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
135839956
label
Chron File (07/01/1985-07/18/1985)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839956
contentType
document
title
Chron File (07/01/1985-07/18/1985)
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
135839956
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
85b48d386aa76d8a
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 (07/01/1985-07/18/1985)
Box: 65
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
DLB
8/6/2005
File Folder
CHRON FILE - (07/01/1985-07/18/1985)
FOIA
F05-139/01
Box Number
65
COOK
12DLB
DOC
Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
NO
Pages
1 MEMO
ROBERTS TO FRED FIELDING, RICHARD
3 7/18/1985 B6
896
HAUSER, RE: U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose Internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial Information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA].
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose Information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical Information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
E.O. 13233
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained In donor's deed of gift.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 8, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 1762
SUBJECT:
Descendants of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence Offer
of Services in Connection with the
Bicentennial of the Constitution
The President-General of the Descendants of the Signers of
the Declaration of Independence has written you to offer the
services of that organization in connection with the Bicen-
tennial of the Constitution. There is, according to General
Kennedy, no active society of descendants of the signers of
the Constitution, so her society is prepared to fill the
breach, apparently under some notion of geneological cy pres
(and also because several signers of the Declaration also
signed the Constitution). A Mrs. William Light of McLean is
listed as the appropriate person to contact.
The attached draft reply advises General Kennedy of the
existence of the Bicentennial Commission, under the recently
announced chairmanship of the Chief Justice. Also attached
is a brief note to Mark Cannon, transmitting General Kennedy's
letter.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 8, 1985
Dear Mark:
I am enclosing a letter addressed to me from the President-
General of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration
of Independence, offering the assistance of that organi-
zation in connection with the bicentennial of the Constitution.
In light of the Chief Justice's responsibilities as Chairman
of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution, I
thought it best to refer the correspondence to him, and have
advised Mrs. Kennedy that I have done SO.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Dr. Mark Cannon
Administrative Assistant
to the Chief Justice
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20543
Enclosure
FFF: :JGR:aea 7/8/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
Descendants of
Signers
the Declaration
324883
of
Officers, 1984-1985
hoenend
Board of Governors, 1984-1985
INCORFORATED
President-General.
NEW HAMPSHIRE - Mrs. Kenneth Sherman Peterson
MRS. PHILLIP F. KENNEDY
Bedford
East Mcadow Lane, RFD I, Pembroke, NH 03275
Found 907
MASSACHUSETTS - Mrs. Barbara Brooks Walker
First Vice President-General,
Boston
RIEMAN McNAMARA. JR.
Organize
1907
RHODE ISLAND - Mrs. James A. Harper
8964 Tarrytown Dr., Richmond, VA 23229
New York City
Second Vice-President,
CONNECTICUT - Mr. Colson H. Hillier. Jr.
BENJAMIN HARRISON WALKER
Wilton
108 East 82nd St., New York, NY 10028
NEW YORK - Mr. Roger M. Schmitt
New York City
Chaplain-General,
THE REVEREND HAROLD BEND SEDGWICK
NEW JERSEY - Mrs. John Kean
Blueberry Lane, Lincoln Centre. MA 01773
"And for the
Elizabeth
with
a
Registrar-General,
Firm Reliance
PENNSYLVANIA - Mrs. William G. Kalbfleisch
Philadelphia
MISS VIRGINIA E. CAMPBELL
We Mutually
Our
Our
DELAWARE - Mr. Richard Rodney Cooch
Box 55169, Fort Washington, MD 20744
Fortunes,
New Castle
Assistant Registrar-General,
MARYLAND - Mr. Frederick Wallace Pyne
MRS JOHN C. ALLNUTT
Linwood
227 Great Falls Rd., Rockville, MD 20850
VIRGINIA - Mr. John D. Nelson
Historian-General,
Hanover
PHILIP SCHUYLER PYNE
2
PLEDGE
EACHORD
NORTH CAROLINA - Mrs. John White Clarke
3131 Meetinghouse Rd., Apt. J.11
Honorary Presticnts-General
Wilmington
Boothwyn. PA 19061
SOUTH CAROLINA - Mr. Donald T. Rutledge
Assistant Historian-General.
Charleston
MRS. JOSEPH B. HAUCK
GEORGIA - Miss Nina Hill Hopkins
117 W. Allen's Lane. Philadelphia. PA 19119
Coral Gables. FL
Treasurer-General.
PERCY HAMILTON GOODSELL, JR.
WASHINGTON, DC - Miss Florence May Maupin
PHILIP L STRONG
Cheshire, CT 06410
Washington, DC
93 N. Main St., Cranbury, NJ 08512
Assistant Treasurer-General,
REAR ADM. SCHUYLER N. PYNE, USN. RET.
ROGER M. SCHMITT Personal
Annapolis, MD
AT LARGE -
c/o Johnson & Higgins
Clinton Burgess Axford
New York. NY
95 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005
FRANKLIN BACHE SATTERTHWAITE
Miss Natalie Lolita Densmore
Ridley Park. PA
Secretary-General,
John Morton Fultz, Jr.
Deland, FL
MRS. HANS BIELENSTEIN
New York, NY
Mrs. Robert Williams Patterson
Indianapolis. IN
50 Riverside Drive, New York. NY 10024
MRS. LIONEL T. DeFOREST
Mrs. Craig McDonald Coley
Annapolis, MD
Assistant Secretary-General,
Miss Anna Wilson Hall
Philadelphia. PA
Beaufort, SC
MISS ELISABETH H. O'CONNOR
Mrs. Susan Warren Center
McLean. VA
163 E. 81st St., New York. NY 10028
Mrs. David F. Cowan
Jacksonville. FL
Past President
Mrs. Earl N. Mullen
Springfield. PA
Chancellor-General.
WILLIAM WARD, IV
Miss Eleanor R. Hall
Philadelphia, PA
EDWARD RIDLEY FINCH. JR.
36 W. 44th St., New York. NY 10036
Wallingford, PA
Mrs. Robert M. Hawkridge
West Chester. PA
William B. Aben
Rockville, MD
June 15, 1985
Mr. Fred Fielding
Chrm. BiCentennial USA
c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20001
My dear Mr. Fielding,
At the recent Annual Congress of the Society for the
Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of
Independence, the membership expressed a desire to
participate actively in the Commemorative preparations and
celebrations for the BiCentennial of the Constitution.
There is no active Society for Descendants of the Signers of
the Constitution however more than 100 members of the
Society for the Descendants of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence have a dual heritage, descending
from one of the following: Benjamin Franklin, Robert
Morris, George Read, George Clymer and Roger Sherman.
Mrs. William R. Light has knowledge of several original
items peretaining to the men who signed the Constitution.
She is extremely interested in the listing of these
paintings, artifacs and memorabilia , that they may be made
known to the public.
Mrs. Light would also make available to you the names of
members of the DSDI who agree to work with her and with you
should you agree to accept their services.
Her address is: Mrs. William R. Light
1113 Waverly Way
McLean, Virginia 22101
Thank you for your attention to my letter. I, too, shall be
most pleased to participate in any way that I can.
Sincerely yours,
President-General
Soc. DSDI, Inc.
CC: Mr. Frank Hodsell
Ms. Sheila Mann
Mr. Wm. Ward, IV
Mrs. Hans Bielenstein
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 8, 1985
Dear Mrs. Kennedy:
Thank you for your letter of June 15, volunteering the
services of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration
of Independence in connection with the observance of the
Bicentennial of the Constitution.
By Public Law 98-101, Congress established the Commission on
the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, "to
promote and coordinate activities to commemorate the bicen-
tennial of the Constitution." The President recently
announced the membership of the Commission, and designated
the Chief Justice to serve as Chairman. A copy of this
announcement is enclosed for your information.
In light of the responsibilities of the Commission, I have
taken the liberty of referring your gracious offer of
assistance to the office of the Chief Justice.
Thank you for advising us of the willingness of your
organization to assist in the bicentennial observances.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mrs. Dorothy S. Kennedy
President-General
Soc. DSDI, Inc.
East Meadow Lane, RFD 1
Pembroke, NH 03275
Enclosure
FFF: JGR:aea 7/8/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 25, 1985
The President today announced his intention to appoint the
following individuals to be Members of the Commission on the
Bicentennial of the United States Constitution. The President also
intends to designate Chief Justice Warren E. Burger as Chairman,
who is a member by law.
FREDERICK K. BIEBEL is Executive Vice President and Treasurer of
the International Republican Cooperation Fund in Washington, D.C.
He was born April 5, 1926 in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and now
resides in Stratford, Connecticut.
BETTY SOUTHARD MURPHY is Partner in the law firm of Baker &
Hostetler in Washington, D.C. She was born March 1, 1928 in East
Orange, New Jersey, and now resides in Alexandria, Virginia.
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY is President of Eagle Forum in Washington, D.C.
She was born August 15, 1924 in St. Louis, Missouri, and now
resides in Alton, Illinois.
BERNARD H. SIEGAN is Distinguished Professor of Law at the
University of San Diego. He was born July 28, 1924 in Chicago,
Illinois, and now resides in La Jolla, California.
RONALD H. WALKER is Managing Director and Partner of Korn/Ferry
International in Washington, D.C. He was born July 25, 1937 in
Bryan, Texas and now resides in Potomac, Maryland.
CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT is Professor of Law at the University of Texas
at Austin. He was born September 3, 1927 in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, and now resides in Austin, Texas.
Upon the recommendation of Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the
United States:
HERBERT BROWNELL is currently of Counsel with the law firm of Lord,
Day and Lord in New York City. He was born February 20, 1904 in
Peru, Nebraska, and now resides in New York City.
CORNELIA G. KENNEDY is currently U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth
Circuit. She was born August 4, 1923 in Detroit, Michigan, and now
resides in Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan.
MORE
(OVER)
-2-
OBERT CLARK TANNER is Founder and Chairman of the Board of OC
Tanner & Company. He was born September 20, 1904 in Farmington,
Utah, and now resides in Salt Lake City, Utah.
CHARLES EDWARD WIGGINS is currently U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit. He was born December 3, 1927 in El Monte,
California, and now resides in San Francisco, California.
Upon the recommendation of the President Pro Tempore of the Senate,
in consultation with the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the
Senate:
HARRY MCKINLEY LIGHTSEY, JR. is Dean, University of South Carolina
School of Law. He was born December 27, 1931 in Columbia, South
Carolina, and now resides in West Columbia, South Carolina.
EDWARD P. MORGAN is owner of the law firm of Welch & Morgan of
Washington, D.C. He was born May 28, 1913 in St. Louis, Missouri,
and now resides in Bethesda, Maryland.
THEODORE FULTON STEVENS is a U.S. Senator for the State of Alaska.
He was born November 18, 1923 in Indianapolis, Indiana, and now
resides in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Upon the recommendation of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives in consultation with the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives:
LYNNE ANNE VINCENT CHENEY is currently Senior Editor of the
Washingtonian Magazine. She was born January 14, 1941 in Casper,
Wyoming, and now resides in Washington, D.C.
PHILIP M. CRANE is U.S. Representative for the 12th District of
Illinois. He was born November 3, 1930 in Chicago, Illinois, and
now resides in Washington, D.C.
WILLIAM JOSEPH GREEN is an attorney with the firm of Wolf, Block,
Schorr & Solis-Cohen of Philadelphia. He was born June 6, 1938 in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and still resides there.
THOMAS HENRY O'CONNOR is a Professor of History at Boston College.
He was born December 9, 1922 in Boston, Massachusetts, and resides
in Braintree, Massachusetts.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 9, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS Job
SUBJECT:
Article on 200th Anniversary of the
Constitution for Parade Magazine
Attached is a revised draft of the proposed brief article by
the President for Parade Magazine on the 200th Anniversary
of the Constitution. The changes suggested in the first and
third paragraph of my memorandum of July 8 (copy attached)
have been made. The change suggested in the second para-
graph -- deleting what is now the first paragraph on page 2
-- has not been made. I thought (and think) it best not to
mention the call for a Constitutional Convention at all, but
the statement in the draft does not support such a call;
indeed, if anything, it suggests opposition. Accordingly, I
do not feel strongly about dropping that paragraph. I have
reiterated the suggestion in the attached draft for your
signature (the original draft was staffed for my direct
reply, hence my memorandum of July 8; this revised draft was
staffed for a reply for your signature).
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 9, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Article on 200th Anniversary of the
Constitution for Parade Magazine
I have reviewed the revised draft of the proposed Presidential
article for Parade Magazine. I would still drop the reference
to a second constitutional convention in the first paragraph
on page 2. I am opposed to such a convention, so I have no
quarrel with the thrust of the paragraph, but I think the
better course would be to avoid mentioning the subject at
all.
FFF: JGR:aea 7/9/85
cc: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 9, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS AJOR
SUBJECT:
Draft Letter to Congressman Larry
Craig Regarding Balanced Budget
As discussed this morning. You should know that the Office
of Legal Counsel determined in 1979 that an Article V
convention could be limited to a particular issue. I did
not cite this opinion (copy attached) in the attached draft
memorandum, because it is little more than an ipse dixit
refuted by the history of the original Constitutional
Convention.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 9, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Letter to Congressman Larry
Craig Regarding Balanced Budget
You have asked for comments on a proposed letter from
the President to Congressman Larry Craig, stating that
the President does not object to "a limited Constitutional
Convention" called by the States for the purpose of propos-
ing a balanced budget amendment. It is my strongly-held
view that the President should not endorse the constitu-
tional convention procedure for proposing amendments to the
Constitution.
The convention route for amending the Constitution has never
been tried and is rife with legal uncertainties. One thing
that does seem clear is that the Executive has no formal
legal role to play in the process, just as the Executive has
no formal legal role in the other, more traditional method
of proposing amendments to the Constitution. See Hollings-
worth V. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378 (1798) i Special Constitutional
Convention Study Committee, ABA, Amendment of the Constitution
by the Convention Method Under Article V, 25-28 (1974).
While the President has of course endorsed particular
proposed amendments, he has not, to my knowledge, endorsed
the untested convention method.
The principal difficulty with supporting "a limited
Constitutional Convention" is that it is unclear that any
convention called by the States pursuant to Article V could
be limited. Legal scholars are sharply divided on the
question, but it is important to recall that the original
Constitutional Convention was called "for the sole and
express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."
Once convened, the Framers went far beyond this limited
mandate. The product of their transgression has served us
well for almost two centuries, but the convening of another
constitutional convention would put the entire Constitution
at risk.
- 2 -
Perhaps a convention called pursuant to Article V could be
limited to the balanced budget issue, but who would enforce
such a limitation on the delegates? It would seem that
their authority would be paramount to that of Congress, and
it is reasonably well-established that the courts should
abstain from interfering in the amendment process. As
noted, the Executive has no formal role in that process. In
short, there is the very real danger of a convention called
for a limited purpose becoming a runaway convention, recon-
sidering the entire Constitution. That is precisely what
happened in 1787, and I am not anxious to commemorate the
bicentennial of the Constitution by redoing the Convention,
particularly since Hamiltons, Madisons, and Jays seem in
short supply.
I recommend that the letter not be sent.
FFF: JGR:aea 7/9/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 10, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 883 -- Export
Administration Amendments Act of 1985
David Chew has asked for our comments by 5:00 p.m. today on
enrolled bill S. 883, the "Export Administration Amendments
Act of 1985. This is the long-awaited bill to continue the
authorities of the Export Administration Act of 1979, which
expired in March 1984. As you know, we have continued the
authorities of that Act since they expired through the
declaration of a national economic emergency under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), see
Executive Order 12470 (March 30, 1984). (We also continued
the authorities for several shorter periods before the
ultimate expiration date, as Congress let the Act expire
then retroactively extended it for the brief periods it
mistakenly thought were sufficient to pass a reauthorization
bill.)
Congress did not simply reauthorize the Act of 1979 but
amended it extensively. The end result is a compromise
acceptable to all the affected agencies and departments.
The compromise, however, imposes significant new restrictions
on the President's authority to impose controls on exports.
Most such restrictions appear in Section 105 (national
security controls) and Section 108 (foreign policy controls).
The President may not, under the bill, impose national
security export controls on agricultural products (Section
105(g)), must not merely consider various factors before
imposing foreign policy controls but actually make various
determinations, Section 108 (b), and must consult with and
report to Congress before imposing foreign policy controls,
Section 108 (e). On the divisive issue of contract sanctity,
the bill specifies, Section 108 (1), that existing contracts
may not be affected unless the President determines and
certifies that "a breach of the peace" poses a direct threat
to the strategic interest of the United States, and that
curtailing existing contracts will be "instrumental" in
remedying the situation.
These are indeed significant new restrictions on the President's
authority to administer the export control program. It is
important to note, however, that these restrictions only
- 2 --
apply to controls imposed under this Act. In particular,
the President is not bound by these restrictions in imposing
controls in an appropriate case under IEEPA.
A critical question from our point of view is the transition
from the continuation of the export controls by Executive
Order under IEEPA to the new, amended Act. When he continued
the controls by Executive Order 12470, the President stated
his "intention to terminate this Order upon the enactment
into law of a bill reauthorizing the authorities contained
in the Export Administration Act." This bill reauthorizes
those authorities, albeit with changes. It would seem that
the Executive Order should be terminated immediately upon
signing of this bill. Failing to do so would result in two
separate, concurrent export control programs, the old 1979
one, imposed under IEEPA by the Executive Order, and the new
1985 one, established by this bill. The Executive Order
imposition of the 1979 controls would definitely not terminate
automatically upon signing of the bill.
I alerted both OMB and Commerce to this problem, and they
are now working on an Executive Order terminating Executive
Order 12470, with appropriate grandfather provisions to
accommodate pending cases. The bill should not be signed
until that Order is also ready for signature. Since the
bill must be signed by Saturday, July 13, processing of the
new Executive Order should be expedited.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 10, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 883 -- Export
Administration Amendments Act of 1985
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill. While the bill does impose significant new restrictions
on the President's authority to administer the export
control program, I am in no position to second-guess the
unanimous view that this is the best compromise that could
be achieved. In this regard, it is important to note that
the various restrictions in this bill apply only to controls
imposed under the Export Administration Act of 1979. In
particular, the restrictions do not apply to controls the
President may impose in an appropriate case pursuant to
emergency powers granted by statutes other than the Export
Administration Act, or granted by the Constitution.
The authorities of the Export Administration Act, which
expired by its terms in March of 1984, were continued by
Executive Order 12470 (March 30, 1984), pursuant to the
declaration of a national economic emergency under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C.
§ 1702. That Executive Order stated the President's
"intention to terminate this Order upon the enactment into
law of a bill reauthorizing the authorities contained in the
Export Administration Act." The Executive Order will not
terminate automatically upon signing of S. 883. If a new
Executive Order terminating Executive Order 12470 is not
signed immediately after the signing of S. 883, there will
be two concurrent and conflicting export control programs in
effect: the unamended 1979 Act, by virtue of the Executive
Order and the emergency declaration under IEEPA, and the new
Act, as amended by S. 883. Accordingly, S. 883 should not
be signed until an executive order terminating Executive
Order 12470, with any appropriate grandfather provisions, is
also available for the President's signature.
FFF; JGR:aea 7/10/85
cc: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 12, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 020L
SUBJECT:
Determination Under Section 301 of the Trade
Act of 1974 Concerning Subsidies Granted by
the European Space Agency on Satellite
Launching Services
David Chew has asked for comments by July 15 on the above-
referenced proposed determination under Section 301 of the
Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. $ 2411. On May 24, 1984, a
United States company formed to provide commercial satellite
launch services filed a petition under 19 U.S.C. § 2412 with
USTR, complaining of foreign government subsidies to
Arianespace, S.A., a French commercial satellite launching
venture. USTR initiated an investigation and conducted
consultations and has now submitted a recommendation to the
President, as required by 19 U.S.C. § 2414. Pursuant to
19 U.S.C. § 2411 (c) (2), the President has 21 days from
receipt of the recommendation (until July 30) to determine
what action, if any, to take.
USTR has concluded that the practices of the foreign
governments in this case are not unreasonable; indeed,
many are similar to our own practices. Accordingly, USTR
recommends that the President take no action. A proposed
determination with reasons is attached for signature by
the President and publication in the Federal Register, as
required by 19 U.S.C. § 2411 (c) (2). I have reviewed the
determination and have no objections.
There was some discussion during this investigation of
negotiations with foreign governments to develop guidelines
on government involvement in commercial satellite launching
ventures. All affected agencies except Transportation think
we should complete our own review of shuttle pricing policy
and related issues before entering into such negotiations.
This issue is not legally pertinent to the instant Section
301 issue.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 12, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Determination Under Section 301 of the Trade
Act of 1974 Concerning Subsidies Granted by
the European Space Agency on Satellite
Launching Services
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced determination,
and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
FFF: JGR:aea 7/12/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 12, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS opn
SUBJECT:
Vacancy on International Centre for Settlement
of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Panel of
Arbitrators
You have asked for information on the legal requirements for
appointment to the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators. The ICSID was
established by the Convention on the Settlement of Investment
Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 17 U.S.T.
1270. The Convention provides for panels of arbitrators to
decide disputes submitted to them, with each contracting state
eligible to designate four persons -- who may, but need not be,
its nationals -- to the pool of arbitrators. Article 14 of the
Convention provides that arbitrators "shall be persons of high
moral character and recognized competence in the fields of law,
commerce, industry or finance, who may be relied upon to exercise
independent judgment. Competence in the field of law shall be of
particular importance.
"
17 U.S.T. 1270, 1277.
Congress passed the Convention on the Settlement of Investment
Disputes Act of 1966 to implement the Convention. This statute
simply provides, with respect to appointments, that "the
President may make such appointments of representatives and panel
members as may be provided for under the convention." 22 U.S.C.
§ 1650.
Arbitrators are not compensated by the Government. They are only
compensated when they are selected to hear a particular matter,
in which case their expenses and fees are borne by the parties.
Article 60-61, 17 U.S.T. 1270, 1293-94.
Cases are brought to the Centre only by mutual consent of the
parties, and the parties generally must consent to the selection
of arbitrators (if the parties cannot agree, the Chairman of the
Centre appoints arbitrators). Conflicts problems are thus
extremely unlikely. Since no pay or full-time service is
involved, an SF-278 would not be necessary.
-2-
I would note that the willingness of states and parties to use
the ICSID depends in large part on the quality of the
arbitrators. The United States has been represented by rather
distinguished attorneys since the Centre was established,
including Thurman Arnold, Leon Jaworski, Soia Mentschikoff, Henry
Seyfarth, Henry Salvatori, Detlev Vagts, and Myres McDougal.
This will be President Reagan's first appointment to the Panel.
The attached memorandum for Tuttle alerts him to the need to make
an appointment to this body. I did not know if you wanted to
recommend a particular candidate.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 12, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR ROBERT H. TUTTLE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Vacancy on Panel of Arbitrators of the
International Centre for Settlement
of Investment Disputes
A vacancy has arisen in the United States delegation to the Panel
of Arbitrators of the International Centre for Settlement of
Investment Disputes (ICSID). The ICSID was established by the
Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between
States and Nationals of Other States, to which the United States
is a party. The Convention provides that the United States may
appoint four individuals to the Centre's Panel of Arbitrators,
and 22 U.S.C. § 1650 provides that the President may make those
appointments.
The only qualifications for appointment appear in Article 14 (1)
of the Convention:
Persons designated to serve on the Panels shall
be persons of high moral character and recognized
competence in the fields of law, commerce, industry
or finance, who may be relied upon to exercise
independent judgment. Competence in the field of
law shall be of particular importance in the case
of persons on the Panel of Arbitrators.
Persons appointed to the Panel receive no compensation from the
Government, but are compensated by the parties to any case they
arbitrate.
Past appointees have generally been very distinguished attorneys
or legal scholars. Since parties must consent to submit cases to
the Centre, the quality of the arbitrators is very important.
This will be President Reagan's first appointment to the Panel of
Arbitrators.
FFF/JRG:kl
FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 15, 1985
Dear Ms. Johnston:
Thank you for your recent inquiry concerning our policies
with respect to participation by the President in fundrais-
ing by private charitable organizations. The President has
repeatedly sought to encourage private sector support for
charitable activities. The Office of Private Sector Initia-
tives here at the White House was established to promote
such support, identify laudable examples of voluntarism, and
disseminate information to assist such activities.
While the President has done much to encourage private
sector support for charitable organizations in general, the
Administration has generally adhered to a policy of not
supporting particular fundraising activities. As I am
certain you can imagine, the President receives countless
requests to lend his name to particular fundraising projects
for worthy charities. We cannot possibly grant all such
requests, nor is there any fair way to distinguish between
those few that could be granted and the vast majority that
must be turned down. Accordingly, it was decided that
fairness to all compelled us to adopt a policy of generally
declining all such requests, rather than arbitrarily select-
ing a few for Presidential endorsement.
In addition to the foregoing fairness concern, any endorsement
by the President of a particular fundraising project would
require the White House to monitor to some degree the
activities of the organization benefitting from the endorse-
ment, to ensure that there was no misuse of the President's
name, and that the funds raised were in fact devoted to the
intended purpose. The White House is generally unable to
perform such monitoring on any broad basis.
The requests we receive for endorsement of fundraising
activities appear in many guises, including requests for
Presidential statements that will be reproduced in solicitation
letters, requests for permission to use the President's name
as a "patron" or "honorary chairman" of a campaign, and
requests for White House memorabilia to be auctioned off,
with the proceeds benefitting the charity. When we decline
these requests we note that we are doing so pursuant to our
general policy, and indicate the reasons for that policy.
We indicate that we adhere to the policy regardless of the
laudable nature of the charity involved, and that our
inability to endorse the fundraising activity should not be
- 2 -
viewed in any way as an adverse reflection on the charity.
We have found that most individuals appreciate the need for
our policy.
There are limited exceptions to the policy of not endorsing
particular fundraising efforts or specific charitable
organizations. The President serves as honorary chairman of
some organizations by virtue of his office, such as the
American Red Cross and the Boy Scouts of America. He has,
as is customary, supported certain traditional Washington
charitable activities such as the Ambassadors Ball and the
National Symphony Ball. On rare occasions, the President or
First Lady will lend their names to fundraising projects or
charitable organizations of particular personal concern,
either because of their association with the charity prior
to the President's assuming office or because of personal
involvement in the particular area. The First Lady's
efforts in the area of drug abuse prevention are the most
prominent example of the latter category.
I hope this information is helpful as you address the
similar issues surrounding participation by the Prime
Minister in charitable activities. If I may be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
John Robert
John G. Roberts
Associate Counsel to the President
Ms. Margaret Johnston
Privy Council Office
Room 201
Langevin Block
Ottawa, Canada KIA 0A3
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 17, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 878
SUBJECT:
Defense Audit Report on Inaugural Assistance
Kathleen Buck of the Department of Defense General Counsel's
office has sent us a copy of the Defense Auditor General's
report on Defense assistance to the 1985 Inaugural, for our
review and comment. The report notes the questionable legal
basis for the bulk of the Defense support, in light of the
1983 GAO opinion. It is also quite accurate in stressing at
several points that AFIC was in place preparing to provide
inaugural support long before the question of its authority
to do so was addressed by authorities at Defense.
The report recommends Congressional legislation to resolve
the ambiguities surrounding Defense support of the inaugural,
designation of an "executive agent" at Defense to supervise
AFIC from the outset for future inaugurals, a separate
Defense appropriation for inaugural support, and a clearer
definition of mission before launching of another AFIC.
I am generally very pleased that the main theme of this
internal Defense audit is that AFIC acted without proper
authorization at the outset and that it should be more
closely supervised in the future. I have no quarrel with
the recommendations in the report, and only the few
relatively minor comments on the text made in the attached
draft memorandum for Buck.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 22, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR KATHLEEN A. BUCK
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Defense Audit Report on Inaugural Assistance
Thank you for sharing with us a copy of the report of the
auditor general on military assistance in connection with
the 1985 Inaugural. As you know, this office agrees with
the basic recommendation contained in the report, that
Congress consider legislation to clarify the ambiguities
surrounding permissible support from the Department of
Defense for the inaugural. I would not, however, conclude,
as the report does in paragraph 5a, that "much of the
support provided by DOD appeared to violate the intent of
the [Presidential Inaugural Ceremonies] Act." The basis for
the guidelines jointly issued by counsel to PIC and the
Defense General Counsel's office is that it was not the
intent of Congress to restrict military support to only that
authorized in the Presidential Inaugural Ceremonies Act. It
is one thing to state that the Act does not itself authorize
such support, and quite another to conclude that such
support violates the intent of the Act.
Also with respect to paragraph 5a, I am not certain it is
desirable to include GAO and Hill representatives in the
preliminary stages of developing proposed legislation. It
may be better to develop an executive branch proposal and
then seek GAO and Hill support.
FFF:JGR:aea 7/17/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 18, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS opp
SUBJECT:
Request for the President to Appear on
ABC Children's Fall Preview Special
Bill Henkel has asked for your views on a proposal that the
President participate in an upcoming ABC television show on
physical fitness for youngsters. The show will feature Tony
Danza, Mary Lou Retton, and "clips of upcoming ABC children's
programs from the fall schedule." A volunteer advanceman
who is also a partner in a public relations firm initiated
the request.
Although this program has the support of the President's
Council on Physical Fitness, its use as a vehicle to promote
ABC's fall children's schedule should preclude participation
by the President.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 22, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM HENKEL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PRESIDENTIAL ADVANCE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Request for the President to Appear on
ABC Children's Fall Preview Special
You have asked for my views on a proposal that the President
participate in some fashion in an upcoming ABC television
program on physical fitness for youngsters. The program has
the support of the President's Council on Physical Fitness,
and appears to have a worthy purpose. Nonetheless it is, as
you note, specifically designed to promote ABC's fall
children's programming schedule. The President should not
participate in such a promotional vehicle, particularly
given the intensely competitive television programming
market.
FFF:JGR;aea 7/18/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
86
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 18, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
RICHARD A. HAUSER
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 072
SUBJECT:
U.S. Institute of Peace
Bob Tuttle has finally responded to your memorandum of May
8, advising that the Secretary of State will designate Max
Kampelman and that the Secretary of Defense will designate
Richard Perle, both Democrats, to serve on the Board of
Directors of the Institute of Peace. Ken Adelman, a Repub-
lican, will serve on the board as ACDA director.
66
Of the eleven non-Government prospective
nominees, six are Republicans and five aré Democrats, so the
entire slate can go forward regardless of the affiliation of
the
(Not
counting him, the split is 7-7, so the requirement that no
more than eight be of the same party will be met in any
event.)
By memorandum dated June 28, I indicated no objection to
Weinrod, Bark, Neuhaus, Lovett, Kinter, Kirkpatrick, and
Thompson.
66
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
- 2 -
66
Moore may now be cleared.
I received Allen Weinstein's PDS just after I submitted my
June 28 memorandum, and advised Dianna orally that I had no
objection to his nomination. We still, however, have no
forms from Wendy Borcherdt.
To sum up, the following may be nominated, assuming clean
FBI reports: Weinrod, Bark, Lovett, Kinter, Kirkpatrick,
Thompson, Moore, and Weinstein. The four ex officio members
may be announced (they are not nominated).
66
COPY - Reagan Presidential Record
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 18, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ROBERT H. TUTTLE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
AND DIRECTOR OF PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL
SUBJECT:
Institute of Peace
The following is a status report on the four ex officio members
who are to serve on the United States Institute of Peace, Board
of Directors:
The Secretary of State has designated Max Kampelman, Ambassador
to the United States Office for Arms Reduction Negotiations to
serve on the Board of Directors. He is a Democrat.
The Secretary of Defense is sending a letter designating Richard
Norman Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Policy. He is a Democrat.
Kenneth L. Adelman, the Director of the United States Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency is a Republican.
The political affiliation of the President of the National
Defense University is still unknown.
COPY Reagan Presidential Record
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 18, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS OF
SUBJECT:
Mickey Mouse
Anne Higgins exploded in righteous indignation when we
declined, pursuant to usual policy, to approve a Presi-
dential message on the occasion of Disneyland's 30th
anniversary. She prepared a memorandum questioning the
commercial messages policy. I have prepared a reply for
your signature.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 22, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR PATRICK BUCHANAN
DAVID L. CHEW
CHRISTOPHER HICKS
ANNE HIGGINS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
SUBJECT:
Request for Policy Change on
Presidential Messages/Greetings
This office scrupulously avoids any suggestion that the
President has endorsed a particular commercial entity,
product, or venture. I am committed to ensuring that the
office of the Presidency and this President not be subjected
to any sort of commercial exploitation. Over the years this
commitment has required us to take appropriate legal action
on numerous occasions against those who sought to capitalize
on the President's name. By that time, however, the damage
has already been done, and there is often little curative
action that can be taken beyond compelling the offending
party to cease and desist.
Accordingly, we have developed a variety of prophylactic
rules that operate to minimize the opportunities for misuse
of the President's name for profit. For example, when we
review Presidential addresses, proclamations, and correspon-
dence, we take care to avoid any mention of particular
companies or products in a manner that could be taken out of
context as an endorsement. We work with the Photo Office to
prevent misuse of photographs of the President in promotional
material. And we have worked with the Better Business
Bureau and the advertising industry and media to prevent the
publication of misleading advertisements involving the
President or White House. One such prophylactic policy that
we have adhered to since the beginning of the Reagan Presi-
dency is that of declining to approve congratulatory messages
from the President on the occasion of commercial anniver-
saries. When a request for such a message is received, it
is to be routed to this office. We prepare a reply explain-
ing that all such requests are declined, because the Presi-
dent cannot grant them all and there is no fair way to
discriminate among the requests, and because of concerns
about such messages in the competitive commercial environment.
- 2 -
Now the Director of Correspondence wishes to reconsider this
policy, stating that companies that reach a 50- or 100- year
anniversary "deserve a pat on the back from the President,"
that such a message would not be an endorsement, that "we
would use common sense" in avoiding messages to possibly
embarrassing companies, and that sending a message to every
company that asks for "a 50 or 100 or other special anniver-
sary congrats" would not cheapen the President's signature.
If a Presidential message is sent to every company requesting
one, it is of course meaningless, except perhaps to dis-
tinguish those companies that know of the availability of
such messages from those that do not. Making a Presidential
message meaningless does, in my view, cheapen the signature.
I do think it would be very embarrassing to the President to
have congratulatory messages sent to companies under investi-
gation or indictment, or the subject of public controversy.
What would a congratulatory message to General Dynamics say?
To Dow Chemical, if an anniversary coincided with the Bhopal
tragedy? Once it is conceded that not every company should
get a congratulatory message from the President, how do we
separate those that should from those that should not? The
"banner headlines" test suggested by the Director of Corres-
pondence hardly seems sufficient to avoid embarrassment to
the President. What would we do when we have information of
an investigation or indictment of a company not yet public?
Do we send a message, subjecting the President to embarrass-
ment when the adverse information becomes public, or do we
decline, alerting everyone that something is awry?
Quite apart from the foregoing, I continue to have reservations
about the President congratulating particular companies in a
competitive industry. I think Pepsi would have a legitimate
gripe about Presidential words of praise to Coca-Cola on its
100th anniversary, and the response "you'll get the same
when you reach 100" does not strike me as adequate.
The overriding concern, however, is possible misuse of any
Presidential message for commercial purposes. This problem
arises with distressing frequency even when we do not send
congratulatory messages to companies. To cite just a few
examples: a couple visiting the White House representing
Hungarian-Americans reproduces a photo with the President
and letter on White House stationery in advertising for
their art gallery. We receive numerous complaints from
other artists. A heating company owner receives a congratu-
latory letter from the President for being named one of the
Jaycee's outstanding men of the year, and reproduces it in
promotional material. We receive complaints from as far
away as England from customers who purchased a faulty
- 3 -
heating system "relying on the President's endorsement." A
photograph of the President shaking hands with the owner of
a gold investment company appears in the company's advertis-
ing; the individual and company are later prosecuted for
fraud. The point is that once a message or photograph
leaves the White House we have no control over its use or
misuse. Non-objectionable messages are taken out of context
in pursuit of profit; the temptation to do so with explicitly
laudatory messages would be that much greater. I hope my
experience has not made me overly cynical, but I do not
think that this problem could be cured, as the Director of
Correspondence suggests, simply by telling recipients of
messages not to do it.
I apologize for going on at such length, but I truly do feel
that the matter is more serious than it might appear at
first blush. The principle that we should avoid commercial
exploitation of the Presidency and the President is critical,
and I believe that our policy against commercial anniversary
messages promotes that principle in an important way.
Stare decisis is also important in this context. We have
been denying such messages for over four years. Changing
the policy now would be unfair to those whose anniversaries
fell in the first term, and were denied a message.
All of the foregoing problems are avoided by adherence to a
general policy of declining all requests for messages for
commercial anniversaries. On the down side, I do not think
the President suffers in any way by declining such requests,
particularly when it is explained that all requests are
denied.
I cannot conclude without a few words about the Disneyland
case, which apparently prompted the suggested change in
policy. I enjoy Mickey, Donald, Goofy and the rest of the
gang as much as anyone. But Disneyland is indisputably a
commercial venture, with competitors. It used its thirtieth
anniversary to promote its product -- a particular form of
entertainment -- and I do not think the President should
have participated in that promotion. In addition, however
appealing Disneyland might be, making an exception to the
general policy would simply have led to demands for similar
exceptions in the future.
FFF:JGR:aea 7/18/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron