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
135839880
label
Chron File (04/21/1984-04/30/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839880
contentType
document
title
Chron File (04/21/1984-04/30/1984)
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
135839880
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
4d22006e9f12cd3c
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 (04/21/1984-04/30/1984)
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
CAS 8/30/2005
File Folder
CHRON FILE (4/21/84-4/30/84)
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
63
COOK
38CAS
DOC Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
COPY - Reagan Presidential Record
NO
Pages
1
LETTER
ROBERTS TO MICHAEL BOUDIN RE
1 4/27/1984 B6
1294
FRIENDLY DINNER (OPEN IN WHOLE)
2 LETTER
BOUDIN TO JUDGE FRIENDLY'S PAST
1 4/26/1984
B6
1295
AND PRESENT CLERKS (OPEN IN
WHOLE)
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 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
826
SUBJECT:
Statement of Mark Richard Concerning
the Comprehensive Crime Control Act
of 1984 on April 25, 1984
We have been provided with a copy of testimony Deputy
Assistant Attorney General Mark Richard proposes to deliver
on April 25 before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of
the House Judiciary Committee on obtaining evidence from
abroad in criminal cases. The testimony expresses general
support for H.R. 5406 and the pertinent provisions of
S. 1726, which would permit the admission into evidence of
foreign records of a regularly conducted activity. Pre-
sently such records, typically foreign court or business
records, can only be admitted upon cross-examined testimony
of their custodian. When the custodian is a foreign official,
such required testimony is difficult or impossible to
obtain, at least without going through the arduous letters
rogatory process. H.R. 5406 and the pertinent provisions of
S. 1726 would authorize the admission of foreign documents
accompanied by an appropriate certification of authenticity,
after prior notice to the opposing party.
In addition to supporting these efforts to facilitate the
handling of transnational cases, Richard also urges that the
Subcommittee provide that the time spent in diligent efforts
to secure foreign evidence not be counted in Speedy Trial
Act calculations, and that the government be permitted to
apply for an extension of any applicable statute of limita-
tions to obtain such evidence. According to the testimony,
Speedy Trial Act and statute of limitations problems are
particularly acute when it is necessary to obtain evidence
from abroad, and the drug dealers or commercial fraud
perpetrators involved in major transnational cases should
not be permitted to escape justice simply because their
activities span several borders. As an example of the
difficulties involved, Richard appends to his testimony a
synopsis of a completed commercial fraud case in which it
was necessary to obtain evidence from Switzerland, Liechten-
stein, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands.
I have reviewed the proposed testimony, and have no objections.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Mark Richard Concerning
the Comprehensive Crime Control Act
of 1984 on April 25, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced testimony,
and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/23/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Statement of Tom Healey Concerning
S. 1858/H.R. 3932, D.C. Chadha on
Wednesday, April 25, 1984
OMB has asked for our views by 4:00 p.m. today on testimony
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Tom Healey would like to
deliver on Wednesday before the Senate Subcommittee on
Governmental Efficiency and the District of Columbia concerning
the D.C. Chadha problem. Treasury is interested in the D.C.
Chadha problem because until it is resolved the District
cannot enter the bond market and must instead borrow funds
for certain requirements from the Treasury. The District
cannot enter the bond market because it cannot obtain an
unqualified bond counsel opinion with the Chadha cloud over
the District's legal authority.
Both Justice and OMB are opposed to Treasury testifying at
all. The D.C. Chadha issue is most advantageously posed for
us in terms of the criminal justice implications; the bond
authority issue obfuscates matters and, as far as Treasury
is concerned, it is more important that the issue be resolved
than that it be resolved in any particular manner. In
short, Treasury does not share our interests in this matter,
and in stressing the need for expeditious resolution may
actually harm the Administration position, since the most
expeditious way to resolve the crisis would be for the
Senate to pass the District's bill, which has already passed
the House. I recommend that we concur with the Justice and
OMB view that Treasury not testify.
There are also several errors in the substance of the
proposed testimony, which we should highlight in the event
Treasury does testify. In the first full paragraph on
page 3 Healey asserts that the Court's opinion in Chadha
contained "a general statement that unconstitutional veto
provisions are severable from the remainder of the affected
acts," and that the opinion "does not include the Home Rule
Act among those Federal statutes identified as affected."
Both statements are misleading. The opinion does not
contain a general statement that unconstitutional veto
provisions are severable; it simply states the test that
invalid portions of a statute are to be severed unless the
- 2 -
Legislature would not have enacted the statute without the
invalid provision. See slip op., at 10. Further, the Chief
Justice's opinion does not contain a list of statutes
affected by the ruling, so the fact that the Home Rule Act
does not appear in such a list is meaningless. The paragraph
is an obvious effort to suggest that the Home Rule Act is
unaffected by Chadha, even though the Justice Department has
determined that it is and has so argued in court. The
paragraph, other than the first sentence, should be deleted.
The second paragraph on page 4, and the carryover paragraph
between pages 4 and 5, suggest that the matter could be
resolved by adding a severability clause to the Home Rule
Act. The last sentence on page 4 further suggests that the
Justice opposition to the pending District bill is based on
elements "other than the severability provision." While
this is true with respect to the Justice letter of Novem-
ber 15, 1983, the severability issue was not specifically
raised or addressed at that time. In its later letter sent
March 12, 1984, specifically addressed to the proposal to
add a severability clause to the Home Rule Act, Justice
noted the Administration's firm opposition to this approach.
(Adding a severability clause would, in effect, give the
District everything it is asking for, since the severability
clause would result in the legislative vetoes being stricken,
with nothing in their place. End result: Congress must
pass a joint resolution of disapproval to block District
actions.) Both the first full paragraph on page 4 and the
carryover paragraph between pages 4 and 5 should be deleted.
The attached draft memorandum for OMB agrees with Justice
and OMB that Treasury should not testify, and recommends the
above changes should that view not prevail.
Attachment
CC: Richard A. Hauser
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JANET M. FOX
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Tom Healey Concerning
S. 1858/H.R. 3932, D.C. Chadha on
Wednesday, April 25, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
testimony. I agree with the recommendation of OMB and the
Department of Justice that Treasury not appear at the
hearing. Treasury's interest is simply that the D.C. Chadha
problem be resolved as expeditiously as possible; Treasury
has no real institutional interest in how the problem is
resolved. That, however, is precisely the issue that has
been joined, and it seems best to limit Administration
testing on this issue to those agencies affected by the
answer to that question.
If the proposed Treasury testimony is to be delivered,
several corrections will have to be made. All but the first
sentence of the first full paragraph on page 3 should be
deleted. The second sentence is inaccurate: the Court's
opinion does not contain a general statement that unconsti-
tutional veto provisions are severable. Rather, the opinion
states the pertinent test, which is that unconstitutional
provisions are severable unless the Legislature would not
have enacted the statute without the invalid provisions.
This hardly constitutes a general statement that veto
provisions are severable. The third sentence, stating that
the Home Rule Act was not among the Federal statutes cited
as affected by the Court's opinion, is very misleading,
since the opinion contained no such comprehensive list of
affected statutes.
We also recommend deleting the first full paragraph on
page 4, and the carryover paragraph between pages 4 and 5.
These paragraphs suggest that the problem could be resolved
by adding a severability clause to the Home Rule Act, and
the fourth sentence of the carryover paragraph notes that
the Justice letter of November 15, 1983, opposed H.R. 3932
on grounds "other than the severability provision." Justice's
letter of March 12, 1984, however, specifically opposed the
severability approach.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/23/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/subi/chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
More Video Tape on Voluntarism
You will recall that Jim Coyne asked for our views on how to
accept $20,000 from DuPont to fund completion of a video
tape project undertaken by his office. Last week you
advised Coyne that acceptance of the money would constitute
an illegal supplementation of appropriations, whether the
money was provided directly to Coyne's office or through a
501 (c) (3) organization. Your memorandum (attached) suggested
that Coyne either use appropriated funds to pay for his
office's project, or turn the material over to a 501 (c) (3)
organization for completion. The finished product would
then be the property of the 501 (c) (3) organization.
It appears that your memorandum on this subject crossed in
the mail with the present memorandum from Coyne. In the
instant memorandum, Coyne notes that Howard K. Smith will
tape the narrative to accompany the video tape on Tuesday,
April 24, and Coyne submits the script for your review. He
also notes that the tape will "be a product of the
President's Advisory Council on Private Sector Initiatives."
As is so often the case with Coyne, it is the unasked
questions that raise the most serious concerns. I have read
through the script and have no objections. It is not clear,
however, who is funding the filming. We should admonish
Coyne that any such activity must be consistent with our
prior memorandum specifically addressed to that question.
Coyne's statement that the video tape will be a product of
the Advisory Council also raises concerns. Coyne may be
trying to circumvent limits on his office's activities by
having the Advisory Council act in his stead. The statement
that the video tape will be a product of the Advisory
Council, and earlier efforts by Coyne to involve the Advisory
Council in actual fundraising, suggest that he is insuffici-
ently sensitive to the fact that the Advisory Council is
limited by law to advisory functions.
- 2 -
Executive Order 12427 (June 27, 1983) specified that the
Advisory Council was established "in accordance with the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act." That act
provides that "[u]nless otherwise specifically provided by
statute or Presidential directive, advisory committees shall
be utilized solely for advisory functions." 5 U.S.C. App. I
$ 9(b). The Executive Order, far from specifically providing
otherwise, reaffirms that the Advisory Council is limited to
advisory functions. The sole function of the Advisory
Council under the Executive Order is to "advise the Presi-
dent, through the White House Office of Private Sector
Initiatives, with respect to the objectives and conduct of
private sector initiative policies including methods of
increasing public awareness of the importance of public/
private partnerships; removing barriers to development of
effective social service programs which are administered by
private organizations; and strengthening the professional
resources of the private social service sector."
The Federal Advisory Committee Act does not define "advisory
functions," nor have there been any court decisions interpreting
the term. If the limitation is to have any meaning, however,
it would seem that producing a video tape for mass distribution
goes beyond giving "advice" to the President. Last week you
signed a memorandum prepared by Sherrie Cooksey (attached)
advising Coyne that the Advisory Council was limited to
advisory functions, and accordingly could not engage in
fundraising. We should reiterate the limitation and note
that it applies to producing video tapes for mass distribution.
A memorandum for Coyne is attached for your review and
signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. COYNE
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
More Video Tape on Voluntarism
You have asked for our views on a script prepared for use in
connection with the planned video tape on voluntarism. You
noted in your memorandum that the video tape will be a
product of the President's Advisory Council on Private
Sector Initiatives.
I assume that your memorandum "crossed in the mail" with my
memoranda on the video tape project and the activities of
the Advisory Council. Your latest memorandum on this
subject does not discuss how the project is to be funded.
I would only reiterate that any funding must be consistent
with the advice in my memorandum entitled "Video Tape on
Voluntarism.'
In addition, your statement that the video tape will be a
product of the Advisory Council also raises concerns. As I
noted in my recent memorandum for you entitled "Guidelines
for Fundraising Activities," the Advisory Council is limited
by law to purely advisory functions. Executive Order 12427
established the Advisory Council subject to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. I. That Act provides
that "advisory committees shall be utilized solely for
advisory functions." 5 U.S.C. App. I § 9 (b). The Executive
Order confirms this limitation, specifying as the sole
function of the Advisory Council the giving of advice to the
President, through your office. Production of a video tape
for general distribution clearly exceeds this legal
limitation, and accordingly the Advisory Council cannot
produce the tape.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/23/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Portal-to-Portal Legislation
Joe Wright has sent over draft portal-to-portal legislation
suggested by GAO. According to Wright, GAO would be happy
to introduce the legislation, and is currently checking with
the members of the appropriate committees to determine when
the legislation should be introduced (this year or next).
Wright notes we should get back to GAO on their proposal
"within the next week or so," and GAO will then let us know
when the legislation should be introduced, and an under-
standing can be reached concerning GAO review of vehicle
use.
The GAO bill would extend portal-to-portal rights far beyond
current law, current practice, and the Administration
proposal. In addition to those currently entitled to
portal-to-portal service, the GAO bill would permit such
service for:
-- the Vice President
-- Assistants to the President, paid at level II, as
designated by the President
-- the deputy heads as well as the heads of the
Executive Departments
-- the heads and deputy heads of (interestingly) GAO
and OMB
-- the heads of all Executive Agencies paid at level
II, except for "independent agencies" listed at
44 U.S.C. § 3502 (10)
-- the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretaries of
Defense and State, and the Counsellor of the State
Department
-- such members and employees of Congress as each House
may by rule direct
-- the nine Supreme Court Justices.
- 2 -
The GAO bill would also permit portal-to-portal service on a
temporary basis when the agency head determines that an
emergency exists and that such service is essential for
"safety, security, or other operational considerations."
Finally, the GAO bill would permit a determination that
spousal transportation was transportation for an official
purpose when it was "incident to the performance of official
business by the listed officer, employee, or member."
The GAO bill, in my view, goes far beyond what is necessary
to address the crisis engendered by last summer's GAO
opinion. Our interest in this area has been limited to
correcting the adverse effects of that opinion and legiti-
mizing established practice; we certainly have no interest
in extending portal-to-portal service to Congressmen and
Congressional staff (a potentially unlimited number) or
Supreme Court justices. Were we to support this bill we
would not be able to defend it as simply correcting a rogue
GAO opinion and authorizing what has been accepted practice
through several administrations of both parties. The bill
greatly expands "limousine service" throughout the govern-
ment, and will be criticized on that basis. To the extent
the Administration as opposed to GAO must defend it -- and,
after all, the President will have to sign it -- the poli-
tical costs of this bill could far exceed the costs of more
modest proposals addressed to the GAO opinion.
Since you have discussed this matter with Wright and others
I will await further guidance before preparing a memorandum
for Wright.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SPOR
SUBJECT:
Revised Draft Proclamation:
Missing Children Day, 1984
Earlier this month Dodie Livingston's office asked for our
comments on a proposed Presidential proclamation designating
May 25 as Missing Children Day. By memorandum dated April 4
(attached), you recommended against issuing such a proclama-
tion, noting that it was neither traditional nor requested
by Congress. A Missing Children Day proclamation was issued
last year, in response to a personal plea to the President
from Senator Hawkins. It was not, however, understood that
issuance of the proclamation would become an annual event.
Your memorandum also noted that if the proclamation were
issued it would have to be changed. The draft submitted
for clearance was simply a verbatim repeat of last year's
proclamation.
Livingston has now resubmitted a new draft of a Missing
Children Day proclamation. This draft differs from last
year's, and highlights the new National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children being established at the Justice
Department. I have no objection to the content of the
proclamation, but our objections to issuing any such pro-
clamation still apply and, in my view, should be reiterated.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR DODIE LIVINGSTON
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGES
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Revised Draft Proclamation:
Missing Children Day, 1984
You have asked for our comments on a revised draft of the
proposed Missing Children Day proclamation. As I noted in
my memorandum of April 4 on the earlier draft, a Missing
Children Day proclamation is neither traditional nor has it
been requested by Congress. Issuance of such a proclamation
would, accordingly, contravene established White House
policy. While it would not be "illegal" to issue the
proclamation, I continue to be of the view that no compel-
ling circumstances have been presented justifying departure
from the established policy.
cc: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 4/24/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Request for Photos of the White House
for a Tourist Brochure
Diane Powers of the Photo Office has referred to us a
request from Congressman Timothy J. Penny (D-Minn.) for
photographs of the White House for use in a tourist bro-
chure. I contacted Congressman Penny's office to obtain
more information on his request. According to Penny's aide
Steve Miller, the Congressman is putting together a brochure
to guide constituents visiting Washington to popular tourist
attractions. The brochure will consist of a brief welcome
from Congressman Penny, along with photographs of six major
tourist attractions and brief descriptions of each. The
brochure will not be sold but made available free of charge
at the Congressman's Washington and district offices.
According to Miller, it will have no partisan political
content.
Assuming the accuracy of the above representations, I have
no objection to providing Congressman Penny with a few
photographs of the White House. The photographs should be
accompanied by a letter from you, however, stating that they
are provided subject to the representations that have been
made. A draft is attached.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 24, 1984
Dear Congressman Penny:
Your letter to Diane Powers of the White House Photo Office,
requesting photographs of the White House for use in a
tourist brochure, has been referred to this office for
review. A member of my staff has discussed this matter with
your office, and was advised that the planned brochure would
be distributed free of charge at your Washington and district
offices, and would contain no partisan political material.
Based on these representations, we are happy to provide the
requested photographs.
Best of luck with the brochure. If we may be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Timothy J. Penny
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
CC: Diane Powers
White House Photo Office
FFF:JGR:aea 4/24/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS Drd
SUBJECT:
Request for Information Pertaining
to Inclusion of Mr. & Mrs. Mark A.
Norman on a USIA "Blacklist"
Mark A. Norman, erstwhile Administrative Assistant to
Congressman John LaFalce (D-NY) and now an attorney in
Cincinnati, has written the President to demand an ex-
planation for the existence of the U.S. Information Agency
blacklist, and the inclusion on it of him and his wife.
Norman's letter expresses the view that the whole episode
must have been the result of a mistake. He asks for an
apology and assurances that it will not happen again.
The White House has not been directly involved in the USIA
blacklist imbroglio and I recommend continuing to maintain
distance from the controversy. This letter should accordingly
be referred to the USIA General Counsel for consideration
and direct reply. In addition to a memorandum implementing
this course of action, I have also attached an interim reply
to Norman, advising him of the action we have taken. The
interim reply is a bit more sympathetic in tone than others
we have sent on this matter, since Norman's letter is itself
more restrained and far less confrontational than others we
have received.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR THOMAS E. HARVEY
GENERAL COUNSEL
UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Request for Information Pertaining
to Inclusion of Mr. & Mrs. Mark A.
Norman on a USIA "Blacklist"
The attached letter to the President concerning the USIA
"blacklist" episode, from an individual who, along with his
wife, has been reported to have been on the alleged "black-
list," is referred to you for consideration and direct
reply. I have also enclosed a copy of my interim reply,
advising the correspondent that he may expect to hear from
you in the near future.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Attachment
FFF:JGR:aea 4/25/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 25, 1984
Dear Mr. Norman:
Thank you for your recent letter to the President concerning
the alleged existence of a "blacklist" at the United States
Information Agency (USIA). In that letter you requested an
explanation of the "blacklist" episode as well as an explan-
ation of the reported inclusion of your name and that of
your wife on the alleged list.
Please be assured that we share your concerns about the
implications of so-called "blacklists." I would note,
however, that many of the media accounts of this particular
incident have been neither accurate nor complete. In order
that you may be provided with the whole story, I have taken
the liberty of referring your correspondence to Thomas E.
Harvey, the General Counsel at the USIA. Mr. Harvey is
familiar with this episode and will be able to provide you
with the explanation you have requested and deserve. You
may expect to hear from him in the near future.
Thank you again for sharing your understandable concerns
with us.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. Mark A. Norman
1700 Central Trust Tower
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
FFF:JGR:aea 4/25/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
800
SUBJECT:
Texas Redistricting Plans
On January 24 Patricia Hill, a Texas state representative,
wrote Mr. Baker to complain about the Justice Department's
voting rights review of the Texas House, Senate, and
Congressional redistricting. Texas is one of the states
that must obtain pre-clearance under section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of any changes in its laws affecting voting,
including redistrictings. Hill complained that the
Department objected to all three proposed redistricting
plans in 1982, but then pre-cleared essentially the same
plans in 1983. Hill contends that the cleared plans
discriminate against both minorities and Republicans.
On February 16, Baker sent an interim reply, advising Hill
that he had referred her letter to you and that a "direct
and more detailed response will be forthcoming." The letter
was actually referred to us on Febuary 24. On March 6 we
sent the letter to Brad Reynolds, for preparation of a reply
for your signature. Reynolds has now submitted the requested
draft, which reviews the dispute in a dispassionate manner.
The proffered explanation for the apparent inconsistency
between the 1982 objection and the 1983 clearance is
two-fold: the 1983 plans contained critical changes from
the 1982 plans, and more information was provided by the
State with respect to the 1983 plans. Since the burden of
proof in section 5 cases rests with the State - i.e., the
Department must object to redistrictings until the State
proves they will not have a discriminatory purpose or effect
-- the clearance of a plan may hinge on the information
provided by the State and, theoretically, the same plan
could be blocked on the basis of one submission but cleared
on the basis of a more detailed submission. That is, at
least in part, what occurred in this case, although as noted
there were also significant changes in the plans themselves.
I have edited the reply submitted by Reynolds for style and
to remove language suggesting that you had reviewed and
approved Justice's handling of the dispute. As revised the
proposed reply simply provides Hill information about the
matter without making any gratuitous judgments.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 25, 1984
Dear Ms. Hill:
This is in further response to your letter to White House
Chief of Staff James A. Baker, III, concerning the review by
the Justice Department of the redistricting plans enacted by
the Texas Legislature.
As you know, the Voting Rights Act imposes a burden on the
State of Texas to demonstrate that redistricting plans do
not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying
or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or
language minority status. The House and Senate plans, both
enacted by the Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB), were
submitted by the state for Section 5 preclearance on the
basis of limited information and under a short timetable.
As you note, the submission was accompanied by allegations
that the plans discriminated against black and Mexican-
American voters and, in the view of the Justice Department,
the original submission did not rebut those allegations.
Thus, given the burden of proof applicable in Section 5
proceedings, it was necessary for the Department to inter-
pose an objection to the plans at that time. I enclose for
your information a copy of the Section 5 objection letters
dated January 25, 1982.
Following the Section 5 objection, the United States ac-
cepted the invitation from the Federal district court
hearing Terrazas V. Clements, Civil Action No. 3-81-1946-R
(N.D. Tex.), to participate as amicus curiae. In that role
representatives of the Department reviewed the evidence of
record that was presented by the parties. As a result of
the additional information obtained, the Department con-
cluded that in several areas where discrimination was
alleged the plan was, in fact, nondiscriminatory. Accord-
ingly, on March 5, 1982, the Attorney General informed the
state that except as to the House districts in Bexar, Dallas
and El Paso Counties and the Senate districts in Bexar and
Harris Counties "the state has satisfied the burden of proof
required by Section 5." A copy of the March 5, 1982, letter
is enclosed.
The Terrazas court ordered an interim redistricting plan for
use in the May 1982 primary election. The court's plan used
the LRB plan with modifications to the House districts in
Bexar and El Paso Counties.
- 2 -
In its 1983 session the Texas Legislature enacted the House
plan used in the 1982 elections. The plan incorporated the
court-ordered changes in Bexar and El Paso Counties; the
House districts in Dallas were identical to those in the LRB
plan which was presented to the Department in 1981. The
state's 1983 submission seeking preclearance of the House
plan contained information demonstrating that the court's
modifications to the plan in the Bexar County and El Paso
County areas remedied the previous concerns regarding those
areas. The state also submitted new information to show
that the configuration of the House districts in Dallas
County did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not
have a discriminatory effect. Upon a review of that
information, along with the data provided previously, the
Department determined that the state had satisfied its
burden of proof and that the House plan was entitled to
Section 5 preclearance.
As the result of negotiations between several of the parties
in Terrazas, modifications were made to the LRB Senate plan.
This modified plan initially was presented to the three-judge
panel as a proposed settlement of the lawsuit, but the court
required that the state first obtain Section 5 preclearance
of the proposed plan. Upon submission, the Department
received information concerning the modified plan from the
state as well as from interested persons and organizations
within the minority community. A review of the information
led the Department to conclude that the Senate plan as
modified did not have a discriminatory purpose or a discrimin-
atory effect within the meaning of Section 5; the plan was
accordingly precleared.
Subsequent to these actions, the Terrazas court conducted an
evidentiary hearing on constitutional and Section 2 challenges
to the House plan and concluded that the plan complied with
the requirements of federal law. After finding that the
Senate plan was "racially fair and equitable," the court
ordered it into effect.
Finally, as you note in your letter, the Department, on
September 27, 1983, granted Section 5 preclearance to the
Congressional redistricting plan for the State of Texas
(S.B. 480). The letter notifying the state of that decision
sets forth the reasons for this conclusion, including an
explanation of the plan's impact in Dallas County. A copy
of that letter is enclosed for your information.
Your letter states that the actions of the Department of
Justice in reviewing these plans "have had the further
result of making the Justice Department the subject of great
criticism by knowledgeable legal and political observers in
Texas." Reapportionment decisions generally do create
- 3 -
considerable controversy, but the only role of the
Department of Justice is to assure that the plans do not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, or language
minority status. The Section 5 responsibility is a parti-
cularly difficult one since the decision must be made on the
basis of information supplied to the Department by the state
and other interested parties. As this instance demon-
strates, the quality and quantity of the information pro-
vided can affect the preclearance process.
You also should be advised that the three-judge court which
heard the Terrazas lawsuit recently expressed its
appreciation for the United States' participation as amicus
and for what it termed the "splendid help which all the
representatives of the Department of Justice rendered not
only to the court but also to all the litigants."
I hope that this information is helpful to you; we appreciate
your writing to inform us of your views.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Patricia Hill
Member of the House of Representatives
of the State of Texas
Austin, Texas 78769
Enclosures
FFF:JGR:aea 4/25/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 26, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 83R
SUBJECT:
Draft Proclamation: National
Correctional Officers Week
Dodie Livingston has requested comments on the above-
referenced draft proclamation by close of business May 2.
This proclamation, requested by joint resolution, designates
the week beginning May 6 as "National Correctional Officers
Week." The proclamation was prepared by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons and has been approved by OMB. It praises correc-
tional officers for the difficult, complex, and critically
important work they perform. I have reviewed the proposed
proclamation, and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 26, 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
Correctional Officers Week
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
proclamation, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/26/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 26, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Portal-to-Portal Legislation
According to Joe Wright, Monday will in fact be soon enough
to discuss the GAO portal-to-portal bill. A meeting has
been set up for 10:15 Monday morning.
The pertinent background material is attached. I have also
attached the current Executive Level II listing, 5 U.S.C.
§ 5313, so that you can see who will be entitled to portal-
to-portal service under subsection (b) (2) (C) of the GAO
bill. The highlighted individuals are entitled to
portal-to-portal service under subsection (b) (2) (C) of the
bill, as heads of Executive establishments paid at Level II.
The stricken individuals would be but for the fact that they
head an independent agency listed in 44 U.S.C. § 3502 (10),
and subsection (b) (2) (C) specifically excludes heads of such
agencies. The remaining individuals listed in 5 U.S.C.
§ 5313 -- except Ambassadors at Large -- would be entitled
to portal-to-portal service under the provision of the GAO
bill extending coverage to deputy heads of the Executive
departments. Ambassadors at Large would not be entitled to
the service under the GAO bill. (Under the GAO opinion of
last June, they do not qualify as "principal diplomatic and
consular officials.
Attachment
7
GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
5 § 5313
section 101(c), of Pub.L. 96-536, as amended, set
tive, executive, or judicial branch in position equal
out as a note under section 5318 of this title.
to or above Level V of the Executive Schedule, see
1979 Increases in Salaries. Salaries of posi-
section 101(c) of Pub.L. 96-86, set out as a note
tions at Level I increased to $74,500 per annum,
under section 5318 of this title.
effective on the first day of the pay period begin-
Compensation and Emoluments of Secretary of
ning. on or after Oct. 1, 1979, as provided by
State; Fixing at level in Effect on January 1,
Ex.Ord. No. 12165, Oct. 9, 1979, 44 F.R. 58671,
1977. Pub.L. 96-241, § 1, May 3, 1980, 94 Stat.
as amended by Ex.Ord. No. 12200, Mar. 12, 1980,
343, limited the compensation and other emolu-
45 F.R. 16443. Ex.Ord. No. 12165 further pro-
ments attached to the office of Secretary of State
vided that pursuant to section 101(c) of Pub.L.
to those in effect Jan. 1, 1977, during the period
96-86 funds appropriated for fiscal year 1980 may
beginning May 3, 1980, and ending on the date on
not be used to pay a salary at a rate which exceeds
which the first individual appointed to that office
an increase of 5.5 percent over the rate in effect on
after May 3, 1980, ceases to hold that office.
Sept. 30, 1978, which is a maximum rate payable
Legislative History. For legislative bistory and
of $69,630.
purpose of Pub.L. 96-54, see 1979 U.S. Code
Applicability to funds appropriated by any Act
Cong. and Adm. News, P. 931. See, also, Pub.L.
for fiscal year ending Sept. 3, 1980, of limitation
96-88, 1979 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, P.
of section 304 of Pub.L. 95-391 on use of funds to
1514; Pub.L. 97-456, 1982 U.C. Code Cong. and
pay the salary or pay of any individual in legisla-
Adm. News, p. 4405.
§ 5313. Positions at level II
Level II of the Executive Schedule applies to the following positions, for which the
annual rate of basic pay shall be the rate determined with respect to such level under
chapter 11 of title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Deputy Secretary of State.
Administrator, Agency for International Development.
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Administrator of Veterans Affairs
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.
Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
Chairman, Nuelear Regulatory Commission.
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Director of the United States Information Agency
Director of Central Intelligence
Secretary of the Air Force.
Secretary of the Army.
Secretary of the Navy.
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.
Director of the National Science Foundation
Deputy Attorney General.
Deputy Secretary of Energy.
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture.
Director of the Difice of Personnel Management
Ambassadors at Large.
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(As amended Pub.L. 96-465, Title II, § 2302, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2164; Pub.L. 97-449, § 3(1),
7(b), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2441, 2444; Pub.L. 98-80, § 2(a)(1), Aug. 23, 1983, 97 Stat. 485.)
1983 Amendment. Pub. L 98-80 added item
Effective Date of 1980 Amendment. Amend-
relating to Administrator of the Environmental
ment by Pub.L. 96-465 effective Feb. 15, 1981,
Protection Agency.
except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of
1980 Amendment Pub.L. 96-465 added item
Pub.L. 96-465, set out as a note under section
relating to Ambassadors at Large.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
you wl Weren
April 23, 1984
we notes
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Portal-to-Portal Legislation
Joe Wright has sent over draft portal-to-portal legislation
suggested by GAO. According to Wright, GAO would be happy
to introduce the legislation, and is currently checking with
the members of the appropriate committees to determine when
the legislation should be introduced (this year or next).
Wright notes we should get back to GAO on their proposal
"within the next week or so," and GAO will then let us know
when the legislation should be introduced, and an under-
standing can be reached concerning GAO review of vehicle
use.
The GAO bill would extend portal-to-portal rights far beyond
current law, current practice, and the Administration
proposal. In addition to those currently entitled to
portal-to-portal service, the GAO bill would permit such
service for:
-- the Vice President
-- Assistants to the President, paid at level II, as
designated by the President
-- the deputy heads as well as the heads of the
Executive Departments
-- the heads and deputy heads of (interestingly) GAO
and OMB
plus
?
-- the heads of all Executive Agencies paid at level
II, except for "independent agencies" listed at
44 U.S.C. § 3502 (10)
-- the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretaries of
Defense and State, and the Counsellor of the State
Department
!
-- such members and employees of Congress as each House
may by rule direct
-- the nine Supreme Court Justices.
- 2 -
The GAO bill would also permit portal-to-portal service on a
temporary basis when the agency head determines that an
?
7
emergency exists and that such service is essential for
"safety, security, or other operational considerations
Finally, the GAO bill would permit a determination that
spousal transportation was transportation for an official
purpose when it was "incident to the performance of official
business by the listed officer, employee, or member. "
The GAO bill, in my view, goes far beyond what is necessary
to address the crisis engendered by last summer's GAO
opinion. Our interest in this area has been limited to
correcting the adverse effects of that opinion and legiti-
mizing established practice; we certainly have no interest
in extending portal-to-portal service to Congressmen and
Congressional staff (a potentially unlimited number) or
Supreme Court justices. Were we to support this bill we
would not be able to defend it as simply correcting a rogue
GAO opinion and authorizing what has been accepted practice
through several administrations of both parties. The bill
greatly expands "limousine service" throughout the govern-
ment, and will be criticized on that basis. To the extent
the Administration as opposed to GAO must defend it -- and,
after all, the President will have to sign it -- the poli-
tical costs of this bill could far exceed the costs of more
modest proposals addressed to the GAO opinion.
Since you have discussed this matter with Wright and others
I will await further guidance before preparing a memorandum
for Wright.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 26, 1984
Dear Mr. Norman:
Thank you for your recent letter to the President concerning
the alleged existence of a "blacklist" at the United States
Information Agency (USIA). In that letter you requested an
explanation of the "blacklist" episode as well as an explan-
ation of the reported inclusion of your name and that of
your wife on the alleged list.
Please be assured that we share your concerns about the
implications of so-called "blacklists." In order that you
may be provided with the whole story, I have taken the
liberty of referring your correspondence to Thomas E.
Harvey, the General Counsel at the USIA. Mr. Harvey is
familiar with the facts surrounding this episode and will be
able to provide you with the explanation you have requested
and deserve. You may expect to hear from him in the near
future.
Thank you again for sharing your understandable concerns
with us.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. Mark A. Norman
1700 Central Trust Tower
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
FFF:JGR:aea 4/26/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 27, 1984
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
Dear Michael:
Thank you for your letter of April 26. I will be attending
the dinner for Judge Friendly on June 8, and am looking
forward to seeing the Judge, you, and the growing legion of
other Friendly clerks at that time.
With all best wishes,
Sincerely,
John
John G. Roberts
Michael Boudin, Esquire
1201. Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Post Office Box 7566
Washington, D.C. 20044
1201 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N. W.
P.O. BOX 7566
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20044
202-662-5286
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
April 26, 1984
To Judge Friendly's Past and Present Clerks:
As we advised you earlier, the annual dinner given
for Judge Friendly by his clerks has been scheduled for Friday
evening, June 8. The earlier letter merely requested you to
note the date on your calendars; this letter is to request that
you advise me, at the above address, whether or not you plan to
attend. I would be most grateful if you could let me know by
Wednesday, May 16, and it would be easier to keep track of
responses if you could each send me a note rather than
telephone.
As usual, the dinner has been scheduled at the
Century Association, located at 7 West 43rd Street, New York
City. Cocktails will be at 7:00 and dinner will be at 8:00.
Dress is not black tie and the gathering is solely for the
Judge and his clerks and does not include spouses.
As you may recollect, it is possible to withdraw your
acceptance or to add a new name up to a week before the dinner;
but at some point thereafter the food is ordered and anyone who
has accepted but finds that he or she cannot come is still
charged. Despite the opportunity to change plans after May 16,
it would be very helpful if I could hear from each of you by
that date to indicate your present intention to attend or not;
and those initial responses will be assumed to govern unless
you advise me differently later on. If there are any
last-minute changes after May 16, the best course would be to
telephone me or my secretary in Washington (202-662-5286) so
that all such changes can be tallied at one place.
Pierre and I very much hope that you can all attend
and greatly look forward to seeing you.
Michael Boudin
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
oft
SUBJECT:
Draft State Report on H.R. 4853, a Bill
Authorizing the Attorney General to Grant
Permanent Resident Status for Certain Cuban/
Haitian Aliens, and for Other Purposes
OMB has asked for our views by close of business today on a
proposed State Department report on H.R. 4853. There are
two parts to this bill: section one would authorize the
Attorney General to grant permanent resident status to
certain Cuban and Haitian illegal aliens; section two would
direct consular officers at the U.S. Interests Section in
Havanna to process visa applications pending at that office.
With respect to section one, the draft State report simply
defers to the Department of Justice. This is appropriate,
since section one is entirely concerned with the actions of
the Attorney General and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service within the Justice Department.
The draft State report strongly opposes section two of the
bill. The Immigration and Nationality Act currently provides
that if a country refuses to take back its citizens who are
denied admission to the United States, U.S. consular officials
in that country are to cease processing visa applications
(except for those of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens).
Cuba, of course, refuses to take back the excludable Marielitos,
and accordingly our consular officers in Havanna no longer
process Cuban visa applications. Section two of this bill
would waive the pertinent provisions of the Act, and require
processing of visas in Havanna. The State report, in
opposing section two, notes that the U.S. and Cuba are
engaged in negotiations over the return of the excludable
Marielitos. Enactment of section two would remove the only
leverage the U.S. has in these negotiations.
I have reviewed the proposed State report, and have no
objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft State Report on H.R. 4853, a Bill
Authorizing the Attorney General to Grant
Permanent Resident Status for Certain Cuban/
Haitian Aliens, and for Other Purposes
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
perspective. State report, and finds no objection to it from a legal
FFF:JGR:aea 4/27/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
eser
SUBJECT:
Letter to Diane Powers Requesting
Certain Photographs Under the Freedom
of Information Act
Diane Powers of the Photo Office has asked if the Photo
Office is required to provide copies of White House photo-
graphs under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to those
whom she refers to as "photo hogs" -- collectors who file
repeated requests for large numbers of photographs. Her
inquiry was prompted by the latest of many letters from one
such "photo hog," asking for six photographs under FOIA.
As an initial matter, we should take the position that the
Photo Office is not subject to FOIA. As you know, we
maintain that the White House Office is not, and the Photo
Office is considered part of the White House Office. While
I have no doubt that this is the position we should take, I
must point out that it is not clear that it will withstand
legal challenge. The basis for our frequent assertion that
the White House Office is not subject to FOIA is Justice
Rehnquist's opinion for the Court in Kissinger V. Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156
(1980). That opinion held that "'the President's immediate
personal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole
function is to advise and assist the President' are not
included within the term 'agency' under the FOIA." Id., at
156, quoting from H.R. Conf. Rep. 93-1380. It is not clear
whether the Photo Office would be considered "the President's
immediate personal staff" or a unit "whose sole function is
to advise and assist the President." A court confronted
with the question could view the Photo Office as a discrete
entity with functions that go beyond advising the President.
Assuming that the Photo Office is not subject to FOIA, I see
no reason it should be required to satisfy the acquisitive
demands of photo collectors. I have prepared a memorandum
for Powers advising her that the Photo Office is not subject
to FOIA, and that it need not respond to what it considers
excessive demands from collectors.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR DIANE POWERS
WHITE HOUSE PHOTO OFFICE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Excessive Demands of Photo Collectors
for White House Photographs
You have asked whether the Photo Office must respond to the
excessive demands of private collectors for White House
photographs under the Freedom of Information Act. The Photo
Office, like the White House Office in general, is not
subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
See Kissinger V. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156 (1980). The provision of White
House photographs to private individuals who request them
for their collections is not legally required, and
accordingly you need not respond to what you regard as
excessive demands or abuses of the privilege. You are in
the best position to determine if a particular individual is
abusing the privilege. If you have specific questions in
this area, please do not hesitate to contact US.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/27/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSOR
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"Transfer of Authority to the Secretary
of State to Make Reimbursements for
Protection of Foreign Missions to
International Organizations"
On April 19 I submitted a memorandum to you on the above-
referenced proposed Executive Order, noting no legal objection.
OMB advised at the time that none of the affected agencies
objected to the proposed order. On Friday, however, Harold
Burman of the Legal Adviser's office at State called to
explain that State now objected. Burman attempted to
portray State's suggested revisions as technical in nature,
but in fact they are substantive changes that would transfer
positions and additional funds from Treasury to State in
connection with the transfer of reimbursement authority.
Treasury could well object to the proposed changes, and the
Office of Legal Counsel might as well. (It is unclear
whether the President could, by executive order, transfer
the appropriated funds and positions, as well as the reim-
bursement authority, that State desires.) Accordingly, I
advised Burman that the proposed revision would need to go
through the entire clearance process, to which he agreed.
It is my understanding that you have not yet signed the "no
objection" memorandum I prepared on April 19. I have
attached a draft that may be sent in its stead, simply
noting that State will be submitting a new package for
clearance. There is, incidentally, no time pressure with
this particular proposed executive order.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"Transfer of Authority to the Secretary
of State to Make Reimbursements for
Protection of Foreign Missions to
International Organizations"
You have asked for our comments on the above-referenced
proposed executive order. We have been advised by the Legal
Adviser's office at the Department of State that State now
objects to the proposed order, as drafted, and would like to
suggest fairly significant revisions. The proposed order
accordingly should not be issued at this time. State will
submit its suggested revisions through the normal clearance
process.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/30/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTSQZQ
SUBJECT:
Proposed Award to Michael Jackson
Jim Coyne has asked for our views on a proposed award to
entertainer Michael Jackson, for his contributions to the
campaign against teenage drunk driving. Coyne would like to
have the President present the unspecified award to Jackson
on May 11 in the Rose Garden. Coyne has asked whether the
award should be from the White House or the Transportation
Department, whether the award may bear the Seal of the
President, and whether we object to his suggested language
for the award. You have indicated that you object to any
award to Jackson involving the President.
I share your view that this is a poor idea. Coyne's
suggested award language praises Jackson as an "outstanding
example
for the youth of America and the world." If one
wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in
garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body
shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change,
mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose "Michael," as he is
affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good
example. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to
endorse Jackson's androgynous life style, a Presidential
award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the
President to share in the constant publicity surrounding
Jackson, particularly since other celebrities have done as
much for worthy causes as Jackson but have not been singled
out by the President. The whole episode would, in my view,
be demeaning to the President.
The attached memorandum for Coyne objects to any Presi-
dential involvement and to his proposed text. I also
recommend copying Darman so that our objections are
generally known.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. COYNE
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Award to Michael Jackson
You have asked for our views on a proposed award to enter-
tainer Michael Jackson in recognition of his contribution to
the national campaign against teenage drunk driving.
Specifically, you have asked whether the contemplated award
should be a White House award or a Department of Transportation
award, whether the award may bear the Seal of the President,
and whether we had any objections to your suggested text for
the award.
I must advise you that I object to any Presidential involve-
ment in the presentation of an award to Mr. Jackson.
Whatever his contributions to the campaign against teenage
drunk driving, and whatever his merit as a chanteur, I
hardly think it advisable to hold Mr. Jackson up as an
"outstanding example for the youth of America and the
world." I do not think we want the youth of America and the
world mimicking Mr. Jackson's androgynous life style or
other numerous eccentricities, or adopting the dubious
lyrics of his songs as a code by which to live. In
addition, I think any ceremony involving the President and
Mr. Jackson would be perceived as an effort by the President
to bask in the reflected glow of the inordinate and at times
hysterical publicity surrounding Mr. Jackson, a perception
that would be demeaning to the President. This perception
would derive in large part from the fact that other
celebrities have done at least as much as Mr. Jackson for
worthy causes, but have not been singled out for special
praise by the President.
To answer your specific questions, if any award is given it
should not be a White House award. The award accordingly
may not bear the Seal of the President. Finally, I do
object to the suggested text for the award. As noted above,
I do not think Mr. Jackson should be lauded as an example
for youth. Nor should any award citation praise Mr. Jackson
for his commercial successes, as your proposed text does.
Thank you for raising this matter with us.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 4/30/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 026
SUBJECT:
Statement of Lois Herrington Concerning
S. 2423 -- Victims of Crime Assistance
on May 1, 1984
We have been provided with a copy of testimony Assistant
Attorney General Lois Herrington proposes to deliver on
May 1 before the Senate Judiciary Committee on S. 2423, the
Administration's "Victims of Crime Assistance Act of 1984."
The testimony simply reviews the major features of the bill,
which was introduced by Chairman Thurmond on March 13 with
Senators Biden, Laxalt, Heinz, and Grassley as co-sponsors.
As you may recall, the bill would establish a Victims Fund
at Treasury, funded mainly by Federal criminal fines. The
assets of the fund would be distributed annually, 50 percent
to reimburse states for a portion of the financial assist-
ance they provide to victims, 30 percent to the states by
population to fund programs providing non-financial assist-
ance to victims, and 20 percent to Federal agencies serving
the same purpose. The bill also would establish a Federal
Victims of Crime Advisory Committee, with members appointed
by the President.
I have reviewed the proposed testimony and have no objections.
The policy choices were made at the time the Administration
introduced the bill; this testimony adds nothing new.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES C. MURR
CHIEF, ECONOMICS-SCIENCE-GENERAL
GOVERNMENT BRANCH, OMB
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Lois Herrington Concerning
S. 2423 -- Victims of Crime Assistance
on May 1, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced testimony,
and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 4/30/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron