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
135839914
label
Chron File (09/19/1984-09/25/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839914
contentType
document
title
Chron File (09/19/1984-09/25/1984)
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
135839914
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
46db48899d400b71
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 (09/19/1984-09/25/1984)
Box: 64
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/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DR
SUBJECT:
Expiration of Section 120
of the Internal Revenue Code
Mr. Baker's office has referred to us two letters Mr. Baker
received, from American Bar Association President Wallace D.
Riley and former ABA President Morris Harrell. In their
letters Riley and Harrell express the ABA's support for
extension of Section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code,
26 U.S.C. § 120. Unless Congress acts, Section 120 will
expire pursuant to its sunset provision on December 31,
1984. 26 U.S.C. S 120 (e).
Section 120 was first enacted in 1976 and was extended in
1981. It provides for the exclusion from an employee's
gross income of amounts contributed by an employer to a
group legal services plan providing legal services to the
employee and his spouse or dependents.
Prior to enactment of Section 120, the provision of legal
services by the employer was considered the receipt of
taxable income by the employee. The ABA, both through the
instant letters and through testimony delivered before
Congress, stresses the desirability of providing group legal
services to employees as the main reason to continue the
special tax treatment of this form of employee compensation
in Section 120.
The Administration, however, opposes extension of Section
120. Treasury opposed enactment of Section 120 in 1976,
opposed extension of it in 1981, and opposes further
extension of it now. Our position was articulated on April
12, 1984, in testimony delivered by Treasury Tax Legislative
Counsel Robert G. Woodward. According to Woodward's
testimony, the desirability of group legal services is
beside the point. As Woodward testified: "Compensation
paid in the form of legal services should be taxed in the
same manner as any other type of compensation received by
employees. The existence of special exemptions for
particular types of compensation only encourages employees
to rearrange their affairs so that compensation is received
in a non-taxable form." Greg Jones of OMB advises me that
the Administration position on this question is unchanged.
- 2 -
Riley and Harrell will not be pleased with our response, but
we can do little more than send them a copy of the Treasury
testimony, thank them for their views, and assure them we
will convey those views to Treasury. Drafts doing all of
this are attached.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS off
SUBJECT:
Remarks: Signing Ceremony for
National Drug Abuse Education
and Prevention Week
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by
5:00 p.m. today. The remarks review the extent of the drug
abuse problem, the progress being made, and the highlights
of the 1984 Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse. In the
course of the remarks the President will present awards to
individuals and organizations (including the comic book
sponsors) who have contributed to the anti-drug abuse
efforts. The remarks conclude with the signing of the
proclamation designating next week National Drug Abuse
Education and Prevention Week.
I have reviewed the proposed remarks and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Remarks: Signing Ceremony for
National Drug Abuse Education
and Prevention Week
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks,
and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
FFF: JGR:aea 9/19/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chrom
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 20, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 836
SUBJECT:
Clearance for Presidential Letters
to the Top Four Winners of the FCC
Civil Service Award
Patsy Faoro of Cabinet Affairs has asked if we have any
objections to proposed Presidential letters to four re-
cipients of FCC Civil Service Awards. Chairman Fowler has
requested the letters and provided individualized drafts,
praising the award recipients for, respectively, restruc-
turing and reinvigorating the FCC's management systems,
overseeing the divestiture of AT&T, successfully defending
the FCC in common carrier litigation, and engineering the
merger of the FCC's cable television and broadcast bureaus.
I recommend that we object to the letters. Almost every
department and agency in the Government has a similar award
program, and award recipients typically do not receive
letters from the President. Sending Presidential letters to
FCC award recipients would set a bad precedent. More
importantly, the FCC is an independent regulatory agency,
and the President has no business praising its employees for
particular actions they have taken.
A draft memorandum advising Faoro that the letters should
not be sent is attached for your review and signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 20, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR PATSY FAORO
OFFICE OF CABINET AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Clearance for Presidential Letters
to the Top Four Winners of the FCC
Civil Service Award
You have asked for our views on proposed Presidential
letters to four recipients of Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) awards for meritorious service. Chairman
Mark Fowler of the FCC has requested the letters and
provided drafts for the President's signature.
We recommend that the letters not be sent. Practically
every department and agency in the Government has a similar
award program, and yet the recipients of the awards typi-
cally do not receive messages from the President. Sending
Presidential letters to the FCC award recipients would set a
bad precedent. More importantly, the FCC is an independent
regulatory agency, and the President should not gratuitously
comment on its actions. The draft letters provided by
Chairman Fowler do just that.
FFF:JGR:aea 9/20/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS Drd
SUBJECT:
Draft Letter for Michael Jackson Tour
Charles Donovan of Presidential Correspondence has asked for
our views on a letter from the President to be sent to
Michael Jackson. It is my understanding that Mr. Jackson is
in town this weekend for two performances. Jim Coyne's
office suggested and prepared the letter, in response to a
request from Frank M. Dileo, Personal Manager to Michael
Jackson. The letter thanks Mr. Jackson for coming to
Washington, and commends him for making 400 tickets available
to needy youngsters. The President also regrets that he
will not be able to attend the concert, because of the
inconvenience the necessary security arrangements would
cause the fans.
I hate to sound like one of Mr. Jackson's records, constantly
repeating the same refrain, but I recommend that we not
approve this letter. Sometimes people need to be reminded
of the obvious: whatever its status as a cultural phenomenon,
the Jackson concert tour is a massive commercial undertaking.
The tour will do quite well financially by coming to Washington,
and there is no need for the President to applaud such
enlightened self-interest. Frankly, I find the obsequious
attitude of some members of the White House staff toward Mr.
Jackson's attendants, and the fawning posture they would
have the President of the United States adopt, more than a
little embarrassing.
It is also important to consider the precedent that would be
set by such a letter. In today's Post there were already
reports that some youngsters were turning away from Mr.
Jackson in favor of a newcomer who goes by the name "Prince,"
and is apparently planning a Washington concert. Will he
receive a Presidential letter? How will we decide which
performers do and which do not?
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES DONOVAN
OFFICE OF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENCE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Letter for Michael Jackson Tour
You have asked for our views on a proposed letter from the
President to Michael Jackson, thanking him for bringing his
concert tour to Washington. I recommend that no such letter
be sent. The Jackson tour, whatever stature it may have
attained as a cultural phenomenon, is a massive commercial
undertaking. The visit of the tour to Washington was not an
eleemosynary gesture; it was a calculated commercial decision
that does not warrant gratitude from our Nation's Chief
Executive. Such a letter would also create a bad precedent,
as other popular performers would either expect or demand
similar treatment. Why, for example, was no letter sent to
Mr. Bruce Springsteen, whose patriotic tour recently visited
the area? Finally, the President, in my view, has done
quite enough in the way of thanking or congratulating the
Jacksons, and anything more would begin to look like
unbecoming fawning.
FFF: JGR:aea 9/21/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Remarks for Supreme Court Reception
The following points should be included in the President's
remarks to be delivered at the reception for the Justices of
the Supreme Court:
The gathering of the nine Justices at the White House on
the occasion of the commencement of the October Term is a
historic tradition that has been revived by President
Reagan. Similar events took place in 1982 and 1983.
The Justices do a great deal of court work during the
summer months, reviewing the steady flow of certiorari
petitions and determining which cases to hear in the coming
year.
This week (September 17) marked the 197th anniversary of
the drafting of the Constitution. The Chief Justice is
particularly interested in preparations for commemorating
the Bicentennial of the Constitution, and it would be
fitting to mention the imminence of the Bicentennial.
The Supreme Court, of course, plays a critical role as
the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. The vitality of
the Court as an institution is one of the reasons that we
are in a position to prepare to celebrate 200 years of
liberty secured by the Constitution.
The beginning of a new Court Term is a routine event in
our history, but consider how rare this institution is in
the world today and the history of mankind. The Court
considers some of the most divisive issues we face. Those
disputes are settled not by bombs and guns, but by reasoned
argument and the calm deliberations of the Justices in their
chambers, guided by the wisdom the Framers wrote into the
Constitution. The "fireworks" are limited to an occasional
lively exchange during argument or between a majority
opinion and the occasional dissent.
- 2 -
The fact that the Court can discharge its awesome
responsibility is a mark of respect Americans have for the
rule of law.
o
The President should conclude by welcoming the Justices
back to Washington, and wishing them well as they begin
another term of interpreting the Constitution and laws,
"those wise restraints that make men free."
FFF:JGR:aea 9/21/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Draft DOJ Report on H.R. 959, and Veterans
Administration Testimony on H.R. 960 and
959, Bills Concerning Posthumous Grants of
Citizenship
OMB has asked for our views on a draft Justice report on
H.R. 959 and draft VA testimony on H.R. 959 and H.R. 960.
You will recall the case of Corporal Wladyslaw Staniszewski,
an alien admitted to permanent residence who died while
serving with the U.S. Marines in Vietnam. Had he survived
and been honorably discharged, he would have been eligible
for immediate naturalization. H.R. 960 is a private bill to
grant Staniszewski posthumous citizenship. The Administration,
through Justice, has already indicated no objection to
H.R. 960.
H.R. 959 is a general bill addressed to the Staniszewski
situation, and would grant posthumous citizenship to aliens
who die while serving in the Armed Forces, upon appropriate
application by a relative. The Justice report supports
H.R. 959, suggesting that it be clarified to indicate that
the grant of citizenship is honorific and carries no legal
consequences. The VA testimony stresses that veteran
benefits do not depend on citizenship but simply veteran
status. I have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft DOJ Report on H.R. 959, and Veterans
Administration Testimony on H.R. 960 and
959, Bills Concerning Posthumous Grants of
Citizenship
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
Justice report and Veterans Administration testimony, and
finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
FFF: JGR:aea 9/21/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS PIR
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Address:
Bowling Green State University
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by
9:00 a.m. today. The remarks focus on the President's
policy for achieving world peace, discussing the various
arms control initiatives and the efforts to shore up our
deterrent capability. The basic theme is that the United
States desires peace and is waiting in hope for meaningful
negotiations with the Soviets. I have reviewed the remarks
and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Presidential Address:
Bowling Green State University
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks,
and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
FFF: JGR:aea 9/24/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 072
SUBJECT:
Remarks: Signing Ceremony for the
Drug Price Competition and Patent
Term Restoration Act
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the above-
referenced remarks be sent directly to Ben Elliott by
11:00 a.m. today. The remarks review the highlights of the
Drug Price Competion and Patent Term Restoration Act of
1984, which would expedite approval processes for generic
drugs and increase by five years the period of patent
protection for new drugs. According to the remarks, this
will lower drug costs for purchasers (including the Federal
Government) and promote development of new drugs. The
remarks also note in a neutral fashion a stray provision in
the bill that requires clothing sold in the United States to
be clearly labeled to show country of origin. I have
reviewed the draft remarks and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Remarks: Signing Ceremony for the
Drug Price Competition and Patent
Term Restoration Act
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced remarks,
and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 9/24/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DDR
SUBJECT:
Presidential Letter for OPIC Report
William Delphos, Vice President of the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC), has asked that the President
sign a letter to OPIC President Craig Nalen, requesting a
review of OPIC's accomplishments over the past four years.
The letter would be reprinted in a glossy report OPIC is
preparing, outlining its dramatic advances during the
present Administration.
Letters from the President have appeared at the beginning of
past OPIC annual reports. The form, however, has been a
general extolling of the role played by OPIC, rather than a
request for the report itself. The instant request for a
letter is additionally unusual in that the report to be
introduced by the letter is not the required annual report
but a special report to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary
of OPIC, with particular emphasis on the last four years.
I have no objection to a letter from the President similar
to the letters he has sent in the past to introduce OPIC
annual reports, but I am uncomfortable with having the
President actually request this special OPIC report. In the
first place, it would be disingenuous, since OPIC decided to
issue the special report (it is complete except for the
President's letter) entirely on its own and not in response
to a request from the President. Second, if the report is
issued as if in response to a request from the President,
there is the danger that it will appear to be politically
motivated. OPIC hopes to issue the report very quickly,
certainly before the election, and a letter from the
1.4
President requesting such a laudatory report at this time
could raise suspicions. Finally, OPIC officials could be
concerned about whether preparing and issuing such a special
report is an appropriate use of their funds. I have
discussed this request with Bruce Hatton of OPIC, and have
received no satisfactory explanation of why a request for
the report should come from the President. This leads me to
believe that OPIC may be trying to obtain a retroactive
request from the President to justify a prior decision.
- 2 -
The attached memorandum for Delphos declines to approve
signing of the letter as submitted, but notes that a re-
submitted letter not containing an actual request for the
special report would receive more favorable consideration.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAEHINGTON
September 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM A. DELPHOS
VICE PRESIDENT
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
OPIC Request for Letter From the President
You have requested that the President sign a letter to OPIC
President Craig A. Nalen, requesting a report of OPIC
activities and accomplishments. It is our understanding
that OPIC has prepared such a report, and would like to
introduce it with a letter from the President. This office
would have no objection to a letter from the President being
included at the beginning of the special OPIC report, but I
cannot approve an actual request for the report in the
letter.
A letter of the sort you submitted presents an historically
inaccurate picture, since OPIC embarked on plans for this
special report without receiving a request for it from the
President. Furthermore, in light of the political season,
there is the danger that such a request would be misconstrued
as an effort to enlist OPIC in the campaign. I would,
however, be happy to consider a revised draft, more along
the lines of the letter from the President in the 1981 OPIC
annual report.
Thank you for raising this matter with us.
FFF:JGR:aea 9/24/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS D3R
SUBJECT:
S.J. Res. 336 -- "A Time of
Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism"
Richard Darman has asked for comments on the above-
referenced enrolled resolution by September 25. The joint
resolution, which passed both Houses by voice vote, condemns
terrorism and designates October 23, 1984, as "A Time of
Remembrance" for all victims of terrorism throughout the
world. That day is the first anniversary of the Beirut
truck bombing in which 241 Americans were killed. The
enrolled resolution is somewhat unusual in that it calls
upon Americans to wear a purple ribbon that day as a symbol
of "patriotism, dignity, loyalty, and martyrdom." It also
authorizes and requests the President to issue a proclama-
tion that the flag fly at half staff.
I have reviewed the resolution and have no objection to its
approval. The half staff provision is inconsistent with the
Flag Code, but obviously Congress can supersede the general
provisions of that Code in any particular instance if it so
desires. I also do not approve of ad hoc displays such as
the wearing of purple ribbons, but that of course is no
basis for disapproval of the resolution.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
S.J. Res. 336 -- "A Time of
Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism"
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
resolution, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 9/24/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS Dr
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire: Independent Living Center
Statement (Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the responses to
the above-referenced candidate questionnaire be sent
directly to Mike Baroody by close of business September 27.
The responses, in the form of an article, were prepared by
Reagan-Bush '84. The article discusses Administration
efforts to increase opportunities for disabled Americans.
The fifth paragraph may be somewhat controversial. It
confirms the Administration's commitment to ensure that
handicapped infants are not denied medical care solely
because of their handicap. This, of course, refers to the
so-called "Baby Doe" situations, which have been mired in
litigation. The statement in the article is general enough,
however, to be legally unobjectionable.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire: Independent Living Center
Statement (Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced candidate
questionnaire, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF: JGR:aea 9/25/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 822
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"Amending Executive Order No. 11157
as it Relates to Incentive Pay for
Hazardous Duty"
Richard Darman has asked for comments as soon as possible on
the above-referenced proposed executive order. The order,
proposed by the Department of Defense, has been approved by
OMB and, as to form and legality, by the Justice Department
Office of Legal Counsel. The bases for the award of incentive
pay for hazardous military duty are outlined in 37 U.S.C.
§ 301 (a). A 1981 amendment to 37 U.S.C. § 301 (a) added
those who service aircraft or missile systems with highly
toxic fuels to the list of those eligible for hazardous duty
pay. Public Law 98-94, enacted September 24, 1983, further
amended 37 U.S.C. $ 301 (a) to include those who test as well
as service such systems. This latest statutory amendment
necessitates an amendment to Executive Order 11157, the
executive order that implements the statutory grant of
hazardous duty pay. The instant proposed executive order
accomplishes the necessary amendment.
I have reviewed the proposed executive order and have no
objections, beyond the technical one noted in the attached
draft memorandum for Darman.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"Amending Executive Order No. 11157
as it Relates to Incentive Pay for
Hazardous Duty"
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
executive order, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective. In the twenty-sixth line of the draft order,
however, "(b)" should be "(B)."
FFF:JGR:aea 9/25/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
JR
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 2418 --- Library of
Congress Mass Book Deacidification
Facility
Richard Darman has asked for comments on the above-
referenced enrolled bill by close of business September 26.
This enrolled bill, which passed both Houses by voice vote,
authorizes and directs the Librarian of Congress to construct
a book deacidification facility within seventy-five miles of
the Capitol. The facility would preserve books that would
otherwise disintegrate after thirty or forty years for
400-600 years. OMB and Defense (the Corps of Engineers
would construct the facility) recommend approval; GSA has no
objection. I have reviewed the memorandum for the President
prepared by OMB. Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
James M. Frey, and the bill itself, and have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 2418 -- Library of
Congress Mass Book Deacidification
Facility
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 9/25/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 022
SUBJECT:
Proposed Fact Sheet for 1984 National
Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse
and Drug Trafficking Report and Proposed
Transmittal Letter to Congress
Richard Darman has asked for comments by close of business
today on two items associated with the 1984 National Strategy
for the Prevention of Drug Abuse and Drug Trafficking. You
will recall that our office previously reviewed and noted no
legal objection to the Strategy itself. The instant documents
are a proposed fact sheet -- actually an executive summary
-- and a proposed transmittal letter to the Congress from
the President. The former is an optimistic review of the
progress in the war on drugs, a catalog of accomplishments
and initiatives. The latter simply notes that the Strategy
is being submitted to Congress pursuant to Section 305 of
the Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act
of 1972 (21 U.S.C. $ 1165), that the President is pleased
with the progress that has been made, and that much is being
done by grassroots citizen efforts.
I have no substantive legal objections to either document.
There are several technical errors in the fact sheet that I
have noted in the attached draft memorandum for Darman. The
statutory provision referred to in the letter to Congress
was amended in 1983, so the words "as amended" should be
added to the reference.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Fact Sheet for 1984 National
Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse
and Drug Trafficking Report
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
fact sheet, and notes the following corrections:
c
Page 9, second bullet item, second line: "1984"
should be "1982."
c
Page 14, last bullet item, third line: "spary"
should be "spray."
0
Page 16, second bullet item, line 7: "fo" should be
"of."
Page 17, third bullet item, first line: "them"
should be "it."
Page 18, fourth bullet item, second sentence makes no
sense.
c
Page 21, second bullet item, third line: "interfers"
should be "interferes."
FFF:JGR:aea 9/25/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Transmittal Message to Congress
Enclosing the 1984 National Strategy
for Prevention of Drug Abuse and Drug
Trafficking Report
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
transmittal message. The statute cited in the first sentence
was amended in 1983, and accordingly the words "as amended"
should be added to line two immediately after "1972."
FFF:JGR:aea 9/25/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron