional pay raise and the SBA
expansion, and I have no reason to second-guess OMB's
conclusion that, on balance, the bill saves money. Congres-
sional leaders may object to the President's view that the
section requiring a domestic economic summit is moot,
although the provision is unlikely to create legal problems.
No one other than the Congressional leaders would have
standing to insist that such a summit be held, and even if
the leadership does so it would be a simple matter to comply
with the letter of the statute. The summit conferees will
not, of course, be able to agree on the required report
within 45 days, but blame for failure to achieve this
objective can hardly be placed on the President alone. In
sum, I have no legal objections, and see no reason for our
office to enter the policy debate.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 4169 -- Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/17/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DDR
SUBJECT:
Appointments of David Korn, Louise C. Strong,
Gertrude Elion, Helene Brown, and Reappoint-
ment of Roswell K. Boutwell as Members of the
National Cancer Advisory Board
I have reviewed the Personal Data Statements submitted by
the above-referenced prospective appointees to the National
Cancer Advisory Board. The functions of the Board include
reviewing the programs of the National Cancer Institute,
collecting and disseminating information on cancer studies,
and reviewing applications for grants for cancer research
projects. 42 U.S.C. § 286b (b). The President is authorized
to appoint 18 members to the Board, no more than 12 of whom
may be scientists or physicians, no more than eight of whom
may be representatives of the general public, and not less
than five of whom shall be knowledgeable in environmental
carcinogenesis. The scientists and physicians must be
"among the leading scientific or medical authorities
outstanding in the study, diagnosis, or treatment of cancer
or in fields related thereto,' and at least two of the
physicians must be physicians primarily involved in treating
cancer patients. Each Board member must be "especially
qualified" to appraise the work of the National Cancer
Institute. 42 U.S.C. § 286b (a) (1). Reappointments are
specifically authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 286b (a) (2) (B).
In order to verify compliance with the arcane numerical
requirements outlined above, I reviewed the PDS's of the six
mayan Presidential Record
members appointed on June 12, 1982, in addition to those of
the above-referenced prospective appointees, and obtained
information concerning the six members appointed on May 14,
1980, from Katherine Reardon of HHS. Reardon handles
advisory committees for the Secretary. Based on this review
and information, it appears that we are presented with a
legal "Catch-22" concerning compliance with the requirements
of 42 U.S.C. § 286b (a) (1). Of the 12 members whose terms
have not expired, there are eight scientists or physicians
but no carcinogenesists. We must, therefore, appoint five
carcinogenesists this time. To comply with the requirement
that no more than 12 of the members be scientists or physi-
cians, however, we can appoint no more than four scientists
- 2 -
or physicians. Since there is no such thing as a carcino-
genesist who is not a scientist, we are in a quandary. If
we satisfy the carcinogenesis requirement, we will violate
the scientist or physician cap. If we comply with the cap,
we will violate the carcinogenesis requirement. This
difficulty is the result of using up the scientist or
physician slots in prior appointments on non-carcino-
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
genesists.
At Reardon's suggestion I contacted Dr. Vincent DeVita, the
Director of the National Cancer Institute, who had reviewed
the prospective appointees. DeVita recognized the apparent
problem, but argued that the scientist or physician cap was
not violated because Tim Lee Carter, M.D., appointed in
1982, should not be considered a physician but rather a lay
member. Carter served in Congress from 1964-1980, and while
he is a licensed physician he did not practice for 16 years
and even now only sees an occasional patient. DeVita argued
that there was precedent for such a functional rather than
literal reading of the "scientist or physician" cap.
According to DeVita, a physicist was carried on the Board in
the past as a non-scientist, despite his doctorate, since
his scientific expertise was entirely unrelated to the
activities of the Board.
I am not particularly comfortable arguing that Tim Lee
Carter, M.D., should not be considered a "physician," as
that term is used in the statute. The argument is a
colorable way out of a dilemma, however, and is no more
troublesome than simply violating the carcinogenesis
requirement by not appointing five carcinogenesists or the
physician cap by doing SO. Accordingly, I recommend that we
insist on the appointment of five carcinogenesists, and
argue that Carter is not a "scientist or physician" as those
terms are used in the statute if anyone asserts we have
violated the scientist or physician cap.
DeVita advises that Strong, Elion, Korn, and Boutwell
satisfy the carcinogenesis requirement; Brown -- a general
public representative -- does not.
be
We
should advise Presidential Personnel that whomever is
appointed to this open seat must satisfy the carcinogenesis
requirement. That will result in the required five car-
cinogenesists serving on the Board.
A memorandum to Herrington is attached for your review and
signature. The memorandum clears the above-referenced five
individuals,
by
- 3 -
b6
As noted, perhaps
COPY - Reagan Presidential Record
sending this memorandum will help force the issue.
Attachment
;
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN S. HERRINGTON
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Appointments of David Korn, Louise C. Strong,
Gertrude Elion, Helene Brown, and Reappoint-
ment of Roswell K. Boutwell as Members of the
National Cancer Advisory Board
Counsel's Office has reviewed the Personal Data Statements
submitted by the above-referenced prospective appointees to
the National Cancer Advisory Board. Of the 18 members
appointed by the President to the Board, no more than 12 may
be scientists or physicians, no more than eight may be
representatives of the general public, not less than five
must be knowledgeable in environmental carcinogenesis, and
at least two must be physicians primarily involved in
treating cancer patients. 42 U.S.C. § 286b (a) (1). The
background and qualifications of this latest group of
prospective appointees cannot be assessed in a vacuum but
must be considered together with the background and quali-
fications of the sitting Board members, to ensure that the
composition of the total Board satisfies the statutory
requirements.
Our office is of course not qualified to determine who is or
is not "knowledgeable in environmental carcinogenesis, but
we have been advised by Dr. Vincent DeVita, Director of the
National Cancer Institute, that none of the members appointed
Reayah Presidential Record
in 1980 and 1982 satisfy this requirement. In filling the
six vacancies created by expiration of terms on March 9,
1984, therefore, five of our appointees must be knowledgeable
in environmental carcinogenesis. DeVita advises that
Strong, Elion, Korn, and Boutwell meet this requirement;
Brown does not. Whomever is chosen to replace Irving J.
Selikoff and fill the sixth vacancy thus must meet the
carcinogenesis requirement.
Appointing five carcinogenesists, however, presents a
problem with the requirement that no more than 12 Board
members be scientists or physicians. Of the sitting Board
members whose terms do not expire until 1986 or 1988, eight
are scientists or physicians. Appointing five carcinogenesists
- 2 -
would result in exceeding the cap of 12 scientists or
physicians. Not appointing five carcinogenesists, however,
would result in violating the carcinogenesis requirement.
This highly unsatisfactory quandary is the result of using
up scientist and physician slots in prior appointments on
scientists or physicians who were not carcinogenesists.
Dr. DeVita advised us that one of the sitting members, Tim
Lee Carter, M.D., is considered a lay member and not a
"scientist or physician.' Carter served in Congress for 16
years and has a largely inactive medical practice. While we
are not entirely content with finessing the problem by
viewing Dr. Carter as not being a physician, and note that
the composition of the Board may be open to challenge,
adopting this argument is no more troubling than failing to
appoint five carcinogenesists, as required by statute.
Not surprisingly, the prospective appointees have associa-
tions of different types with various institutions or
individuals that could at some point apply for grants
reviewable by the Board. Obviously, those associations will
have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis should the
institutions or individuals apply for grants or otherwise
come under the jurisdiction of the Board. If necessary,
affected members will have to recuse themselves from the
review and certification process with respect to those
particular applications.
Assuming that your office confirms what we have been told --
that Strong, Elion, Korn, and Boutwell satisfy the carcino-
genesis requirement -- and assuming that whomever is appointed
to replace Irving Selikoff also satisfies the carcinogenesis
requirement, we have no objection to proceeding with the
appointments of Strong, Elion, Korn, Brown and the reappoint-
ment of Boutwell.
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
FFF:JGR:aea 4/17/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 18, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR DIANNA G. HOLLAND
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DDR
SUBJECT:
Reappointment of Sylvester E. Williams, IV
to the National Advisory Committee for
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Under 42 U.S.C. § 5617 the President is authorized to
appoint fifteen persons to the Advisory Committee, at least
five of whom shall be less than 24 years old at the time of
their appointment. At least two of these five "shall have
been or shall be (at the time of appointment) under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system." 42 U.S.C.
§ 5617 (a) (3). No member of the Advisory Committee may be a
full-time officer or employee of the Federal Government.
Id. § 5617 (a) (4).
On February 22, 1984, I submitted a memorandum concerning
the reappointment of four of the five Reagan appointees
whose terms expired on January 17, 1984. I noted that the
fifth prospective reappointee -- Mr. Williams -- had not yet
submitted a new PDS; Mr. Williams has now done so. I have
reviewed Williams's PDS and have no objection to his reap-
pointment. As I noted in my earlier memorandum, reappoint-
ments are authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 5617 (b) (2).
Williams is still under 24 years of age, and accordingly may
be counted toward fulfilling the requirement that five of
the President's 15 appointees be less than 24 at the time of
their appointment. (With the four previous reappointments,
plus Williams, the requirement is satisfied.) There is no
indication that Williams has been under the jurisdiction of
the juvenile justice system, but the previous reappointments
of Koppenhoefer and Rouse already satisfied that requirement.
Attachment