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
135839996
label
Chron File (02/21/1986-02/26/1986)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839996
contentType
document
title
Chron File (02/21/1986-02/26/1986)
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
135839996
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
b0dc24cd3f9ed8fe
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 (02/21/1986-02/26/1986)
Box: 66
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
February 21, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR FILE
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT: David Rohr
On February 20 at 2:40 p.m. I provided Senator Danforth with the
January 1984 summary and the December 1985 update of the back-
ground investigation into David Rohr, who is to be reappointed
to the International Trade Commission. Danforth reviewed the
material without comment.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 21, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR DIANNA G. HOLLAND
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS PR
SUBJECT:
Appointment of Betty Easley to the
Intergovernmental Advisory Council
on Education
I have reviewed the Personal Data Statement submitted by Betty
Easley in connection with her prospective appointment to the
Intergovernmental Advisory Council on Education. Pursuant to
20 U.S.C. § 3423 (c) (1), the President appoints twenty members to
this Council, as follows: six elected state and local offi-
cials, five representatives from public and private elementary
and secondary education, five representatives from public and
private postsecondary education, and four member of the public.
In making appointments, the President is to consult with the
constituent groups from which appointees are to be chosen, and
select appointees with a view to "diversity of geographic areas
and demographic characteristics."
Ms. Easley is a member of the Florida House of Representatives,
and thus qualifies as a state and local official. Her PDS
presents no problems, and I have no objection to proceeding with
this appointment.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 21, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD DAVIS
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
CABINET AFFAIRS
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Disaster Declaration for California
Our office was asked to review a request from Governor George
Deukmejian of California for Presidential declaration of a
"major disaster," within the meaning of the Disaster Relief Act
of 1974, Pub. L. 93-288.
Based on a review of the request and the related materials
forwarded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including
the supplementary letter of February 21, the Governor's request
appears to comply with the statutory requirements for a disaster
declaration. We also have no legal objection to the implemen-
tation materials prepared by FEMA in connection with this
request.
CC: David L. Chew
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTO
February 21, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOP ROBERT H. TUTTLI
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
wrig
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Peace Institute
As you know, nine nominees for the Peace Institute Board of
Directors have been confirmed and appointed. In addition tc
those nine, we announced three of the four ex officio members or
August 1. We have delayed announcing the ex officio member from
the National Defense University, because the President of the
University, an active duty career military officer, has declined
to disclose his party affiliation. The Peace Institute statute
requires that the affiliation of the ex officio members be
included in satisfying the bipartisanship requirement.
I recommend that we now announce the representative from the
University (either the President or, if he so designates, the
Vice President) who will serve on the Board, even though we will
not know his party affiliation. There is no danger of violating
the bipartisanship requirement now, since we have five confirmed
Republicans, four confirmed Democrats, two ex officio Democrats,
and one ex officio Republican. Regardless of the affiliation of
the N.D.U. representative, we will comply with the statutory
requirement that no more than eight members be of the same
political party.
Current plans call for filling the two remaining nomination
vacancies with one Republican and one Democrat. If that comes
to pass, we will still comply with the bipartisanship
requirement regardless of the party affiliation of the N.D.U.
representative. Problems may arise in the future, but I think
it more important to comply with the statutory requirement that
an N.D.U. representative serve on the Board, than to avoid
appointing such a representative for fear of potential biparti-
sanship problems. The N.D.U. representative is entitled to
serve on the Board in any event, whether or not the White House
announces him. In addition, I sympathize with his position, and
suspect many in Congress (despite the statutory language) will
do so as well. The N.D.U. representative should be announced
promptly, in order that he can participate in the Board meeting
scheduled for February 25-26.
FFF/JGR:jn FFFielding GRoberts subject chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 21, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Peace Institute
In the attached memorandum of December 27, 1985, I reviewed for
you the problem with the remaining ex officio slot on the Peace
Institute Board of Directors. You will recall that the statute
specifies that the President or Vice President of the National
Defense University serve on the Board, and that the party
affiliation of all Board members, even the ex officio members,
be considered in satisfying the bipartisanship requirement (no
more than 8 of the 15 from the same party). Both the President
and Vice President of N.D.U., however, are career military
officers who, consistent with long-established military
practice, decline to reveal party affiliation (if any).
In the memorandum, I recommended announcing the N.D.U.
representative, as we have announced the three other ex officio
members, despite the fact that we will not know his party
affiliation. I noted we would not violate the bipartisanship
requirement, regardless of the N.D.U. representative's
affiliation, since we have a 6-6 split now. There are two
remaining vacancies, to be filled by Morris Leibman (in
clearance) and -- perhaps -- Wendy Borcherdt (also in clearance,
but with potentially serious problems). This would result in a
7-7 split, and still no problem with the N.D.U. representative.
You did not sign the memorandum for Tuttle accompanying my
December 27 memorandum, but instead directed that it be held
until the two remaining nominations are announced. The new
development on this problem is that the first Board meeting is
now scheduled for February 25-26. The two outstanding
nominations will not be cleared by then, and the N.D.U.
President is planning to attend the Board meeting, to comply
with the statute, whether or not he is announced. I think he
should be announced, as were the other three ex officio members.
An updated memorandum for Tuttle for your signature is attached.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTO
February 21, 198
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES DONOVAN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE
FROM:
RICHARI i. HAUSEP Original signed by RAH,
DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Contra Support Letters
Counsel's Office has reviewed the letters from the President to
the National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty and the
Council for Inter-Americar Security. It 15 our view that the
letters need to be edited slightly to avoid creating a:
impression of inappropriate linkage between the President and
the public education and lobbying activities of these private
sector organizations. The President cannot be made to appear
to be using these independent organizations as lobbying arms of
the Administration. The necessary edits appear on the attached
copies of the drafts.
cc: Linas J. Kojelis
RAH/JGR: jmk
cc: RAHauser
GRoberts
subject
chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 21, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD A. HAUSER
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 026
SUBJECT:
Contra Support Letters
Attached are the two commendation letters for Contra support
groups that we have discussed. Our usual concerns with respect
to such letters are: (1) the President cannot link himself SO
closely with the groups that their activities are viewed as
being on behalf of, or at the direction of, the Administration;
(2) since the groups often engage in lobbying activity we must
be careful that our support does not amount to using the groups
as a lobbying arm in contravention of anti-lobbying restric-
tions; and (3) since the groups are active in fundraising, some
sensitivity to usual White House policy on endorsement of
private fundraising must be shown.
Both letters, as submitted, raise serious appearance problems
with respect to the first two points. In the drafts, the
President urges continuation of specific public information
campaigns for the explicit purpose of pressuring Congress. I
have attempted to edit the letters to mitigate the appearance
problems. The attached memorandum for your signature replies to
Charles Donovan, who submitted the letters for our review, copy
to Linas Kojelis, who sent the letters to Donovan.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTO
February 22, 1986
} 3771236
TO:
JOHN ROBERTS
Counsel's Office
RE:
Congress on Biblical
Exposition / Anaheim
(MARCH 3)
This one would seem to me to put the President
over the boundary of separation of church and
state if he were to send a message.
Do you see a problem?
Thank you.
Claudin
CLAUDIA KORTE
Presidential Messages
18-OEOB/Ext. 2941
CK -
MANY PROBLEMS, IN ADDITION TO
THE ONE YOU NOTED. NO INDICATION
THAT THIS IS NON-PROFIT, AND THEY
ARE CHARGING ADMISSION.
JR
2/28
THE WHITE HOUSE
February 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR ANNE HIGGINS
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
AND DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT
Draft Proclamation: Hugo Lafayette
Black Day, February 27th, 1986
As requested in Phil Nicolaides' February 24, 1986 memorandum,
this office has reviewed the referenced draft proclamation and
has no legal objection to the President signing it.
THE WHITE HOUSE
CTO
February 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR EUGENE P.. SULLIVAN
GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Air Force One
The attached correspondence concerning the Air Force One
contracting competition is submitted to the Air Force for
appropriate handling. The White House has adopted a policy of
referring any communication with potential contractors to the
Air Force, to avoid even the appearance of any inappropriate
interference in the contractor selection process.
I have also enclosed a copy of my response to Mr. Timmons,
advising him of the referral.
CC: W. Dennis Thomas
William Henkel
FFF:JGR:lrc
2/24/86
FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subject
Chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
010
February 24, 1986
Dear Bill:
This is in reply to your memoranda of January 28 to Dennis
Thomas and William Henkel, concerning the position of your
client, The Boeing Company, on the Air Force One contractor
selection competition.
In order to avoid ever the appearance of any inappropriate
interference in the contractor selection process, WE have
adopted a policy of referring any communication with a potential
contractor directly to the Air Force, which is handling the
contractor competition. I have, accordingly, forwarded your
memoranda tc the Air Force.
I trust you will appreciate the reasons for this policy.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Orig. signed by FFF
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Mr. William E. Timmons
Chairman, Executive Committee
Timmons and Company, Incorporated
1850 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
CC: W. Dennis Thomas
William Henkel
FFF:JGR:1rc
2/24/86
FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subject
Chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.
SUBJECT:
Air Force One
Bill Timmons, on behalf of his client Boeing, has written Dennis
Thomas to explain the advantages of the Boeing bid for the new
Air Force One over the rival bid of McDonnell-Douglas. Thomas
has asked your advice on a response.
Thomas's January 15 memorandum for the Air Force One Senior
Steering Committee, which you reviewed and edited, provides as
follows:
According to Federal Acquisition Regulations, all
communication with potential contractors are to be
channeled through Air Force contract offices. In
order to avoid even the appearance of any improper
interference with the contractor selection process,
all communications and questions regarding the process
or any contractor should be referred to the Air Force
through the Counsel's office.
Pursuant to this directive, the letter from Timmons should be
sent to the Air Force by you. A memorandum for this purpose is
attached, as is a reply to Timmons advising him of the referral.
Thomas and Henkel (who received an identical incoming) are
copied on both items.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
DOJ Testimony on H.R. 1407 the
"Grand Jury Reform Act of 1985"
As requested, this office has reviewed the above-referenced
testimony and has no legal objection to it.
THE WHITE HOUSE
February 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR ALFRED H. KINGON
CABINET SECRETARY AND ASSISTANT
TO THE PRESIDENT
Orig. signed by FFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSFL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Report to the President on Textile Imports
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
report, and has no objection to it going forward to the
President.
CC: David Chew
FFF:JGR:1rc
2/24/86
FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subject
Chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAGHINGTON
February 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.
SUBJECT:
Report to the President on Textile Imports
David Chew has asked that comments be sent directly to Al Kingon
by close of business today on the above-referenced proposed
report to the President. When the President vetoed the Textile
and Apparel Trade Enforcement Act of 1985, he directed Secretary
Baker to investigate the levels of textile imports to determine
if those levels exceeded limits agreed upon in international
agreements. In the proposed report, Baker concludes that
overshipment of existing quotas constituted only 0.1% of total
textile imports during 1980-1985.
The report proceeds to discuss several enforcement problems
confronted by Customs, such as fraud in describing products,
fiber substitution, monitoring difficulties due to wide
variances in the terms of bilateral agreements, a difficult-to-
apply cottage industry exception to quotas, and lack of full
ccoperation from host countries in conducting overseas
investigations. The report recommends expediting the "call"
process, striving to standardize bilateral agreements, and
imposing import controls more promptly to avoid overshipments
occuring before quotas can be imposed. With respect to
enforcement, the report calls for maintaining the Customs
Commercial Fraud Enforcement Program at its current level,
establishing textile fraud cases as a high priority for
prosecution, reviewing existing legislation and the troublesome
cottage industry exemption, expanding the Multi-Fiber
Arrangement to cover currently non-covered fabrics often used in
substitution (silk, linen, ramie), and including investigative
cooperation clauses in any future bilateral agreements.
I have no objection to this report going forward to the President.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHIN GTOM
February 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR DIANNA G. HOLLAND
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.
SUBJECT:
Seal Question
Chris Hicks called to request that our office look into the sale
of a cap featuring the Great Seal and "The White House" by John
Roth, an NBC cameraman. Billy Dale in the Press Office can
provide further details to whomever this problem is assigned.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT
TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Executive Order Entitled "Revocation
of Various Executive Orders"
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
Executive Order. In the few hours provided for our review, it
has of course not been possible for us to review each of the 386
Executive Orders slated for "elimination," so we cannot offer an
independent opinion on whether or not such elimination would
affect current legal rights or authorities.
The stated purpose of this Executive Order is to eliminate
obsolete or outdated Executive Orders from the codification of
Presidential orders. An Executive Order is not necessary to
accomplish this objective. Indeed, many - perhaps most - of the
Orders that will be revoked by this Order are already excluded
from the codification of Presidential orders. Those orders
creating an emergency board to investigate a railroad labor
dispute, for example about half the subject orders - are not
reproduced in the codification. Other orders on the list that
are temporary or have otherwise been superseded (e.g., 11434,
11436) are also not reproduced in the codification. In light of
the foregoing there seems to be little reason for this exercise.
Portraying it as a significant management improvement would
expose the Administration to valid charges of grandstanding.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 25, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT
TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL 822 TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
H.R. 4061: Federal Employees
Benefits Improvement Act of 1986
and Signing Statement
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled bill
and signing statement and finds no objection to them from a
legal perspective.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 25, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: President
Biya of Cameroon
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Presidential
remarks and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
cc: David L. Chew
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 25, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT
TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Posthumous Promotion for Michael Smith
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced posthumous
promotion and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 25, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL JJR THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Presidential Tapings: 1) Coalition for SDI
2) USC Tribute to Virginia Ramo
3) Tribute to King Hassan of Morocco
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
tapings, and finds no legal objection to the U.S.C. and the King
Hassan tapings. We also have no legal objection to the S.D.I.
taping, but would emphasize that those dealing with the
Coalition for S.D.I. should stress that the taping may not be
re-used in any form in future fundraising appeals.
CC: David L. Chew
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 26, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT
TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"Nuclear Cooperation with Euratom"
and Message to Congress
Counsel's Office has reviewed the proposed Executive Order and
message to Congress on nuclear cooperation with Euratom. We
have no legal objection to the proposed Order. In line 16, page
2, of the message to Congress, "out" should be "our."
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 26, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT
TC THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Retirement Letter for Herb Ellingwood
Counsel's Office has reviewed the draft letter to Herb
Ellingwood. In the first sentence of the second paragraph, it
is misleading to refer to the MSPB as "the successor agency to
the United States Civil Service Commission." " The MSPB is a
successor agency to the Civil Service Commission, but in fact
most of the responsibilities of that Commission were transferred
to the Office of Personnel Management. I would delete
"successor agency to the United States Civil Service Commission"
and substitute "Board." I would also delete "a model judicial
agency --" in the last sentence of the second paragraph. The
Board has quasi-judicial responsibilities, but it has executive
responsibilities as well, and should not be described as a
"judicial agency.'
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 26, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: Drop-By Briefing
for Columnists and Commentators
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Presidential
remarks and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
cc: David L. Chew
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTO
February 2€, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOP CHARLES DONOVAN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE
Orig. signed by FFF
FROM:
FREI F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TC THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Money Mail Following Shuttle Disaster
You have asked for guidance on handling the numerous donations
the White House has beer. receiving 11. the wake of the Space
Shuttle disaster. After discussion with the Office of the
General Counsel at NASA, it is our view that donations sent tc
the White House because of the Shuttle disaster should be
forwarded to NASA for handling. NASA will accept unconditional
donations pursuant to its current statutory authority. Although
NASA does not at present have authority to accept conditional
gifts -- and many of the donations in question fall into this
category -- legislation has been introduced to grant NASA such
authority for this particular situation. Accordingly, NASA has
established a special escrow account for receipt of conditional
gifts, pending passage of the legislation. If the legislation
does not pass, the conditional gifts will be returned.
You should forward donations sent to the White House to
Richard J. Powell, Director of Financial Management Division,
Code BF, NASA, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20546. NASA will correspond directly with the donor to
acknowledge receipt of the donation, and process it as
appropriate in light of the foregoing.
FFF/JGR:jmk
CC: FFFielding
GRoberts
subject
chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 26, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOP JOHN E. O'BRIE!
GENERAL COUNSEL
NASA
FROM:
Orig. signed by FFF
FREI F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TC THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Money Mail Following Shuttle Disaster
The White House has been receiving numerous donations in the
wake of the Space Shuttle disaster. A member of my staff
discussed the appropriate handling of such donations with Heler
Kupperman of your staff, and learned of the manner in which
similar donations sent directly to NASA are being handled. I
agree with Ms. Kupperman's recommendation that donations
received at the White House be sent to NASA for processing.
Attached is a copy of the memorandum I have sent to the White
House Office of Correspondence, directing that office to send
NASA. Space Shuttle donations it receives to the appropriate office at
Thank you for your assistance.
Attachment
FFF/JGR: jmk
cc: FEFielding
JGRoberts
subject
chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 26, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Money Mail Following Shuttle Disaster
The Office of Correspondence has asked for guidance on handling
the dozens of checks they have been receiving in the wake of the
Shuttle disaster. NASA has statutory authority to accept
unconditional gifts, 42 U.S.C. § 2473 (c) (4), and has been
accepting donations that are not explicitly restricted to the
shuttle program, depositing the donation into the fund already
established for gifts.
NASA does not currently have authority to accept conditional
gifts, and many of the checks both it and the White House have
been receiving are earmarked for the shuttle program. Legisla-
tion has been introduced in both the Senate and the House, with
impressive sponsorship, to permit NASA to accept conditional
gifts for this purpose only. The legislation provides that if
Congress does not authorize another shuttle, the funds would go
to the unconditional gift account. In light of this legisla-
tion, NASA has set up an escrow account, for deposit of condi-
tional gifts. If the legislation passes, the conditional gifts
would be accepted pursuant to the terms of the bill. If the
bill fails, NASA plans to return all the conditional gifts.
I discussed this question with the NASA General Counsel's
office. It is the view of that office that checks received at
the White House should be forwarded to NASA. NASA will handle
the forwarded letters as it handles checks it receives directly,
sending an appropriate response and depositing the funds either
in the unconditional gift account or the special escrow account.
I have no objection to this proposal, which can be implemented
by your sending the attached memoranda to Charles Donovan and
Jack O'Brien.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 26, 198
MEMORANDUM FOR RONALD F. LEHMAN, II
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE RESIDENT
AND SENIOR DIRECTOR
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL "TO THE RESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Fact Sheet for the Presid nt's Peace
and National Security Add ess
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above- eferenced fact sheet
and finds no objection to it from a lega. perspective.
CC: David L. Chew