Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "135839880",
    "label": "Chron File (04/21/1984-04/30/1984)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839880"
}

{
    "id": "135839880",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839880",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Chron File (04/21/1984-04/30/1984)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839880",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Chronological Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40_485_6909456_063_013_2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40_485_6909456_063_013_2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40_485_6909456_063_013_2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839880",
    "naId": 135839880,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6909456/40_485_6909456_063_013_2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "4d22006e9f12cd3c",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: Chron File (04/21/1984-04/30/1984)\nBox: 63\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name\nWithdrawer\nCAS 8/30/2005\nFile Folder\nCHRON FILE (4/21/84-4/30/84)\nFOIA\nF05-139/01\nBox Number\n63\nCOOK\n38CAS\nDOC Doc Type\nDocument Description\nNo of Doc Date Restrictions\nCOPY - Reagan Presidential Record\nNO\nPages\n1\nLETTER\nROBERTS TO MICHAEL BOUDIN RE\n1 4/27/1984 B6\n1294\nFRIENDLY DINNER (OPEN IN WHOLE)\n2 LETTER\nBOUDIN TO JUDGE FRIENDLY'S PAST\n1 4/26/1984\nB6\n1295\nAND PRESENT CLERKS (OPEN IN\nWHOLE)\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified Information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose Internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial Information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted Invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nE.O. 13233\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 23, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\n826\nSUBJECT:\nStatement of Mark Richard Concerning\nthe Comprehensive Crime Control Act\nof 1984 on April 25, 1984\nWe have been provided with a copy of testimony Deputy\nAssistant Attorney General Mark Richard proposes to deliver\non April 25 before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of\nthe House Judiciary Committee on obtaining evidence from\nabroad in criminal cases. The testimony expresses general\nsupport for H.R. 5406 and the pertinent provisions of\nS. 1726, which would permit the admission into evidence of\nforeign records of a regularly conducted activity. Pre-\nsently such records, typically foreign court or business\nrecords, can only be admitted upon cross-examined testimony\nof their custodian. When the custodian is a foreign official,\nsuch required testimony is difficult or impossible to\nobtain, at least without going through the arduous letters\nrogatory process. H.R. 5406 and the pertinent provisions of\nS. 1726 would authorize the admission of foreign documents\naccompanied by an appropriate certification of authenticity,\nafter prior notice to the opposing party.\nIn addition to supporting these efforts to facilitate the\nhandling of transnational cases, Richard also urges that the\nSubcommittee provide that the time spent in diligent efforts\nto secure foreign evidence not be counted in Speedy Trial\nAct calculations, and that the government be permitted to\napply for an extension of any applicable statute of limita-\ntions to obtain such evidence. According to the testimony,\nSpeedy Trial Act and statute of limitations problems are\nparticularly acute when it is necessary to obtain evidence\nfrom abroad, and the drug dealers or commercial fraud\nperpetrators involved in major transnational cases should\nnot be permitted to escape justice simply because their\nactivities span several borders. As an example of the\ndifficulties involved, Richard appends to his testimony a\nsynopsis of a completed commercial fraud case in which it\nwas necessary to obtain evidence from Switzerland, Liechten-\nstein, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands.\nI have reviewed the proposed testimony, and have no objections.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 23, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nStatement of Mark Richard Concerning\nthe Comprehensive Crime Control Act\nof 1984 on April 25, 1984\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced testimony,\nand finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/23/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 23, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nStatement of Tom Healey Concerning\nS. 1858/H.R. 3932, D.C. Chadha on\nWednesday, April 25, 1984\nOMB has asked for our views by 4:00 p.m. today on testimony\nAssistant Secretary of the Treasury Tom Healey would like to\ndeliver on Wednesday before the Senate Subcommittee on\nGovernmental Efficiency and the District of Columbia concerning\nthe D.C. Chadha problem. Treasury is interested in the D.C.\nChadha problem because until it is resolved the District\ncannot enter the bond market and must instead borrow funds\nfor certain requirements from the Treasury. The District\ncannot enter the bond market because it cannot obtain an\nunqualified bond counsel opinion with the Chadha cloud over\nthe District's legal authority.\nBoth Justice and OMB are opposed to Treasury testifying at\nall. The D.C. Chadha issue is most advantageously posed for\nus in terms of the criminal justice implications; the bond\nauthority issue obfuscates matters and, as far as Treasury\nis concerned, it is more important that the issue be resolved\nthan that it be resolved in any particular manner. In\nshort, Treasury does not share our interests in this matter,\nand in stressing the need for expeditious resolution may\nactually harm the Administration position, since the most\nexpeditious way to resolve the crisis would be for the\nSenate to pass the District's bill, which has already passed\nthe House. I recommend that we concur with the Justice and\nOMB view that Treasury not testify.\nThere are also several errors in the substance of the\nproposed testimony, which we should highlight in the event\nTreasury does testify. In the first full paragraph on\npage 3 Healey asserts that the Court's opinion in Chadha\ncontained \"a general statement that unconstitutional veto\nprovisions are severable from the remainder of the affected\nacts,\" and that the opinion \"does not include the Home Rule\nAct among those Federal statutes identified as affected.\"\nBoth statements are misleading. The opinion does not\ncontain a general statement that unconstitutional veto\nprovisions are severable; it simply states the test that\ninvalid portions of a statute are to be severed unless the\n- 2 -\nLegislature would not have enacted the statute without the\ninvalid provision. See slip op., at 10. Further, the Chief\nJustice's opinion does not contain a list of statutes\naffected by the ruling, so the fact that the Home Rule Act\ndoes not appear in such a list is meaningless. The paragraph\nis an obvious effort to suggest that the Home Rule Act is\nunaffected by Chadha, even though the Justice Department has\ndetermined that it is and has so argued in court. The\nparagraph, other than the first sentence, should be deleted.\nThe second paragraph on page 4, and the carryover paragraph\nbetween pages 4 and 5, suggest that the matter could be\nresolved by adding a severability clause to the Home Rule\nAct. The last sentence on page 4 further suggests that the\nJustice opposition to the pending District bill is based on\nelements \"other than the severability provision.\" While\nthis is true with respect to the Justice letter of Novem-\nber 15, 1983, the severability issue was not specifically\nraised or addressed at that time. In its later letter sent\nMarch 12, 1984, specifically addressed to the proposal to\nadd a severability clause to the Home Rule Act, Justice\nnoted the Administration's firm opposition to this approach.\n(Adding a severability clause would, in effect, give the\nDistrict everything it is asking for, since the severability\nclause would result in the legislative vetoes being stricken,\nwith nothing in their place. End result: Congress must\npass a joint resolution of disapproval to block District\nactions.) Both the first full paragraph on page 4 and the\ncarryover paragraph between pages 4 and 5 should be deleted.\nThe attached draft memorandum for OMB agrees with Justice\nand OMB that Treasury should not testify, and recommends the\nabove changes should that view not prevail.\nAttachment\nCC: Richard A. Hauser\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 23, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JANET M. FOX\nLEGISLATIVE ANALYST\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nStatement of Tom Healey Concerning\nS. 1858/H.R. 3932, D.C. Chadha on\nWednesday, April 25, 1984\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed\ntestimony. I agree with the recommendation of OMB and the\nDepartment of Justice that Treasury not appear at the\nhearing. Treasury's interest is simply that the D.C. Chadha\nproblem be resolved as expeditiously as possible; Treasury\nhas no real institutional interest in how the problem is\nresolved. That, however, is precisely the issue that has\nbeen joined, and it seems best to limit Administration\ntesting on this issue to those agencies affected by the\nanswer to that question.\nIf the proposed Treasury testimony is to be delivered,\nseveral corrections will have to be made. All but the first\nsentence of the first full paragraph on page 3 should be\ndeleted. The second sentence is inaccurate: the Court's\nopinion does not contain a general statement that unconsti-\ntutional veto provisions are severable. Rather, the opinion\nstates the pertinent test, which is that unconstitutional\nprovisions are severable unless the Legislature would not\nhave enacted the statute without the invalid provisions.\nThis hardly constitutes a general statement that veto\nprovisions are severable. The third sentence, stating that\nthe Home Rule Act was not among the Federal statutes cited\nas affected by the Court's opinion, is very misleading,\nsince the opinion contained no such comprehensive list of\naffected statutes.\nWe also recommend deleting the first full paragraph on\npage 4, and the carryover paragraph between pages 4 and 5.\nThese paragraphs suggest that the problem could be resolved\nby adding a severability clause to the Home Rule Act, and\nthe fourth sentence of the carryover paragraph notes that\nthe Justice letter of November 15, 1983, opposed H.R. 3932\non grounds \"other than the severability provision.\" Justice's\nletter of March 12, 1984, however, specifically opposed the\nseverability approach.\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/23/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/subi/chror\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 23, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nMore Video Tape on Voluntarism\nYou will recall that Jim Coyne asked for our views on how to\naccept $20,000 from DuPont to fund completion of a video\ntape project undertaken by his office. Last week you\nadvised Coyne that acceptance of the money would constitute\nan illegal supplementation of appropriations, whether the\nmoney was provided directly to Coyne's office or through a\n501 (c) (3) organization. Your memorandum (attached) suggested\nthat Coyne either use appropriated funds to pay for his\noffice's project, or turn the material over to a 501 (c) (3)\norganization for completion. The finished product would\nthen be the property of the 501 (c) (3) organization.\nIt appears that your memorandum on this subject crossed in\nthe mail with the present memorandum from Coyne. In the\ninstant memorandum, Coyne notes that Howard K. Smith will\ntape the narrative to accompany the video tape on Tuesday,\nApril 24, and Coyne submits the script for your review. He\nalso notes that the tape will \"be a product of the\nPresident's Advisory Council on Private Sector Initiatives.\"\nAs is so often the case with Coyne, it is the unasked\nquestions that raise the most serious concerns. I have read\nthrough the script and have no objections. It is not clear,\nhowever, who is funding the filming. We should admonish\nCoyne that any such activity must be consistent with our\nprior memorandum specifically addressed to that question.\nCoyne's statement that the video tape will be a product of\nthe Advisory Council also raises concerns. Coyne may be\ntrying to circumvent limits on his office's activities by\nhaving the Advisory Council act in his stead. The statement\nthat the video tape will be a product of the Advisory\nCouncil, and earlier efforts by Coyne to involve the Advisory\nCouncil in actual fundraising, suggest that he is insuffici-\nently sensitive to the fact that the Advisory Council is\nlimited by law to advisory functions.\n- 2 -\nExecutive Order 12427 (June 27, 1983) specified that the\nAdvisory Council was established \"in accordance with the\nprovisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.\" That act\nprovides that \"[u]nless otherwise specifically provided by\nstatute or Presidential directive, advisory committees shall\nbe utilized solely for advisory functions.\" 5 U.S.C. App. I\n$ 9(b). The Executive Order, far from specifically providing\notherwise, reaffirms that the Advisory Council is limited to\nadvisory functions. The sole function of the Advisory\nCouncil under the Executive Order is to \"advise the Presi-\ndent, through the White House Office of Private Sector\nInitiatives, with respect to the objectives and conduct of\nprivate sector initiative policies including methods of\nincreasing public awareness of the importance of public/\nprivate partnerships; removing barriers to development of\neffective social service programs which are administered by\nprivate organizations; and strengthening the professional\nresources of the private social service sector.\"\nThe Federal Advisory Committee Act does not define \"advisory\nfunctions,\" nor have there been any court decisions interpreting\nthe term. If the limitation is to have any meaning, however,\nit would seem that producing a video tape for mass distribution\ngoes beyond giving \"advice\" to the President. Last week you\nsigned a memorandum prepared by Sherrie Cooksey (attached)\nadvising Coyne that the Advisory Council was limited to\nadvisory functions, and accordingly could not engage in\nfundraising. We should reiterate the limitation and note\nthat it applies to producing video tapes for mass distribution.\nA memorandum for Coyne is attached for your review and\nsignature.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 23, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. COYNE\nSPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFOR PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nMore Video Tape on Voluntarism\nYou have asked for our views on a script prepared for use in\nconnection with the planned video tape on voluntarism. You\nnoted in your memorandum that the video tape will be a\nproduct of the President's Advisory Council on Private\nSector Initiatives.\nI assume that your memorandum \"crossed in the mail\" with my\nmemoranda on the video tape project and the activities of\nthe Advisory Council. Your latest memorandum on this\nsubject does not discuss how the project is to be funded.\nI would only reiterate that any funding must be consistent\nwith the advice in my memorandum entitled \"Video Tape on\nVoluntarism.'\nIn addition, your statement that the video tape will be a\nproduct of the Advisory Council also raises concerns. As I\nnoted in my recent memorandum for you entitled \"Guidelines\nfor Fundraising Activities,\" the Advisory Council is limited\nby law to purely advisory functions. Executive Order 12427\nestablished the Advisory Council subject to the Federal\nAdvisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. I. That Act provides\nthat \"advisory committees shall be utilized solely for\nadvisory functions.\" 5 U.S.C. App. I § 9 (b). The Executive\nOrder confirms this limitation, specifying as the sole\nfunction of the Advisory Council the giving of advice to the\nPresident, through your office. Production of a video tape\nfor general distribution clearly exceeds this legal\nlimitation, and accordingly the Advisory Council cannot\nproduce the tape.\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/23/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 23, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nPortal-to-Portal Legislation\nJoe Wright has sent over draft portal-to-portal legislation\nsuggested by GAO. According to Wright, GAO would be happy\nto introduce the legislation, and is currently checking with\nthe members of the appropriate committees to determine when\nthe legislation should be introduced (this year or next).\nWright notes we should get back to GAO on their proposal\n\"within the next week or so,\" and GAO will then let us know\nwhen the legislation should be introduced, and an under-\nstanding can be reached concerning GAO review of vehicle\nuse.\nThe GAO bill would extend portal-to-portal rights far beyond\ncurrent law, current practice, and the Administration\nproposal. In addition to those currently entitled to\nportal-to-portal service, the GAO bill would permit such\nservice for:\n-- the Vice President\n-- Assistants to the President, paid at level II, as\ndesignated by the President\n-- the deputy heads as well as the heads of the\nExecutive Departments\n-- the heads and deputy heads of (interestingly) GAO\nand OMB\n-- the heads of all Executive Agencies paid at level\nII, except for \"independent agencies\" listed at\n44 U.S.C. § 3502 (10)\n-- the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretaries of\nDefense and State, and the Counsellor of the State\nDepartment\n-- such members and employees of Congress as each House\nmay by rule direct\n-- the nine Supreme Court Justices.\n- 2 -\nThe GAO bill would also permit portal-to-portal service on a\ntemporary basis when the agency head determines that an\nemergency exists and that such service is essential for\n\"safety, security, or other operational considerations.\"\nFinally, the GAO bill would permit a determination that\nspousal transportation was transportation for an official\npurpose when it was \"incident to the performance of official\nbusiness by the listed officer, employee, or member.\"\nThe GAO bill, in my view, goes far beyond what is necessary\nto address the crisis engendered by last summer's GAO\nopinion. Our interest in this area has been limited to\ncorrecting the adverse effects of that opinion and legiti-\nmizing established practice; we certainly have no interest\nin extending portal-to-portal service to Congressmen and\nCongressional staff (a potentially unlimited number) or\nSupreme Court justices. Were we to support this bill we\nwould not be able to defend it as simply correcting a rogue\nGAO opinion and authorizing what has been accepted practice\nthrough several administrations of both parties. The bill\ngreatly expands \"limousine service\" throughout the govern-\nment, and will be criticized on that basis. To the extent\nthe Administration as opposed to GAO must defend it -- and,\nafter all, the President will have to sign it -- the poli-\ntical costs of this bill could far exceed the costs of more\nmodest proposals addressed to the GAO opinion.\nSince you have discussed this matter with Wright and others\nI will await further guidance before preparing a memorandum\nfor Wright.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 24, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSPOR\nSUBJECT:\nRevised Draft Proclamation:\nMissing Children Day, 1984\nEarlier this month Dodie Livingston's office asked for our\ncomments on a proposed Presidential proclamation designating\nMay 25 as Missing Children Day. By memorandum dated April 4\n(attached), you recommended against issuing such a proclama-\ntion, noting that it was neither traditional nor requested\nby Congress. A Missing Children Day proclamation was issued\nlast year, in response to a personal plea to the President\nfrom Senator Hawkins. It was not, however, understood that\nissuance of the proclamation would become an annual event.\nYour memorandum also noted that if the proclamation were\nissued it would have to be changed. The draft submitted\nfor clearance was simply a verbatim repeat of last year's\nproclamation.\nLivingston has now resubmitted a new draft of a Missing\nChildren Day proclamation. This draft differs from last\nyear's, and highlights the new National Center for Missing\nand Exploited Children being established at the Justice\nDepartment. I have no objection to the content of the\nproclamation, but our objections to issuing any such pro-\nclamation still apply and, in my view, should be reiterated.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 24, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR DODIE LIVINGSTON\nSPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nDIRECTOR, SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGES\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nRevised Draft Proclamation:\nMissing Children Day, 1984\nYou have asked for our comments on a revised draft of the\nproposed Missing Children Day proclamation. As I noted in\nmy memorandum of April 4 on the earlier draft, a Missing\nChildren Day proclamation is neither traditional nor has it\nbeen requested by Congress. Issuance of such a proclamation\nwould, accordingly, contravene established White House\npolicy. While it would not be \"illegal\" to issue the\nproclamation, I continue to be of the view that no compel-\nling circumstances have been presented justifying departure\nfrom the established policy.\ncc: Richard G. Darman\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/24/84\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 24, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nRequest for Photos of the White House\nfor a Tourist Brochure\nDiane Powers of the Photo Office has referred to us a\nrequest from Congressman Timothy J. Penny (D-Minn.) for\nphotographs of the White House for use in a tourist bro-\nchure. I contacted Congressman Penny's office to obtain\nmore information on his request. According to Penny's aide\nSteve Miller, the Congressman is putting together a brochure\nto guide constituents visiting Washington to popular tourist\nattractions. The brochure will consist of a brief welcome\nfrom Congressman Penny, along with photographs of six major\ntourist attractions and brief descriptions of each. The\nbrochure will not be sold but made available free of charge\nat the Congressman's Washington and district offices.\nAccording to Miller, it will have no partisan political\ncontent.\nAssuming the accuracy of the above representations, I have\nno objection to providing Congressman Penny with a few\nphotographs of the White House. The photographs should be\naccompanied by a letter from you, however, stating that they\nare provided subject to the representations that have been\nmade. A draft is attached.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 24, 1984\nDear Congressman Penny:\nYour letter to Diane Powers of the White House Photo Office,\nrequesting photographs of the White House for use in a\ntourist brochure, has been referred to this office for\nreview. A member of my staff has discussed this matter with\nyour office, and was advised that the planned brochure would\nbe distributed free of charge at your Washington and district\noffices, and would contain no partisan political material.\nBased on these representations, we are happy to provide the\nrequested photographs.\nBest of luck with the brochure. If we may be of any further\nassistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.\nSincerely,\nFred F. Fielding\nCounsel to the President\nThe Honorable Timothy J. Penny\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nCC: Diane Powers\nWhite House Photo Office\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/24/84\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 25, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS Drd\nSUBJECT:\nRequest for Information Pertaining\nto Inclusion of Mr. & Mrs. Mark A.\nNorman on a USIA \"Blacklist\"\nMark A. Norman, erstwhile Administrative Assistant to\nCongressman John LaFalce (D-NY) and now an attorney in\nCincinnati, has written the President to demand an ex-\nplanation for the existence of the U.S. Information Agency\nblacklist, and the inclusion on it of him and his wife.\nNorman's letter expresses the view that the whole episode\nmust have been the result of a mistake. He asks for an\napology and assurances that it will not happen again.\nThe White House has not been directly involved in the USIA\nblacklist imbroglio and I recommend continuing to maintain\ndistance from the controversy. This letter should accordingly\nbe referred to the USIA General Counsel for consideration\nand direct reply. In addition to a memorandum implementing\nthis course of action, I have also attached an interim reply\nto Norman, advising him of the action we have taken. The\ninterim reply is a bit more sympathetic in tone than others\nwe have sent on this matter, since Norman's letter is itself\nmore restrained and far less confrontational than others we\nhave received.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 25, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR THOMAS E. HARVEY\nGENERAL COUNSEL\nUNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nRequest for Information Pertaining\nto Inclusion of Mr. & Mrs. Mark A.\nNorman on a USIA \"Blacklist\"\nThe attached letter to the President concerning the USIA\n\"blacklist\" episode, from an individual who, along with his\nwife, has been reported to have been on the alleged \"black-\nlist,\" is referred to you for consideration and direct\nreply. I have also enclosed a copy of my interim reply,\nadvising the correspondent that he may expect to hear from\nyou in the near future.\nThank you for your assistance in this matter.\nAttachment\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/25/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 25, 1984\nDear Mr. Norman:\nThank you for your recent letter to the President concerning\nthe alleged existence of a \"blacklist\" at the United States\nInformation Agency (USIA). In that letter you requested an\nexplanation of the \"blacklist\" episode as well as an explan-\nation of the reported inclusion of your name and that of\nyour wife on the alleged list.\nPlease be assured that we share your concerns about the\nimplications of so-called \"blacklists.\" I would note,\nhowever, that many of the media accounts of this particular\nincident have been neither accurate nor complete. In order\nthat you may be provided with the whole story, I have taken\nthe liberty of referring your correspondence to Thomas E.\nHarvey, the General Counsel at the USIA. Mr. Harvey is\nfamiliar with this episode and will be able to provide you\nwith the explanation you have requested and deserve. You\nmay expect to hear from him in the near future.\nThank you again for sharing your understandable concerns\nwith us.\nSincerely,\nFred F. Fielding\nCounsel to the President\nMr. Mark A. Norman\n1700 Central Trust Tower\nCincinnati, Ohio 45202\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/25/84\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 25, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\n800\nSUBJECT:\nTexas Redistricting Plans\nOn January 24 Patricia Hill, a Texas state representative,\nwrote Mr. Baker to complain about the Justice Department's\nvoting rights review of the Texas House, Senate, and\nCongressional redistricting. Texas is one of the states\nthat must obtain pre-clearance under section 5 of the Voting\nRights Act of any changes in its laws affecting voting,\nincluding redistrictings. Hill complained that the\nDepartment objected to all three proposed redistricting\nplans in 1982, but then pre-cleared essentially the same\nplans in 1983. Hill contends that the cleared plans\ndiscriminate against both minorities and Republicans.\nOn February 16, Baker sent an interim reply, advising Hill\nthat he had referred her letter to you and that a \"direct\nand more detailed response will be forthcoming.\" The letter\nwas actually referred to us on Febuary 24. On March 6 we\nsent the letter to Brad Reynolds, for preparation of a reply\nfor your signature. Reynolds has now submitted the requested\ndraft, which reviews the dispute in a dispassionate manner.\nThe proffered explanation for the apparent inconsistency\nbetween the 1982 objection and the 1983 clearance is\ntwo-fold: the 1983 plans contained critical changes from\nthe 1982 plans, and more information was provided by the\nState with respect to the 1983 plans. Since the burden of\nproof in section 5 cases rests with the State - i.e., the\nDepartment must object to redistrictings until the State\nproves they will not have a discriminatory purpose or effect\n-- the clearance of a plan may hinge on the information\nprovided by the State and, theoretically, the same plan\ncould be blocked on the basis of one submission but cleared\non the basis of a more detailed submission. That is, at\nleast in part, what occurred in this case, although as noted\nthere were also significant changes in the plans themselves.\nI have edited the reply submitted by Reynolds for style and\nto remove language suggesting that you had reviewed and\napproved Justice's handling of the dispute. As revised the\nproposed reply simply provides Hill information about the\nmatter without making any gratuitous judgments.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 25, 1984\nDear Ms. Hill:\nThis is in further response to your letter to White House\nChief of Staff James A. Baker, III, concerning the review by\nthe Justice Department of the redistricting plans enacted by\nthe Texas Legislature.\nAs you know, the Voting Rights Act imposes a burden on the\nState of Texas to demonstrate that redistricting plans do\nnot have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying\nor abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or\nlanguage minority status. The House and Senate plans, both\nenacted by the Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB), were\nsubmitted by the state for Section 5 preclearance on the\nbasis of limited information and under a short timetable.\nAs you note, the submission was accompanied by allegations\nthat the plans discriminated against black and Mexican-\nAmerican voters and, in the view of the Justice Department,\nthe original submission did not rebut those allegations.\nThus, given the burden of proof applicable in Section 5\nproceedings, it was necessary for the Department to inter-\npose an objection to the plans at that time. I enclose for\nyour information a copy of the Section 5 objection letters\ndated January 25, 1982.\nFollowing the Section 5 objection, the United States ac-\ncepted the invitation from the Federal district court\nhearing Terrazas V. Clements, Civil Action No. 3-81-1946-R\n(N.D. Tex.), to participate as amicus curiae. In that role\nrepresentatives of the Department reviewed the evidence of\nrecord that was presented by the parties. As a result of\nthe additional information obtained, the Department con-\ncluded that in several areas where discrimination was\nalleged the plan was, in fact, nondiscriminatory. Accord-\ningly, on March 5, 1982, the Attorney General informed the\nstate that except as to the House districts in Bexar, Dallas\nand El Paso Counties and the Senate districts in Bexar and\nHarris Counties \"the state has satisfied the burden of proof\nrequired by Section 5.\" A copy of the March 5, 1982, letter\nis enclosed.\nThe Terrazas court ordered an interim redistricting plan for\nuse in the May 1982 primary election. The court's plan used\nthe LRB plan with modifications to the House districts in\nBexar and El Paso Counties.\n- 2 -\nIn its 1983 session the Texas Legislature enacted the House\nplan used in the 1982 elections. The plan incorporated the\ncourt-ordered changes in Bexar and El Paso Counties; the\nHouse districts in Dallas were identical to those in the LRB\nplan which was presented to the Department in 1981. The\nstate's 1983 submission seeking preclearance of the House\nplan contained information demonstrating that the court's\nmodifications to the plan in the Bexar County and El Paso\nCounty areas remedied the previous concerns regarding those\nareas. The state also submitted new information to show\nthat the configuration of the House districts in Dallas\nCounty did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not\nhave a discriminatory effect. Upon a review of that\ninformation, along with the data provided previously, the\nDepartment determined that the state had satisfied its\nburden of proof and that the House plan was entitled to\nSection 5 preclearance.\nAs the result of negotiations between several of the parties\nin Terrazas, modifications were made to the LRB Senate plan.\nThis modified plan initially was presented to the three-judge\npanel as a proposed settlement of the lawsuit, but the court\nrequired that the state first obtain Section 5 preclearance\nof the proposed plan. Upon submission, the Department\nreceived information concerning the modified plan from the\nstate as well as from interested persons and organizations\nwithin the minority community. A review of the information\nled the Department to conclude that the Senate plan as\nmodified did not have a discriminatory purpose or a discrimin-\natory effect within the meaning of Section 5; the plan was\naccordingly precleared.\nSubsequent to these actions, the Terrazas court conducted an\nevidentiary hearing on constitutional and Section 2 challenges\nto the House plan and concluded that the plan complied with\nthe requirements of federal law. After finding that the\nSenate plan was \"racially fair and equitable,\" the court\nordered it into effect.\nFinally, as you note in your letter, the Department, on\nSeptember 27, 1983, granted Section 5 preclearance to the\nCongressional redistricting plan for the State of Texas\n(S.B. 480). The letter notifying the state of that decision\nsets forth the reasons for this conclusion, including an\nexplanation of the plan's impact in Dallas County. A copy\nof that letter is enclosed for your information.\nYour letter states that the actions of the Department of\nJustice in reviewing these plans \"have had the further\nresult of making the Justice Department the subject of great\ncriticism by knowledgeable legal and political observers in\nTexas.\" Reapportionment decisions generally do create\n- 3 -\nconsiderable controversy, but the only role of the\nDepartment of Justice is to assure that the plans do not\ndiscriminate on the basis of race, color, or language\nminority status. The Section 5 responsibility is a parti-\ncularly difficult one since the decision must be made on the\nbasis of information supplied to the Department by the state\nand other interested parties. As this instance demon-\nstrates, the quality and quantity of the information pro-\nvided can affect the preclearance process.\nYou also should be advised that the three-judge court which\nheard the Terrazas lawsuit recently expressed its\nappreciation for the United States' participation as amicus\nand for what it termed the \"splendid help which all the\nrepresentatives of the Department of Justice rendered not\nonly to the court but also to all the litigants.\"\nI hope that this information is helpful to you; we appreciate\nyour writing to inform us of your views.\nSincerely,\nFred F. Fielding\nCounsel to the President\nThe Honorable Patricia Hill\nMember of the House of Representatives\nof the State of Texas\nAustin, Texas 78769\nEnclosures\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/25/84\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 26, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS 83R\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Proclamation: National\nCorrectional Officers Week\nDodie Livingston has requested comments on the above-\nreferenced draft proclamation by close of business May 2.\nThis proclamation, requested by joint resolution, designates\nthe week beginning May 6 as \"National Correctional Officers\nWeek.\" The proclamation was prepared by the Federal Bureau\nof Prisons and has been approved by OMB. It praises correc-\ntional officers for the difficult, complex, and critically\nimportant work they perform. I have reviewed the proposed\nproclamation, and have no objections.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 26, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR DODIE LIVINGSTON\nSPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nDIRECTOR, SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGES\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Proclamation: National\nCorrectional Officers Week\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft\nproclamation, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/26/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 26, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nPortal-to-Portal Legislation\nAccording to Joe Wright, Monday will in fact be soon enough\nto discuss the GAO portal-to-portal bill. A meeting has\nbeen set up for 10:15 Monday morning.\nThe pertinent background material is attached. I have also\nattached the current Executive Level II listing, 5 U.S.C.\n§ 5313, so that you can see who will be entitled to portal-\nto-portal service under subsection (b) (2) (C) of the GAO\nbill. The highlighted individuals are entitled to\nportal-to-portal service under subsection (b) (2) (C) of the\nbill, as heads of Executive establishments paid at Level II.\nThe stricken individuals would be but for the fact that they\nhead an independent agency listed in 44 U.S.C. § 3502 (10),\nand subsection (b) (2) (C) specifically excludes heads of such\nagencies. The remaining individuals listed in 5 U.S.C.\n§ 5313 -- except Ambassadors at Large -- would be entitled\nto portal-to-portal service under the provision of the GAO\nbill extending coverage to deputy heads of the Executive\ndepartments. Ambassadors at Large would not be entitled to\nthe service under the GAO bill. (Under the GAO opinion of\nlast June, they do not qualify as \"principal diplomatic and\nconsular officials.\nAttachment\n7\nGOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION\n5 § 5313\nsection 101(c), of Pub.L. 96-536, as amended, set\ntive, executive, or judicial branch in position equal\nout as a note under section 5318 of this title.\nto or above Level V of the Executive Schedule, see\n1979 Increases in Salaries. Salaries of posi-\nsection 101(c) of Pub.L. 96-86, set out as a note\ntions at Level I increased to $74,500 per annum,\nunder section 5318 of this title.\neffective on the first day of the pay period begin-\nCompensation and Emoluments of Secretary of\nning. on or after Oct. 1, 1979, as provided by\nState; Fixing at level in Effect on January 1,\nEx.Ord. No. 12165, Oct. 9, 1979, 44 F.R. 58671,\n1977. Pub.L. 96-241, § 1, May 3, 1980, 94 Stat.\nas amended by Ex.Ord. No. 12200, Mar. 12, 1980,\n343, limited the compensation and other emolu-\n45 F.R. 16443. Ex.Ord. No. 12165 further pro-\nments attached to the office of Secretary of State\nvided that pursuant to section 101(c) of Pub.L.\nto those in effect Jan. 1, 1977, during the period\n96-86 funds appropriated for fiscal year 1980 may\nbeginning May 3, 1980, and ending on the date on\nnot be used to pay a salary at a rate which exceeds\nwhich the first individual appointed to that office\nan increase of 5.5 percent over the rate in effect on\nafter May 3, 1980, ceases to hold that office.\nSept. 30, 1978, which is a maximum rate payable\nLegislative History. For legislative bistory and\nof $69,630.\npurpose of Pub.L. 96-54, see 1979 U.S. Code\nApplicability to funds appropriated by any Act\nCong. and Adm. News, P. 931. See, also, Pub.L.\nfor fiscal year ending Sept. 3, 1980, of limitation\n96-88, 1979 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, P.\nof section 304 of Pub.L. 95-391 on use of funds to\n1514; Pub.L. 97-456, 1982 U.C. Code Cong. and\npay the salary or pay of any individual in legisla-\nAdm. News, p. 4405.\n§ 5313. Positions at level II\nLevel II of the Executive Schedule applies to the following positions, for which the\nannual rate of basic pay shall be the rate determined with respect to such level under\nchapter 11 of title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:\nDeputy Secretary of Defense.\nDeputy Secretary of State.\nAdministrator, Agency for International Development.\nAdministrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.\nAdministrator of Veterans Affairs\nDeputy Secretary of the Treasury.\nDeputy Secretary of Transportation.\nChairman, Nuelear Regulatory Commission.\nChairman, Council of Economic Advisers\nChairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.\nDirector of the Bureau of the Budget.\nDirector of the Office of Science and Technology\nDirector of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency\nDirector of the United States Information Agency\nDirector of Central Intelligence\nSecretary of the Air Force.\nSecretary of the Army.\nSecretary of the Navy.\nAdministrator, Federal Aviation Administration.\nDirector of the National Science Foundation\nDeputy Attorney General.\nDeputy Secretary of Energy.\nDeputy Secretary of Agriculture.\nDirector of the Difice of Personnel Management\nAmbassadors at Large.\nAdministrator, Federal Highway Administration\nAdministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.\n(As amended Pub.L. 96-465, Title II, § 2302, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2164; Pub.L. 97-449, § 3(1),\n7(b), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2441, 2444; Pub.L. 98-80, § 2(a)(1), Aug. 23, 1983, 97 Stat. 485.)\n1983 Amendment. Pub. L 98-80 added item\nEffective Date of 1980 Amendment. Amend-\nrelating to Administrator of the Environmental\nment by Pub.L. 96-465 effective Feb. 15, 1981,\nProtection Agency.\nexcept as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of\n1980 Amendment Pub.L. 96-465 added item\nPub.L. 96-465, set out as a note under section\nrelating to Ambassadors at Large.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nyou wl Weren\nApril 23, 1984\nwe notes\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nPortal-to-Portal Legislation\nJoe Wright has sent over draft portal-to-portal legislation\nsuggested by GAO. According to Wright, GAO would be happy\nto introduce the legislation, and is currently checking with\nthe members of the appropriate committees to determine when\nthe legislation should be introduced (this year or next).\nWright notes we should get back to GAO on their proposal\n\"within the next week or so,\" and GAO will then let us know\nwhen the legislation should be introduced, and an under-\nstanding can be reached concerning GAO review of vehicle\nuse.\nThe GAO bill would extend portal-to-portal rights far beyond\ncurrent law, current practice, and the Administration\nproposal. In addition to those currently entitled to\nportal-to-portal service, the GAO bill would permit such\nservice for:\n-- the Vice President\n-- Assistants to the President, paid at level II, as\ndesignated by the President\n-- the deputy heads as well as the heads of the\nExecutive Departments\n-- the heads and deputy heads of (interestingly) GAO\nand OMB\nplus\n?\n-- the heads of all Executive Agencies paid at level\nII, except for \"independent agencies\" listed at\n44 U.S.C. § 3502 (10)\n-- the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretaries of\nDefense and State, and the Counsellor of the State\nDepartment\n!\n-- such members and employees of Congress as each House\nmay by rule direct\n-- the nine Supreme Court Justices.\n- 2 -\nThe GAO bill would also permit portal-to-portal service on a\ntemporary basis when the agency head determines that an\n?\n7\nemergency exists and that such service is essential for\n\"safety, security, or other operational considerations\nFinally, the GAO bill would permit a determination that\nspousal transportation was transportation for an official\npurpose when it was \"incident to the performance of official\nbusiness by the listed officer, employee, or member. \"\nThe GAO bill, in my view, goes far beyond what is necessary\nto address the crisis engendered by last summer's GAO\nopinion. Our interest in this area has been limited to\ncorrecting the adverse effects of that opinion and legiti-\nmizing established practice; we certainly have no interest\nin extending portal-to-portal service to Congressmen and\nCongressional staff (a potentially unlimited number) or\nSupreme Court justices. Were we to support this bill we\nwould not be able to defend it as simply correcting a rogue\nGAO opinion and authorizing what has been accepted practice\nthrough several administrations of both parties. The bill\ngreatly expands \"limousine service\" throughout the govern-\nment, and will be criticized on that basis. To the extent\nthe Administration as opposed to GAO must defend it -- and,\nafter all, the President will have to sign it -- the poli-\ntical costs of this bill could far exceed the costs of more\nmodest proposals addressed to the GAO opinion.\nSince you have discussed this matter with Wright and others\nI will await further guidance before preparing a memorandum\nfor Wright.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 26, 1984\nDear Mr. Norman:\nThank you for your recent letter to the President concerning\nthe alleged existence of a \"blacklist\" at the United States\nInformation Agency (USIA). In that letter you requested an\nexplanation of the \"blacklist\" episode as well as an explan-\nation of the reported inclusion of your name and that of\nyour wife on the alleged list.\nPlease be assured that we share your concerns about the\nimplications of so-called \"blacklists.\" In order that you\nmay be provided with the whole story, I have taken the\nliberty of referring your correspondence to Thomas E.\nHarvey, the General Counsel at the USIA. Mr. Harvey is\nfamiliar with the facts surrounding this episode and will be\nable to provide you with the explanation you have requested\nand deserve. You may expect to hear from him in the near\nfuture.\nThank you again for sharing your understandable concerns\nwith us.\nSincerely,\nFred F. Fielding\nCounsel to the President\nMr. Mark A. Norman\n1700 Central Trust Tower\nCincinnati, Ohio 45202\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/26/84\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 27, 1984\nCOPY Reagan Presidential Record\nDear Michael:\nThank you for your letter of April 26. I will be attending\nthe dinner for Judge Friendly on June 8, and am looking\nforward to seeing the Judge, you, and the growing legion of\nother Friendly clerks at that time.\nWith all best wishes,\nSincerely,\nJohn\nJohn G. Roberts\nMichael Boudin, Esquire\n1201. Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.\nPost Office Box 7566\nWashington, D.C. 20044\n1201 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N. W.\nP.O. BOX 7566\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20044\n202-662-5286\nCOPY Reagan Presidential Record\nApril 26, 1984\nTo Judge Friendly's Past and Present Clerks:\nAs we advised you earlier, the annual dinner given\nfor Judge Friendly by his clerks has been scheduled for Friday\nevening, June 8. The earlier letter merely requested you to\nnote the date on your calendars; this letter is to request that\nyou advise me, at the above address, whether or not you plan to\nattend. I would be most grateful if you could let me know by\nWednesday, May 16, and it would be easier to keep track of\nresponses if you could each send me a note rather than\ntelephone.\nAs usual, the dinner has been scheduled at the\nCentury Association, located at 7 West 43rd Street, New York\nCity. Cocktails will be at 7:00 and dinner will be at 8:00.\nDress is not black tie and the gathering is solely for the\nJudge and his clerks and does not include spouses.\nAs you may recollect, it is possible to withdraw your\nacceptance or to add a new name up to a week before the dinner;\nbut at some point thereafter the food is ordered and anyone who\nhas accepted but finds that he or she cannot come is still\ncharged. Despite the opportunity to change plans after May 16,\nit would be very helpful if I could hear from each of you by\nthat date to indicate your present intention to attend or not;\nand those initial responses will be assumed to govern unless\nyou advise me differently later on. If there are any\nlast-minute changes after May 16, the best course would be to\ntelephone me or my secretary in Washington (202-662-5286) so\nthat all such changes can be tallied at one place.\nPierre and I very much hope that you can all attend\nand greatly look forward to seeing you.\nMichael Boudin\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 27, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\noft\nSUBJECT:\nDraft State Report on H.R. 4853, a Bill\nAuthorizing the Attorney General to Grant\nPermanent Resident Status for Certain Cuban/\nHaitian Aliens, and for Other Purposes\nOMB has asked for our views by close of business today on a\nproposed State Department report on H.R. 4853. There are\ntwo parts to this bill: section one would authorize the\nAttorney General to grant permanent resident status to\ncertain Cuban and Haitian illegal aliens; section two would\ndirect consular officers at the U.S. Interests Section in\nHavanna to process visa applications pending at that office.\nWith respect to section one, the draft State report simply\ndefers to the Department of Justice. This is appropriate,\nsince section one is entirely concerned with the actions of\nthe Attorney General and the Immigration and Naturalization\nService within the Justice Department.\nThe draft State report strongly opposes section two of the\nbill. The Immigration and Nationality Act currently provides\nthat if a country refuses to take back its citizens who are\ndenied admission to the United States, U.S. consular officials\nin that country are to cease processing visa applications\n(except for those of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens).\nCuba, of course, refuses to take back the excludable Marielitos,\nand accordingly our consular officers in Havanna no longer\nprocess Cuban visa applications. Section two of this bill\nwould waive the pertinent provisions of the Act, and require\nprocessing of visas in Havanna. The State report, in\nopposing section two, notes that the U.S. and Cuba are\nengaged in negotiations over the return of the excludable\nMarielitos. Enactment of section two would remove the only\nleverage the U.S. has in these negotiations.\nI have reviewed the proposed State report, and have no\nobjections.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 27, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDraft State Report on H.R. 4853, a Bill\nAuthorizing the Attorney General to Grant\nPermanent Resident Status for Certain Cuban/\nHaitian Aliens, and for Other Purposes\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed\nperspective. State report, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/27/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 27, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\neser\nSUBJECT:\nLetter to Diane Powers Requesting\nCertain Photographs Under the Freedom\nof Information Act\nDiane Powers of the Photo Office has asked if the Photo\nOffice is required to provide copies of White House photo-\ngraphs under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to those\nwhom she refers to as \"photo hogs\" -- collectors who file\nrepeated requests for large numbers of photographs. Her\ninquiry was prompted by the latest of many letters from one\nsuch \"photo hog,\" asking for six photographs under FOIA.\nAs an initial matter, we should take the position that the\nPhoto Office is not subject to FOIA. As you know, we\nmaintain that the White House Office is not, and the Photo\nOffice is considered part of the White House Office. While\nI have no doubt that this is the position we should take, I\nmust point out that it is not clear that it will withstand\nlegal challenge. The basis for our frequent assertion that\nthe White House Office is not subject to FOIA is Justice\nRehnquist's opinion for the Court in Kissinger V. Reporters\nCommittee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156\n(1980). That opinion held that \"'the President's immediate\npersonal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole\nfunction is to advise and assist the President' are not\nincluded within the term 'agency' under the FOIA.\" Id., at\n156, quoting from H.R. Conf. Rep. 93-1380. It is not clear\nwhether the Photo Office would be considered \"the President's\nimmediate personal staff\" or a unit \"whose sole function is\nto advise and assist the President.\" A court confronted\nwith the question could view the Photo Office as a discrete\nentity with functions that go beyond advising the President.\nAssuming that the Photo Office is not subject to FOIA, I see\nno reason it should be required to satisfy the acquisitive\ndemands of photo collectors. I have prepared a memorandum\nfor Powers advising her that the Photo Office is not subject\nto FOIA, and that it need not respond to what it considers\nexcessive demands from collectors.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 27, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR DIANE POWERS\nWHITE HOUSE PHOTO OFFICE\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nExcessive Demands of Photo Collectors\nfor White House Photographs\nYou have asked whether the Photo Office must respond to the\nexcessive demands of private collectors for White House\nphotographs under the Freedom of Information Act. The Photo\nOffice, like the White House Office in general, is not\nsubject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.\nSee Kissinger V. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the\nPress, 445 U.S. 136, 156 (1980). The provision of White\nHouse photographs to private individuals who request them\nfor their collections is not legally required, and\naccordingly you need not respond to what you regard as\nexcessive demands or abuses of the privilege. You are in\nthe best position to determine if a particular individual is\nabusing the privilege. If you have specific questions in\nthis area, please do not hesitate to contact US.\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/27/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 30, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTSOR\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Executive Order Entitled\n\"Transfer of Authority to the Secretary\nof State to Make Reimbursements for\nProtection of Foreign Missions to\nInternational Organizations\"\nOn April 19 I submitted a memorandum to you on the above-\nreferenced proposed Executive Order, noting no legal objection.\nOMB advised at the time that none of the affected agencies\nobjected to the proposed order. On Friday, however, Harold\nBurman of the Legal Adviser's office at State called to\nexplain that State now objected. Burman attempted to\nportray State's suggested revisions as technical in nature,\nbut in fact they are substantive changes that would transfer\npositions and additional funds from Treasury to State in\nconnection with the transfer of reimbursement authority.\nTreasury could well object to the proposed changes, and the\nOffice of Legal Counsel might as well. (It is unclear\nwhether the President could, by executive order, transfer\nthe appropriated funds and positions, as well as the reim-\nbursement authority, that State desires.) Accordingly, I\nadvised Burman that the proposed revision would need to go\nthrough the entire clearance process, to which he agreed.\nIt is my understanding that you have not yet signed the \"no\nobjection\" memorandum I prepared on April 19. I have\nattached a draft that may be sent in its stead, simply\nnoting that State will be submitting a new package for\nclearance. There is, incidentally, no time pressure with\nthis particular proposed executive order.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 30, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Executive Order Entitled\n\"Transfer of Authority to the Secretary\nof State to Make Reimbursements for\nProtection of Foreign Missions to\nInternational Organizations\"\nYou have asked for our comments on the above-referenced\nproposed executive order. We have been advised by the Legal\nAdviser's office at the Department of State that State now\nobjects to the proposed order, as drafted, and would like to\nsuggest fairly significant revisions. The proposed order\naccordingly should not be issued at this time. State will\nsubmit its suggested revisions through the normal clearance\nprocess.\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/30/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 30, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTSQZQ\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Award to Michael Jackson\nJim Coyne has asked for our views on a proposed award to\nentertainer Michael Jackson, for his contributions to the\ncampaign against teenage drunk driving. Coyne would like to\nhave the President present the unspecified award to Jackson\non May 11 in the Rose Garden. Coyne has asked whether the\naward should be from the White House or the Transportation\nDepartment, whether the award may bear the Seal of the\nPresident, and whether we object to his suggested language\nfor the award. You have indicated that you object to any\naward to Jackson involving the President.\nI share your view that this is a poor idea. Coyne's\nsuggested award language praises Jackson as an \"outstanding\nexample\nfor the youth of America and the world.\" If one\nwants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in\ngarish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body\nshot full of female hormones to prevent voice change,\nmono-gloved, well, then, I suppose \"Michael,\" as he is\naffectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good\nexample. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to\nendorse Jackson's androgynous life style, a Presidential\naward would be perceived as a shallow effort by the\nPresident to share in the constant publicity surrounding\nJackson, particularly since other celebrities have done as\nmuch for worthy causes as Jackson but have not been singled\nout by the President. The whole episode would, in my view,\nbe demeaning to the President.\nThe attached memorandum for Coyne objects to any Presi-\ndential involvement and to his proposed text. I also\nrecommend copying Darman so that our objections are\ngenerally known.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 30, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES K. COYNE\nSPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFOR PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Award to Michael Jackson\nYou have asked for our views on a proposed award to enter-\ntainer Michael Jackson in recognition of his contribution to\nthe national campaign against teenage drunk driving.\nSpecifically, you have asked whether the contemplated award\nshould be a White House award or a Department of Transportation\naward, whether the award may bear the Seal of the President,\nand whether we had any objections to your suggested text for\nthe award.\nI must advise you that I object to any Presidential involve-\nment in the presentation of an award to Mr. Jackson.\nWhatever his contributions to the campaign against teenage\ndrunk driving, and whatever his merit as a chanteur, I\nhardly think it advisable to hold Mr. Jackson up as an\n\"outstanding example for the youth of America and the\nworld.\" I do not think we want the youth of America and the\nworld mimicking Mr. Jackson's androgynous life style or\nother numerous eccentricities, or adopting the dubious\nlyrics of his songs as a code by which to live. In\naddition, I think any ceremony involving the President and\nMr. Jackson would be perceived as an effort by the President\nto bask in the reflected glow of the inordinate and at times\nhysterical publicity surrounding Mr. Jackson, a perception\nthat would be demeaning to the President. This perception\nwould derive in large part from the fact that other\ncelebrities have done at least as much as Mr. Jackson for\nworthy causes, but have not been singled out for special\npraise by the President.\nTo answer your specific questions, if any award is given it\nshould not be a White House award. The award accordingly\nmay not bear the Seal of the President. Finally, I do\nobject to the suggested text for the award. As noted above,\nI do not think Mr. Jackson should be lauded as an example\nfor youth. Nor should any award citation praise Mr. Jackson\nfor his commercial successes, as your proposed text does.\nThank you for raising this matter with us.\nCC: Richard G. Darman\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/30/84\nbcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 30, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS 026\nSUBJECT:\nStatement of Lois Herrington Concerning\nS. 2423 -- Victims of Crime Assistance\non May 1, 1984\nWe have been provided with a copy of testimony Assistant\nAttorney General Lois Herrington proposes to deliver on\nMay 1 before the Senate Judiciary Committee on S. 2423, the\nAdministration's \"Victims of Crime Assistance Act of 1984.\"\nThe testimony simply reviews the major features of the bill,\nwhich was introduced by Chairman Thurmond on March 13 with\nSenators Biden, Laxalt, Heinz, and Grassley as co-sponsors.\nAs you may recall, the bill would establish a Victims Fund\nat Treasury, funded mainly by Federal criminal fines. The\nassets of the fund would be distributed annually, 50 percent\nto reimburse states for a portion of the financial assist-\nance they provide to victims, 30 percent to the states by\npopulation to fund programs providing non-financial assist-\nance to victims, and 20 percent to Federal agencies serving\nthe same purpose. The bill also would establish a Federal\nVictims of Crime Advisory Committee, with members appointed\nby the President.\nI have reviewed the proposed testimony and have no objections.\nThe policy choices were made at the time the Administration\nintroduced the bill; this testimony adds nothing new.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 30, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES C. MURR\nCHIEF, ECONOMICS-SCIENCE-GENERAL\nGOVERNMENT BRANCH, OMB\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nStatement of Lois Herrington Concerning\nS. 2423 -- Victims of Crime Assistance\non May 1, 1984\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced testimony,\nand finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.\nFFF:JGR:aea 4/30/84\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron"
}