Back to Chron File - June 1993 No. 3 [3]

Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page

doc

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

122245676

label

Chron File - June 1993 No. 3 [3]

core

doc

dtoType

document

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122245676

pageCount

Source metadata

122245676

sourceUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122245676

contentType

document

title

Chron File - June 1993 No. 3 [3]

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122245676

collections

Records of the National Security Council Defense Policy and Arms Control Office (Clinton Administration)

Robert Bell's Files

iiifBase

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2016/2016-0152-F_Seg01/42-t-7585451-20160152F-Seg1-009-003-2017.pdf

thumbnailUrl

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2016/2016-0152-F_Seg01/42-t-7585451-20160152F-Seg1-009-003-2017.pdf

largeImageUrl

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2016/2016-0152-F_Seg01/42-t-7585451-20160152F-Seg1-009-003-2017.pdf

imageCount

hasImages

yes

source

import

hasTranscription

Source extras

url

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122245676

naId

122245676

levelOfDescription

fileUnit

otherTitles

42-t-7585451-20160152F-Seg1-009-003-2017

recordType

description

ocrSource

nara-archive

Single page context

seq

pageIndex

type

document

url

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2016/2016-0152-F_Seg01/42-t-7585451-20160152F-Seg1-009-003-2017.pdf

mediaId

b48c14145b525202

ocrText

Case Number: 2016-0152-F FOIA MARKER This is not a textual record. This is used as an administrative marker by the Clinton Presidential Library Staff. Folder Title: Chron File - June 1993 #3 [3] Staff Office-Individual: Defense Policy-Bell, Robert Original OA/ID Number: 45 Row: Section: Shelf: Position: Stack: 31 3 2 1 V Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet Clinton Library DOCUMENT NO. SUBJECT/TITLE DATE RESTRICTION AND TYPE 001. memo Legislative Referral Memorandum #1-733. [CIA Act] [partial] (1 page) 06/25/1993 P3/b(3) 002. paper State Department Commetns on Options for Initial COCOM 06/30/1993 P1/b(1) Liberalizations. (4 pages) COLLECTION: Clinton Presidential Records National Security Council Defense Policy and Arms Control (Robert Bell) OA/Box Number: 45 FOLDER TITLE: Chron File - June 1993 #3 [3] 2016-0152-F vz4425 RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)] Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)] PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA] b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA| b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA] an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA] b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA] b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA] b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of of gift. financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIA] PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C. b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information 2201(3). concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA] RR. Document will be reviewed upon request. UNCLASSIFIED RECORD ID: 9304910 NSC/RMO PROFILE RECEIVED: 01 JUL 93 13 TO: LAKE FROM: BOREN, DAVID L DOC DATE: 30 JUN 93 SOURCE REF: KEYWORDS: NUCLEAR TESTING PROLIFERATION ARMS CONTROL NCO PERSONS: SUBJECT: SEN BOREN FWDS CY OF FLOOR STATEMENT ON NO FIRST TEST NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION POLICY ACTION: FOR RECORD PURPOSES DUE DATE: 05 JUL 93 STATUS: C STAFF OFFICER: NONE LOGREF: FILES: WH NSCP: CODES: DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION FOR ACTION FOR CONCURRENCE FOR INFO ANDREASEN BELL BERGER / GOTTEMOELLER ITOH KENNEY LAKE PONEMAN ROSNER TENET COMMENTS: DISPATCHED BY DATE BY HAND W/ATTCH OPENED BY: NSMEM CLOSED BY: NSMEM DOC 1 OF 1 UNCLASSIFIED 4910 DAVID L. BOREN OKLAHOMA United States Senate WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 June 30, 1993 Dear Dr Tony k I thought you may be interested in reading this floor speech which I gave on the Senate floor today concerning nuclear testing and weapons proliferation. Sincer WD 1y David L. Boren 4910 SENATE CHAIRMAN DAVID BOREN JOINT COMMITTEE ON OKLAHOMA THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS RUSSELL BUILDING MEMBER. JOINT COMMITTEE WASHINGTON DC 20510 ON TAXATION United States Senate MEMBER COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 621 NORTH ROBINSON CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73102 TAXATION 409 S. BOSTON WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3601 MEMBER. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE TULSA. OK 74103 NUTRITION. AND FORESTRY CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 211 EAST OAK AGRICULTURAL TRADE SEMINOLE. OK 74868 FLOOR STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAVID BOREN ON A "NO FIRST TEST" NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION POLICY JUNE 30, 1993 On July 1, the current moratorium on nuclear testing expires. I am greatly encouraged by reports in the morning press which speculate that the President will act to extend the moratorium and is also seriously considering a "no first test" policy. The President would show bold and decisive leadership not only for this country but for the entire world if he takes this path. If he does so, he will have my full support. I am sure that he will also have the support of the vast majority of Americans and he will deserve the appreciation of future generations. After more than a thousand tests we can remain reasonably certain at least in the near term that our nuclear deterrent is both safe and reliable. We do not need more tests now to assure safety and accuracy. Nor do we need to be upgrading our stockpile of nuclear weapons in the current world environment. In fact, nothing would do more to undermine our national security in the long run than to resume testing now because it would encourage others to do the same and it would make it impossible for us to lead the effort to stop the proliferation of dangerous weapons around the world. It is that proliferation and not the possible inaccuracy of our weapons that is the greatest threat to our national security. The recent turmoil in Russia should be a wake-up call to all of us as Americans. The window of opportunity opened by the end of Cold War will not stay open forever. For the first time since the United States has become a world leader, we are not locked in a military confrontation with other superpowers or power blocs. Now, as domestic concerns dominate the agenda and as our foreign policy apparatus reacts on an ad hoc basis to one crisis after another, we may miss the greatest chance ever given to any American generation to make the world a safer place. Let us hope we are not already too late. Our political leaders in both parties have referred in vague terms to a "new world order," but nothing has been done to create one. In particular, the United States must take bold, decisive action in two areas: collective security and non- proliferation. PRINTED ON 100% RECYCLED PAPER In the aftermath of World War II, President Harry Truman recognized that collective security was not only possible but desirable. Unfortunately, the advent of the Cold War and the Soviet Union's veto power in the Security Council prevented the U.N. from ever developing an effective force to maintain international peace and to help prevent regional conflicts. But today, the establishment of a standing U.N. military force with contributions from nations around the world is a real possibility. A well trained, well-led, multinational army makes good sense for America. It would spare the United States the empty choice between standing on the sidelines during international emergencies like that in Bosnia or going in alone to act as world policeman, a role we can no longer afford to play. At the same time, with our own veto on the Security Council, we would not surrender the ultimate power over the commitment of our national forces. The creation of such a force can only happen, however, if the United States takes an active leadership role at the U.N. I am very encouraged by recent statements by the administration, especially by those of our Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, that we are considering new initiatives in this area. It will also require us to push for internal reforms in exchange for our resumption of full and timely financial support of the world organization. By the same token, American leadership is the key to establishing an effective regime to stop the proliferation of dangerous weapons of mass destruction around the world. The director of the C.I.A. Jim Woolsey has identified weapons proliferation as the most serious long-term threat to our national security. This was the same conclusion I reached after serving six years as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It is easy to see why -- 23 nations are said to have or to be developing missile delivery capability. Five to eight more are said to be developing nuclear weapons, fifteen are thought to have chemical weapons and eight have biological warfare programs. In many ways, the threat of future weapons proliferation is even more alarming than the nuclear standoff between the superpowers ever was. During the Cold War, there was at least the presumption that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would act rationally and that this "delicate balance of terror," as some called it, would prevent nuclear war. There is no reason to believe that we can count on the same level of rational calculation from those who are now obtaining dangerous weapons and delivery systems. 2 In 1952 the Truman Administration endorsed a proposal for a United Nations Disarmament Commission to develop plans for dismantling nuclear weapons and guarding or peacefully converting fissionable material. It is time for President Clinton to seize the initiative and to revive Truman's bold plan. An effective nonproliferation regime would include comprehensive verification and inspection procedures. It would be backed up by a good intelligence capability, which we can help provide to the U.N. It would also require the use of all possible tools of enforcement, including economic sanctions and, in the rare case, even military action. But first the United States must confront its own policies in a way that might have been unthinkable even five years ago. We must decide how many nuclear and other weapons we truly need. How much long-range missile capacity is necessary? How much outside inspection of our own capabilities we will allow? Only when we have honestly faced these questions will we be able to make credible non-proliferation proposals to others. That is why a decision now to continue the moratorium on underground nuclear testing is so important and why we should help cause others to follow suit by announcing a "no first test" policy. We must not be the first to open the floodgates. A recent series of meetings which I had with leaders in Pakistan, India, and China brought that point home to me. The conversations proceeded something like this: Pakistan expresses its willingness to do without some weapons -- but only if India will. India will agree if China agrees. China will consider some disarmament if the U.S. and Russia will do so as well. But there is a simple lesson here. As the world's sole remaining superpower, if we do not set the example, we will have neither the practical nor the moral leverage to persuade other countries to behave responsibly. American foreign policy at this critical juncture can not be limited to an ad hoc series of reactions, even intelligent ones, to world crises. Our leaders must be architects as well as capable trouble shooters. If we fail to plan ahead, to take on the task of building a truly viable "new world order," history will hold us accountable. One day, our children and grandchildren will ask us what we did when we had the chance to make a difference. Let us be able to answer them in good conscience that we have done our best to leave them a safer and better world. 3 4800 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 June 30, 1993 ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM H. ITOH THROUGH: ROBERT BELL RGB FROM: KEITH HAHN SUBJECT: Defense-Proposed Report on H.R. 291 Attached at Tab II is a Defense-proposed response on H.R. 291, a bill to amend Title 10, United States Code, Missing Service Personnel Act of 1993. We have reviewed the draft response and concur. Concurrence: Jeremy Rosher RECOMMENDATION That you sign the memo to Ronald Peterson at Tab I. Attachments Tab I Memo to Ronald Peterson Tab II Incoming Correspondence 4800 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON. D.C. 20506 MEMORANDUM FOR RONALD K. PETERSON FROM: WILLIAM H. ITOH SUBJECT: Defense-Proposed Report on H.R. 291, Missing Service Personnel Act of 1993 The National Security Council Staff has reviewed and concurs in the DOD-proposed response. 4800 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Washington, D.C. 20503 SPECIAL June 24, 1993 LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM LRM #I-731 TO: Legislative Liaison Officer - JUSTICE - Faith Burton - (202) 514-2141 - 217 NSC - William H. Itoh - (202)395-3723 - 249 FROM: TRANSPORTATION - Tom Herlihy - (202) Ronald 366-4687 - 226 RONALD K. PETERSON (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference OMB CONTACT: MIKE GOAD (395-7301) Secretary's line (for simple responses) : 395-6194 SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: HR 291, Missing Service Personnel Act of 1993 DEADLINE: MONDAY, July 12, 1993 OMB requests the views of your agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship to the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular A-19. Please advise us if this item will affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. CC: T. Stanners K. MacIntyre LRM #I-731 RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM If your response to this request for views is simple (e.g., concur/no comment) we prefer that you respond by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is simple and you prefer to call, please call the branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a message with a secretary. You may also respond by (1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail if the analyst does not answer) i (2) sending us a memo or letter; or (3) if you are an OASIS user in the Executive Office of the President, sending an E-mail message. Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below. TO: MIKE GOAD Office of Management and Budget Fax Number: (202) 395-5691 Analyst/Attorney's Direct Number: (202) 395-7301 Branch-Wide Line (to reach secretary): (202) 395-6194 FROM: (Date) (Name) (Agency) (Telephone) SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: HR 291, Missing Service Personnel Act of 1993 The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject: Concur No objection No comment See proposed edits on pages Other: FAX RETURN of pages, attached to this response sheet DRAFT FOR The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums Chairman, Committee on Armed Services United States House of Representatives OMB A-19 Washington, D.C. 20515-0001 Dear Mr. Chairman: REVIEW This is in response to your request for Department of Defense views on H.R. 291, 103rd Congress, a bill "To amend title 10, United States Code, to establish procedures for determining whether members of the Armed Forces in a missing status or certain civilian officers and employees are deceased, to require certain information to be kept in the personnel files of such persons, and for other purposes." H.R. 291 attempts to ensure that missing members of the Armed Forces or civilian officers or employees accompanying an armed force in the field are fully accounted for by the Federal Government and not declared dead solely because of the passage of time. The bill would enact into law some current military regulations regarding the status of missing persons and establish an extensive hierarchy of inquiries and review board procedures regarding missing persons, to include review in the Federal Circuit Courts. The bill would also require the Secretary concerned to convene a board of inquiry in any case involving a presumptive finding of death made before the enactment of this bill upon the written request of any member of the immediate family of the person concerned. The Department of Defense strongly objects to this legislation. H.R. 291 appears to be grounded on the erroneous impression that missing personnel can virtually always be fully and accurately accounted for. Such is not the case, especially in incidents involving combat operations and losses at sea. Several of the proposed requirements are impractical and others are unnecessarily redundant in that they provide rights which have been accorded by Service regulations since 1974 (McDonald V. McLucas, 371 F. Supp. 831 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)). Moreover, in some instances the bill actually provides less due process than that already provided by regulation. The procedures required under Section 3 of this bill fail to fully appreciate the value of the temporary casualty status "Duty Status-Whereabouts Unknown" (DUSTWUN) that each Service has implemented for use during both hostile and non-hostile operations and that worked exceedingly well during Operation DESERT STORM. The commander places a member of the organization who appears to be absent for reasons other than their own free will (i.e. not absent without leave) in the DUSTWUN status for up to 10 days while conducting an investigation to determine the member's true status of missing in action, captured or deceased. The bill's requirement that the general court-martial convening authority appoint a Board of Initial Inquiry within 45 days in an overseas theater, at sea, or in a combat zone where the family has no access and where the commander often will be unable to investigate the geographic area of loss because it is not in U.S.-controlled territory is of questionable value. The time and place to review the adequacy of the search and rescue effort, to analyze the intelligence collected, and to conduct forensic examinations of remains recovered clearly is not during the conduct of combat operations, and not on the battlefield. The restriction on identification of recovered remains to "licensed practitioners of forensic medicine" is not realistic. The expertise of many disciplines other than medicine is appropriate and necessary. We strenuously object to imposing such a requirement on commanders especially during combat operations when losses may be great and occur rapidly. In mass casualty situations it could simply become impossible to meet the administrative burdens imposed by this bill. Requiring a Board of Inquiry approximately 45 days into the missing status which could find the missing member to be deceased without the recovery of remains or other conclusive evidence of death, actually affords the missing person less protection than currently provided by the Missing Persons Act, title 37, USC. For example under title 37, once reported missing, the missing member would remain in this status for at least 1 year unless conclusive evidence of death is received by the Service. One year is a reasonable amount of time to elapse before the Service can "presume" a service member and certain civilian employees to be deceased. If a member's actual casualty status cannot be determined within the initial 10-day period, it is unlikely that this will occur within 45 days, unless conclusive evidence of death is received. For example during the Southeast Asia conflict, many aircrew members were carried in a missing in action status for more than 2 years before it could even be confirmed that they were captured (POW). Conducting the initial board within 45 days would often negate the effective participation of family members who, in our experience in such matters, often take a personal and active role in status reviews. In addition to the Board of Initial Inquiry within 45 days, the bill would require a Board of Further Inquiry at 12 months, a reconvened Board of Further Inquiry 3 years later, and, apparently, at 3-year intervals thereafter until such time as there is either sufficient evidence to support a determination of death or 50 years have passed. The bill specifically precludes a death determination made solely on the passage of a period of time less than 50 years. This bill presents the clear probability that a great many cases could be kept open for 50 years with review boards every 3 years even when there is no new evidence to consider. This is a patently unrealistic requirement which would impose an economic drain (active duty pay and benefits would continue to accrue to the missing person's account) and be an impossible administrative burden. Under the Missing Persons Act and current Service regulations, the Secretary of the military department concerned is required to conduct a status review at the end of 12 months in a missing status. If, as a result of that status review, the member is continued in a missing status, later reviews are made "when warranted by information received or other circumstances" (37 USC 555 (a) ) This procedure has proven to be eminently reasonable, provides for participation by family members, is fully compliant with federal court decisions, and permits both the government and family members the opportunity to bring matters to an effective closure. In our experience most families want closure within a reasonable time and expect a fair settlement of financial matters. This bill raises the specter that some parties might choose to deliberately oppose case resolution solely for pecuniary reasons. In addition to the objections already stated, the process would be vastly complicated by the proposed availability of direct review by the federal Courts of Appeal. Individuals already have access to United States District Courts. Therefore, reviews by the Courts of Appeal seem unreasonable unless the plaintiff has proved the U.S. Government acted prematurely or capriciously in the decision, or the next of kin were not afforded rights in accordance with McDonald V. McLucas. In the case of Hopper V. Carter, 572 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1978), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded: "There is nothing that the government of a grateful people can ever do to fully compensate or comfort the next of kin of those who have given 'the last full measure of devotion, and for whom there is no hope of return. But it is beyond dispute that the government now provides every opportunity for the discovery and consideration of any evidence militating against a determination of death. The conclusion is inescapable that the measures taken by the government suffice to defeat any claim that the constitutional rights of the plaintiff are being or may be violated." Current Service regulations require that whenever a missing in action (MIA) status determination is made, it cannot be changed to killed in action (KIA) without advising next of kin (those in receipt of governmental financial benefits which could be terminated by the member's status being changed to deceased) of certain rights. This includes the date a status review is to be held and of their opportunity to attend the review hearings with private counsel if they choose. Status review boards are not adversary meetings nor are they similar to court-martial proceedings. Hence, the need for counsel or an attorney ad litem to represent the missing member at status review boards is not recognized, and further, could conflict with next of kin desires to secure their own counsel. The next of kin are also provided reasonable access to information on which the review is based and given an opportunity to present information they consider relevant. Military regulations do not provide or imply that missing persons should be declared dead based solely on the passage of time. The facts and circumstances surrounding the member's loss and any subsequent information received are the basis for continuation in a missing status or for changing the member's status to deceased. Our regulations follow the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in McDonald V. McLucas. H.R. 291 would dilute the current rights afforded the primary next of kin in what appears to be an attempt to provide additional rights to other relatives. These rights are provided to next of kin who are receiving financial benefits, most often spouse, children or dependent parents. The proposed bill extends rights to all members of the immediate family defined as spouse, child, parent and siblings. It is important that a clear order of priority be established and maintained among next of kin to avoid competing claims. Spouses, parents, children, and siblings do not always agree. It would be neither wise nor equitable to grant to brothers or sisters rights equal to those of a spouse or child. In addition to the basic rights set out above, Service regulations include procedures tailored to the combat circumstances of the different military departments. In the Air Force, for example, the members of the status review boards for personnel missing from the Southeast Asia conflict were required to be colonels and rated (flying) officers who served a combat tour in Southeast Asia. The bill inappropriately mandates specific board membership requirements, which in some cases would be very difficult to meet within the time limits imposed. In the case of missing civilians, the best that could be done would be a board member familiar with the occupational specialty of the missing person. In small, critical occupational specialty groups, the effect of board participation would be to compound the initial loss. This would be unacceptable during combat actions. The Services should retain discretion to tailor board membership. H.R. 291 is intended to have retroactive effect. It requires that, upon request of any member of the immediate family, a Board of Further Inquiry be convened to review any case concluded before enactment of this legislation. Because the only limitation on this provision is the requirement for submission of a request by a member of the immediate family, the bill provides a statutory right to board procedures for potentially thousands of cases, dating back at least to World War II. Such an undertaking could be enormously expensive, totally disruptive to current accounting efforts, and, considering the passage of time, provide no reasonable prospect that the evidentiary and procedural standards of this bill could be met. This review would be available notwithstanding the absence of any evidence that the original determination was incorrect. This provision is not needed. In any case where there is evidence that the original status determination was erroneous or unjust, the Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records already exist and have jurisdiction to act (10 USC 1552). Should this provision for retroactive review be enacted, it would be imperative to amend it to ensure that the missing person does not accrue pay and allowances during the review process. Finally, the drafting of many provisions in the bill leaves uncertainty as to their purpose or scope. For example, section 2 refers to accounting for individuals "serving with or accompanying an Armed Force in the field under orders." The term "in the field" could be applied to a National Guard unit training in the United States as well as to a regular unit on active duty participating in an armed conflict abroad. Further, the term "accounted for" should not be used interchangeably with the legal status of "missing in action" or "prisoner of war." Status confers legal and financial benefits; "accounting" generally refers to the U.S. Government's commitment to achieving the fullest possible accounting of persons believed to have been killed, to include recovery of remains whenever possible and obtaining for the family members all information available concerning an individual's loss. As other examples of unartful drafting, we note that there are no conforming amendments to title 5, subchapter VII, Payments to Missing Employees, and that section 3 makes the personnel file of a missing person available to any member of that person's immediate family. This is in clear conflict with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a (b) (1982). It is not clear whether preemption of the Privacy Act was intended in this instance, but that would be the effect. We would strongly oppose that result. The military Services do compile a complete casualty file on all missing persons. For the Southeast Asia missing and unaccounted for, the casualty file contains all available information on their disappearance and is made available to primary next of kin. Where material cannot be fully declassified, a sanitized copy of the material is furnished. By special arrangement, the primary next of kin may be permitted to view, but not copy or possess, classified materials as well. A further matter of critical concern, both from the perspective of operational security during continuing hostilities and the privacy interests of missing members and their families, is the mandate for open hearings. One of the most difficult aspects of casualty handling is guarding the privacy of the missing person and their family to avoid exploitation by the enemy, insensitive media, and unscrupulous entrepreneurs. Open board hearings, particularly during conflict, are inadvisable at best and extremely hazardous at worst. It is essential that personal and operational information not fall into enemy hands as it can be used against the missing person if captured. This occurred recently in the Persian Gulf War when spouses began talking to the media about their husbands only to learn later that they were POWs. There are also situations not involving continuing conflict when divulging information could be detrimental to the family whose privacy is lost or disregarded. Public hearings, as a matter of course, are not in the best interest of either the missing member or the family. The Department of Defense is not opposed to conducting a review of our regulations and giving full consideration to amending inadequate or what some think to be unfair procedures. However, in our judgment, the proposed legislation is unrealistic and unworkable. Its passage would create far more difficulties than it would resolve. It would be a serious detriment to handling the cases of missing persons in a manner carefully designed to serve the public interest while fully and fairly protecting the interests of the individual involved and the next of kin. The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely, UNCLASSIFIED RECORD ID: 9304890 NSC/RMO PROFILE RECEIVED: 30 JUN 93 20 TO: ITOH FROM: SHERFIELD, M DOC DATE: 30 JUN 93 SOURCE REF: KEYWORDS: DEFENSE POLICY PERSONS: DUETCH, J SUBJECT: DUAL ABSENCE OF SEC & DEP SECDEF ON 3 - - 9 JUL ACTION: FOR RECORD PURPOSES DUE DATE: 03 JUL 93 STATUS: C STAFF OFFICER: NONE LOGREF: FILES: WH NSCP: CODES: DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION FOR ACTION FOR CONCURRENCE FOR INFO BELL GOTTEMOELLER HAHN JONES COMMENTS: DISPATCHED BY DATE BY HAND W/ATTCH OPENED BY: NSWEA CLOSED BY: NSWEA DOC 1 OF 1 UNCLASSIFIED 4890 DEPARTMENT ENT OF DETINSE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON. DC 20301-1000 LIVE STATES OF 111 AMIRICA 30 JUN 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Dual Absence of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense The Secretary of Defense will be in Wisconsin 3-9 July 1993. The Deputy Secretary of Defense will depart Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, 7 July at 1000 for Homestead AFB, Florida and will return to Washington at 1915 on the same day. Accordingly, during the following period of time, the official indicated will be the Acting Secretary of Defense: Date/Times Acting Secretary of Defense 1000-1915, Wednesday, 7 July Honorable John Duetch Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition) Michael B. Sherrield Executive Secretary CC: SecDef DepSecDef SecArmy SecNavy SecAF USD (A) DoD GC Dir, WHMO CJCS NMCC OSD Cables 4704 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 June 30, 1993 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM H. ITOH FROM: ROBERT BELL RGB SUBJECT: Request for Comments on the President's Acceptance of the Ellis Island Congressional Medal of Honor As I mentioned on the phone, I reviewed this issue (Tab A) and communicated by phone to Bill Burton in Mack McLarty's office my view that it would be a mistake for the President to accept this so-called "Medal of Honor." Bill Burton said that this was the unanimous view throughout the White House and that the President would not be accepting the award. That message will be communicated to the sponsors of the medal, and no further action is required. Attachment Tab A Incoming Correspondence NSC Dropony From the Office of the Chief of Staff 4704 Phone: 202/456-6797 Fax: 202/456-1121 Date: June 21, 1993 Response needed by: COS Office Contact: Bill Burton Action FYI Action FYI Rahm Emanuel Howard Paster Mark Gearan XXX John Podesta XXX David Gergen XXX Jack Quinn Jack Gibbons Carol Rasco Marcia Hale XXX Bob Rubin Alexis Herman XXX Eli Segal Nancy Hernreich XXX George Stephanopoulos Tony Lake XXX Christine Varney Bruce Lindsey David Watkins Katie McGinty Maggie Williams Regina Montoya Roy Neel XXX Bernie Nussbaum Leon Panetta Remarks: Mack received the attached material from Hershel Gober at Veterans Affairs recommending strongly gainst the President's acceptance of the so-called "Ellis Island Congressional Medal of Honor." Mack would appreciate any thoughts/information anyone has on this issue -- and certainly should be advised before any steps are taken contrary to Hershel's advice. Response: VIIDGE VOICE May 181N 1993 -TEL 475-3303 11 SOLICITING The Deputy Secretary of METRO Veterans Affairs TROUBLE Washington DC 20420 Bill Fugazy's National Eth nic Coalition of Oralis the Ellis Island medal is birdly the only Fugary non- Mack- attached is more prial out there raising big bucks of ever the only one associated with the medail Fugazy's promotional liters. ture describes two other orga information on why I think hirstant the Confition of American Associations and we Forum Club-as gig- ciganizations also in- the President should not volved with the medals While boils groups have been involved in one form of fundraising or another: accept this medal. years, Trudie records indicate that heisher is registered 23 Chirily Thought NECO current "ith listequired state disclosure Slings the Cosli- 116a has been 30 reglisent its registration was canceled Habl 1990-by. Secretary or State EGal Shaffern If bas also failed to file re irport to honor. quired disclosures with At tothey. General Robert Abracis since 1933. though Voice inquiries sparked an TAKEN FOR A RIDE April 30 letter from Abrams's offer which were followed by partial fillngs the day be. fore this stery. closed. The last-minute filings: however. only covered us to 1989. A Contition official:- Richard Giste contended in & letter Bill Fugazy's Medal of Honor' is Just One of His Shams to the Voice that the organic zation only learned late year about the delinguent By Wavne Barrett every time : resolution authorize Foundation. the logo remains and with the 1990 dinnet. 35 well as filings. though letters ad ing the and has been intro- the Bossy brochere for the current expenses of $24,000 , year for 3 dressed to Once warding of scol' 101. tim (Sv This Sunday 00 Ellis island. Bill duced in Congres. it has died in event still boidly preclaims that public relations consultant. FURATY, preedion of an immi- committee. Steve Mangione. 1 the awards are granted "with the $28.000 for : professional fund. Abrancs 1991 and cel; grant. bankrupt ex-limo tycoon spokesman for Fugaly, :old the senction of the Foundation. AS raiser. 1 $12.000-a-year subjet of 1992: Grace Slso: claimed and perpetual friend of the power. Voice that the mon FUESTY has for back : October 1990. Foun- Fugazyspace (which Fugazy that preparation on the sud- fel and prominent. will prove made claim: of congressional dation president Sieve Briganti claims is , bargain). $14,000 in rush of Costition filings CREC again that Amenica is the section is because the winners' wrote Fugazy 30 unambisuous conference COSTS. and $20.000 for predated. Voice. inquiries. names "have always been read warning: "We do object when "outside help." Shater3 formal notice of land of opportunity. especially of imaginative commercial opportu- into the congressional record." a you make it appear that the NECO has never explicitly cuscellation OR January 3. nity For the fourth time. he will perfunctory and commonplace Foundation sanctions or sponsors claimed that the proceeds from 1990, advised the: Coslition hand out 100 or to Ellis Island process if true (in fact. the Voice the Medals-we do not." indeed. the event 20 :0 the sland's resto- that any further solicitsuos Congressional Medals of Honor to could only SAC 1 full listing of shough the Foundation sent retion. Instead, one onfully word. of funds is 5 violation of the recipients reasing from Chrysler winners in 1992). copies of NECO newspaper ads 10 to promotional matement says Executive Law and subject to Chairman Robert Eston to New Ellion Williams. a Vietnam vel. the group with the sanction claim only that ticket and journal ad the penalties provided the crossed out in July 1991. 2 Daily purchases "benefit NECO. which 1647 but the organization York First Deputy Mayor Nor. eran from North Carolina who men Steinel. and people will pay heads the national association of New ad last month still contained is proud to have raised over $1 Gwent fight hosting its on- on :0 $15,000 a table to join 2 mail winners of the Congressional the same censored language. million for the Statue of Liber- dinne? dance at the Wa!- ceremonial dinner hosted by Fu. WElls Island Foundation." The Asioria While IRS of Medal of Honor blassed Fugary's If those who have supported the they that is supposed :0 be : cele- imitation medal in : Voice inter- event over the years. buying hun. reference. often cited in NECO cials indicate: that the beation of the chnic diversity of view. saving it :: "insulting to the dreds of thousands of dollars of literature, is to 2 compaign that organization appears to have. American products. legitimate recipients" who "risked was completely separate from the made the submissions. it re- dinner sickets. thought the pro- medals ceremony-namely when quiresch failure to Ale with Until 3 (ew days 11.0. President their lives" in cembai. Teld that a ceeds were going to the restors. Choice himself was expected to lion of the island. they were sodis the two appropriate state Fugazy-publishe: magazine called come. which would have made The Form: has routinely referred misusken. Pat Zitko. the spokes- stocies means that there him the third titung president person for the Foundation (which no "Immediately available to the Fuggey award as 3 "con- (and sixth overall, sping back to gressional medal." Williams raises funds for and oversees the public record of the organics- Nuon) 10 receive it.c bronze med- vowed that his society which h: restoration of the island). says tion's Surances and expend:- al displaying the Statue of Liberty that not one cent of the fund; tures (which. amount to ap- says inc udes the 204 living recipi- and the Ellis Island Museum. raised at the swards events "has proximilely $270.000 a ents of the medal actually sward. ed by ate president. will "take the ever gone" to Ellis. adding that year): Though required by What few. if any. of the 340 recip- ients in 1986. 1990. and 1992. or appropriate steps 10 end this dis- the Foundation "has nothing :0 law to make their annual fi. those who agreed :0 accept the respect." Last week. Williams do with the event" and "no idea nancial returns available for medal this year. understand is wrote Clinton blasting Fugary's what happens 10 the money." any citizen to inspect Fu- that the sward. the the man who "purported medals" as a "Cis- In fact. NECO-which is noth- EATY'S office declined to allow invented them. is 1 sham. grace." charging that they were ing more than a loose amaliam of the Voice 10 examine the Co- while Fugazy. the tireless 68- being given eu: "10 enhance the dozens of other organizations and alition's (or those of any oth- year-old self-promer. has alter- success of a dinner." operates out of Furazy's Madison er Fugezy entity) A lawyer maled over the years in his own Similarly, though the Fugary Avenue office-used most of the for the. organizations. Vin- ceat Delorio. Instead wrote 1 description of the awards. some- organization list sponsors the $288,000 it grossed on the De. times calling them "congressional ceremony and dinner. the Nation- cember 1990 dinner, as well as the threatening letter to the Voice medals" and sometimes just plain al Ethnic Costition of Organics. nearly $50,000 in additional con- that simply asseried that the medals. he has consistently tions (NECO). has been repeated. tributions raised in 1991. 10 cover organization is "duly: sutho- its own administrative costs. Mired conduct business in VOICE claimed that they have been 11 instructed in writing by :he "sanciioned by Congress." in fact. Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island While NECO has yet to file a the State of New York and statement with state sgencies for in good standing Foundation that if 18 not to use Despite the state's bar CD 12 it, like many other citizen groups: stoup allowed to use sold the right, at $100 a pop. for land for a daytime function when any family to buy space and have it hosted the medals there in April METRO its name inscribed on the island's 1992 Asked why she approved Immigrant Wall of Honor. While the unique NECO use. Belkov inc Foundation has raised almost said: "I was ordered 10 by then 542 million selling these wall interior secretary Manuel Lu- placements. mostly to Ellis visi- jan"-another medal winner. tors. NECO raised $757,000 over a six-year period ending in 1992. in addition to Fugary's miz Wall sales is 311, Zitko says. that leading claims about the medais. NECO has contributed to the is the awards have also been plagued land. Though the organization has by. nairow commercialism. Fu. acted as just a solicitor and 2218- any did not resurrect the medals through for wall donors. an appre- until bit by what appeared to be cistive Zitko is quick to note that insurmountable personal and h. it has sold more placements than nancial problems in 1989 and any other group. 1990 (prior to that. the problem: Fugazy created the awards in in his checkered career had mere- 1936. while serving as the chair of ly seemed enormous). Since then. the New York State Statue of Lib- and to 1 degree even as far back as crty Centennial Commission. 1 1936. be has not hesitated 10 a. post he was appointed to by his ploit the medals for his own pur- longtime friend Mario Cuomo. poses, including awarding them to The original awards. which did in- at least 25 honorees with apparent volve the Foundation more direct. business ties to the various Fu- iy. were announced in response 10 gary firms (Fugazy's defense to an outcry from FUZUZY and others Fugazy with 1992 medel winners Norman Schwarzkoof and George Steinbrenner this charge is simply that he is over the lack of ethnic diversity not committee of one" and smong the 12 recipients of Liber- selver. Biagsi, who then was just. founder and current chair emeri- other Foundation officials have that NECO names the recipients). 17 Medals awarded by President months away from his first of :wo lus who bas been a close friend of received medals. and though May NECO's penchant for selecting Reagan during the July 4 festivi- widely anticipated and publicized Fugary's for more than 30 years. has been present at medal activi- from supposedly hundreds. of ties. Senator Al D'Amato and federal indictments, did not. Fu- Their relationship was apparently ties in the '90s, the Foundation nominees, business leaders con. congresman Mario Biassi. both gazy remained so close 10 the 1wo- a key to Fugary's ability to get insisted in letters 10 FUGAZY that nected to Fugary interests has of whom have long been closely time convicted feloa that he led 1 Lecours's successor at the Founds. these cigas of "personal involve- chespened the modals though it associated with Fugazy, sponsored rally in Binggi's support in 1988. tion, William May, to play an X. ment" do not "imply the Founds. has passed unnoticed in the press resolutions endorsing the medals hosted 1 welcome-home party for tive role in the 1986 awards tion's sponsorship or senction." The awards were revived six that year. but Senate records indi- him when he got out of jaii in event. Fugazy insists. through 1 Though the Foundation did months after & jury in 3 federal care that the concurrent resolution 1991, and included the ex-son- spokerman. that May is still 1 grant secess to island facilities for civil racketeering lawsuit found died in the Judiciary Committee. gressinan on the dais of the annu- member of NECO's executive the first :wo sward ceremonies, it Fugary guilty of four separate ICES D'Amato. whose 1936 cam- 1] dinner dance of another of his committee, and that the Founds. has not done so since 1990 for of fraud-wire. mail, bankrupicy. paign periodically paid Fugazy "charitable" organizations. the tion. despite its paper trail of ob- technical reasons. Instead. the Na- and securities. The jury awarded 2 Express for Time service, had pre- Costition of Itala-American Attach fections. is "Ceeply involved" in tional Park Service director on the 346 million judgment against Fu- viously been accused by United cistions. in 1992. Biszzi was just the awards activities (the Founds. island, Anne Belkov. save Fugary pary to billionsire John Kluge, Nations officials of personally in- one of several felons listed at that tios did contribute $70,000 10 a permit in 1992 and 1993. While who contended in the lawruit that tervening in the award of 1 lucrs. event-including Andy Capasso NECO in 1990-91). But Zitko the 1993 permit for an evening his longtime friend had deceived live UN travel contract to try to and former city transportation says that having "no problem". event is DOW standard NPS prac- him into buying Fugary Express steer it. to Fugazy. While D'A- commissioner Tony Ameruso. with the awards is a far cty from tice (NECO will pay $6000 for the with false financials and 1 has: of mato. Cuome. and the governor's Fuggry's firs: link 10 the Foun- sanctioning them. Though 1:. use like any other troup). Belkov misleading claims By July 1990. wile ultimately got medals them- dation was Lee lacocca. its cocca, May. Briganti. and two acknowiedges that NECO was the the Huge verdict had sent Fu- prior bistory of 122 legal action Kaufinas conceded ricure and entities. most of them Costactle Productions: Marshall S. reportedly Ungaid judgement? Jon Hanson, former sharehold- during the Voice interview that world-knowd celebrities. business Cogan of 2! International stretched for more than a decade er 'm' FURNEY Express' or New the companies may have paid for men. government officials. or reli- Holdings Jersey, and reached a 5:9 million ally- personal Fugary items that could sious notables." Robert L Crandall and Jerry R into personal bankruptcy. Bill Simon, the Reagan Tres- not under any circumstances be That is precisely the son of Jacob of American Airlines. "A suddenly destitute Fugary re. sury secretary who once joined an seed as business-related. including foiks who've won Ellis Island which reportedly psid Fugary a ported in bankruptcy court that ansuccessful Fugazy/Steinbrenner loys Fugary bought for Me grand- medals. And that may also be why fee for securing a Rome route. he actually owns virtually noth- partnership that tried to buy Roo- children. But the companies 17 the one-page promotional resume Bob Hope of Bob Hope Produc- ing. including none of the four sevels Raceway in Long Island: taking the position that the cost of for the senior Fugazy features his tions who 285 featured in Fugary Lew Rudin. the landlord at the homes-s Florida condo. two these personal items is more than work with NECO and :wo other TV commercials: company's east side apartment country estates. and an east side offset by the as amishes on Fu- neaprofit catities. even taking the Dr. Harvey Schiller of the U.S. Manhattan spartment-that had where Fugazy frequently stays: gezy's salary. which. strangely, space to list 14 winners of what it Ohmpic Committee (who denied Jony Burgos. the longtime once appeared to be his A long- enough. Kartman says have been calls the "Congressional Medals 1 Fugary lie in a Voice interview): Cuomo side whose largest lobby- time business associate of George unfairly assessed against FURERY of Honor." Les lacocca. ;. Faul Bergmoser. ing contract was a half-share in Steinbrenner. Fugazy even con- personally. when they should have In any event. Fugary has man- Gerald Greenwald. and Robert the $20,000-a-month retainer a tended that the World Series ring been 3 liability of the businesses. aged to smartly mix the honoress Eaton. current or former Chryster Fugary firm won from GTECH: he wear: is really owned by his State tax warrants against Fugary with business ties to his family officials whose business deals with Zachary Fisher. whose family son John. a Yankee marketing di- personally total a current 54.1 firms inside a larger universe of Fugary date back 10 lacocca's real estate firm was said by Roy rector. With even his meager million. including more than 1 widely recognized, and even 30- arrival: Fugary to have offered his father $100.000-a-year salary partially million in warrants already filed ciaimed. winners like Terry An. E Lawrence Bellante. 1 partner a job after his business collapse. garnished by taxing authorities. when the governor installed him derson, Chicago Cardinal Joseph in the engineering firm or ensures reportedly paid Fugary 21 FURNZY in recent years has subsi- at the head of the centennial com- Bernardin. Cesar Chavez Waiter GSCS&B. which project-managed least one commission. dized his lavish lifestyle through mission. waile the IRS has $ Cronkite. Coretta Scoil King. the Ellis Island restoration for the Even John Kluge. who acquired the expense accounts of Fugary $238,000 claim against him. General Colin Powell. General Foundation. Fegary Express in 1985. won 1 business entities, including several These Fugazy burdnesses. rang- Norman Schwarzkopf. FBI direc- Besides these variously claimed medal before their 1987 falling owned by his children. ing from 2 new limo company to for William Sessions and Eiic clients nine other medal winners out as has NECO publicist How. According to legal papers, Fu. lobbying and consulting firms. Wiesel This has made the award have been described by Fugazy ard Rubenstein. who's helped sary family companies cover the have conceded in the current valuable to the businessmen Fu- sources in legal papers. and other keep Fugary's name in the news cost of 3 cook housekeeper. and Kluge litigation that they depend gazy courts, including these win- documents, 13 having done or 11- for years. or course the city and secretary is one country home. as Largely on the contacts cultivated ners whose companies have been tempted business deals with him: state officials Fugazy firms are well as pay for Fugazy's member- by the senior Fugary. though they identified as clients of- Fugary Donsid Trump. who cosigned a paid 10 influence-from Cuomo ship in three country clubs: the are usually IVD by Fugary's youn- firms by Fugary sources in depo- major loan for FUGALY and paid to Mayor David Dinkins to Stei- New York Athletic Club, the Co- gest son. Rcy. In 1 recent deposi- sitions, legal papers, or disclosure him brokerage commissions on sel-have also been named medal lumbus Club. and the Metropoli- lion Roy justified the exorbitant statements: two real emale transactions (the tan Club. Restaurant tabs at a half winners. John Brophy. the presi- expenses the companies pay for Guy Snowden. chair of ill-fated purchases of Trump Pla- dozen of Manhattan's best are dent of one new and controversial his father by arguing that Bill Fut GTECH. the scandal-scarred lot- " of the Falm Beaches and Fugazy client, Lockheed Informs. also covered by the companies, as gary-"means everything" to the tery management firm that Roy Trump Palace in Manhsuan). tion Management Systems Inc.. are his burgeoning legal fees and family business "with respect to Fugary lobbies for in Albany: Howard Lorber, who bought 10 told the Voice that he retained the his constant transport in a Fugazy its promotions PR. sales. market- Abrabam Gosman. president of apartments in Trump's Palm limo. An attorney for the compa- Fugazy firm to help win a state ing." adding that he "is the person the Mediplex Group Inc., the Beach disaster. where Fugazy re- contract after Bill Fugazy boasted nies. David Kaufman, told the that people most readily identify health care company for which a tained an interest: to him of his close ties to Cuomo Voice that there are legitimate with through his contacts." Con- Fugary firm is also registered to Alexander Haiz. the former sec- business expenses because "Bill and state economic you Vincent tending that the senior Fugary's lobby at the city and state level: retary of state who reportedly Tese, another medal winner. Fugazy spends 24 hours 3 day. "high proble sustains" the family George Steinbrenner. whose formed a partnership called Four With the PR and celebrity seven days a week 365 days 3 businesses' "very existence." Roy payments to a Fugazy family firm Star with Fugary and 1 major in- needs of his business activities in year doing nothing but business- insisted. in the words of his law. were apparently structured to at surance provider. mind perhaps. Fugazy has also that vital Bill Msurice Greenberg of Ameri- medals to media cignic BARRETT cense from the already bankrupt including Cuomo and Tese-aD- Kluge-owned CITISTY CONTINUED FROM PAGE 13 press, to one of Roy companies. outrageous record of state tax der- pent Murdoch, and then Daily a finding that' could've invised eliction." Even the findings of 3 News editor Jim Willse. He's even prosecutorial interest. federal jury have deterred few included prosecutors like Manhat- Giuliani's current law firm. An- from his embrace. A stark symbol tan D.A. Robert Morgenthau and derson. Kill, has represented Fu- of the political culture's indiffer- then U.S. Attorney Andy. M3- gazy for years and is listed as a ence to values and its vulnerabili- loney, though ex-prosecutor Rudy $1.7 million creditor in the bank- ty to charm. Fugazy just seems to Giuliani, whose mayoral cam- ruptcy. But the representation march on. 3 survivor of his own paign in 1989 featured Fugazy in predates Giuliani's arrival and endless and dirty wars. a prominent fundraising capacity. Giuliani was never involved. In declined the award this year. fact the firm, which uses Fugazy SOLICITING TROUBLE Despite numerous suggestive limos and other services. is findings in Fugazy civil cases of headed by Eugene Anderson, CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11 fraud and apparcnt forgery over Morgenthau's brother-in-law. Fu- Coalition fundraising, Mario the years, no prosecutor in town gazy has been active for years in. Cuomo attended the group's Au- has ever taken a serious look at Morgenthau's campaign finance gust. 1990 dinner, where tickets him. Though Giuliani installed committee. went for $250 a person, and re- Fugazy as the master of ceremo- Morgenthau is even listed as 20 ceived its highest honor. the Hall nies and one of the cochairs of his officer of one of Fugazy's non- of Fame award. Other state offi- first political fundraiser in the profits. while a host of other cials have participated in more re- spring of 1989, he refused :0 com- prominent officials, including the cent Coalition affairs. A state tax ment when asked by the Voice if governors of New York and New warrant for S14,849 in unpaid he'd ever become aware when he Jersey and all four U.S. sensions withholding taxes was served on was 3 federal prosecutor of possi- from both states. are aiso name- the Coalition this year. ble criminal allegations involving dropped on the letterhead of these There is some question about his longtime friend In fact. Fu- entities. While some of these offi- whether the Forum Club. which gazy acknowledged in a Manhat- cials :old the Voice that they had sponsors monthly "power tan federal court proceeding as not authorized the use of their lunches" attended by prominent early as 1987 that he had improp- names, others have frequently 3p- business and political leaders. erly transferred 2 vital Federal peared at Fugazy's dinners and "functions 35 a charitable or mem- Communications Commission li- events as speakers and honorees. bership organization. The group's glossy journal. published monthly. Coalition is "committed to con- excevioual member- structing 2 $1 million Inter-Group ships at $500'a year and corporate Relations Crisis Center" at John memberships at $1000. suggesting Dewey High School in Brocklyn. that it functions as a private to be run by an organization clut-which would exempt it called the Council for Unity. But from public reporting require- council officials toid the Voice ments. Yet the same statement that none of the organizations has says the group was "conceived as yet contributed anything to the a means of furthering civic and project. which has barely gotten philanthropic activities." claiming off the ground. specifically that it "raises funds While the Forum's philanthrop- for educational and life-enriching ic activities are uncicar. its com- programs" from the "business mercial usefulness is apparent. comununity." Since the club has When two top state health offi- not filed as a charity-though cials appeared at the February Delorio says its affiliates are power lunch as featured speakers. "very actively engaged in a vari- one was introduced by Mediplex ety of charitable activities"- president Abraham Gosman: a cli- there is no public record of any ent of the Fugazy lobbying firm donations or other financial sup- that is seeking state business. City port it may have provided. transportation commissioner Lou Delono claims, apparently 20CU- Riccio, another recent speaker. rately, that the Forum is regis- was seated at lunch near Lock- tered as exempt with tax authori- beed president John Brophy, 3 ties (the club operates under three Fugazy lobbying client then nego- names, and one of them, Forum tiating a $200 million contract Metropolitan, is registered with with Riccio's agency. In recent the IRS and the state). months. Fugazy has begun hand- The only specific charitable ac- ing out Ellis Island medals to Fo- tivity cited in the Forum newslet- rum speakers who won them in ter is a claim that the club, com- 1992 but did not appear at the bined with NECO and the awards ceremony. -W.B. NEW YORK FOST, TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1993 S O, SPEAKING of Immigrants. If you were an Ellis Island CINDY Medal of Honor Awardee last Sun- day and it was black tie. 85 dc. ADAMS grees but 15 degrees colder on the Island. and It meant a boat ride. leaving by day. back at night. and 11 was rainy, and outdoors. what would you wear? My husband. Joey, sat in a hat, raincoat and scart Cosmetics queen Itvs (Mrs. Ernest) Borg. nine were floor-length slinky black and silver beaded Bob Mackle. One-time vice presiden- tial candidate Geraldine Ferraro wore a short red suit with hor hus. Steinbrenner nearly missed the band's umbrella Gloris Estefan, a boat "but it's OK because he could white cont dross. "I didn't know have welked over." Judith Lieber what to put on.- she told me. Pent. counted 35 ladies carrying her house mag publisher Kathy Kee. bags. Literary agent Mort Junk. ton (Mrs. 30b) Guccione did R low, viewing the exhibit of pitiful strapless pink Sallgown. the skirt brzzuze our encestors came over of which she carried schlepped up with In the old days. said: "Look, in her arms. Marathon racer Fred Ralph Lauren luggrge." Meilus Lebow wore his racer's cap. News. Moore said "Amen" after singing woman Rox Abrams featured a the Star-Spangied Banner. Arch. huge gray straw garden hat. Ed- bishop Ted McCarrick threw in a ward James Olmos' tux was as prayer for weather. cut no dice. beautiful as his moustache. The heavens opened. George Steinbrenner had his bar. John Zaccaro, Geraldine Ferra. ber specially come out to cut his ro's husband. cracked: "Bill Fu. hairs on Sunday. Someone said gazy. the chairman of this. is Ital- lan. If It had been a Jowish affair. they'd have put a tent over the whole thing." Jay Leno. who had accepted the honor. never showed. 3111 Clinton, who also accepted. Rsked that his be postponed. His Special Assis- thrif Linda Moore told 8m F Ugazy the Prez will come in next month to KCLIL Howard Stringer, CRS were who's Weish and who nailed David Letterman. was excited when they hung the medul on his neck. He wore il home. The problem was. the thing bore the name of fellow Awardee, George Kicin, a devel- oper who's Austrian. COPY 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 No. 1120 August Term, 1991 5 (Argued: April 24, 1992 Decided DEC 17 ) 1992 6 Docket No. 91-7049 7 8 METROMEDIA COMPANY, 9 Plaintiff-Appelles, 10 - V. - 11 WILLIAM D. FUGAZY, TRAVELCO, INC., FUGAZY INTERNATIONAL 12 CORPORATION, ROY D. FUGAZY, 13 Defendants, 14 WILLIAM D. FUGAZY, TRAVELCO, INC., FUGAZY INTERNATIONAL 35 CORPORATION, 16 Defendants-Appellants. 17 18 WILLIAM D. FUGAZY, TRAVELCO, INC., FUGAZY INTERNATIONAL 19 CORPORATION, ROY D. FUGAZY, 20 Third Party Plaintiffs, 21 WILLIAM D. FUGAZY, TRAVELCO, INC., FUGAZY INTERNATIONAL 22 CORPORATION, 23 Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, 24 - v. - 25 JOHN W. KLUGE, 26 Third Party Defendant-Appelles. 27 1 KEARSE, Circuit Judge: 2 Defendants-third-party-plaintiff: William D. Fugazy 3 ("william" or "William Fugazy"), Travelco, Inc. ("Travelco"), and 4 Fugazy International Corporation ("International") appeal from so 5 much of a final judgment, entered in the United States District 6 Court for the Southern District of New York following a jury trial 7 of consolidated actions before Robert L. Carter, Judge, as awarded 8 plaintiff Metromedia Company ("Metromedia") a total of 9 $46,661,792.67 in damages. The award included $15,553,930.89 or 10 Metromedia's claim against William Fugazy, Travelca, and 11 International for breach of varranty, the same amount against 12 William on a claim under 5 12(2) of the Securities Act of 193: 13 ("1933 Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 771(2) (1988), and $46,661,792.67 is 14 treble damages against William for violation of the Racketee: 15 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C 16 5 1961 et seq. (1988). On appeal, appellants contend that th. 17 district court improperly deprived them of a jury trial on th 18 breach-of-warranty claim: William contends that Metromedia's othe 19 claims should have been dismissed as a matter of law and that tb 20 trial court erred in its instructions to the jury with respect t 21 the fraud and RICO claims. For the reasons below, we rejec 22 appellants' contentions and affirs the judgment of the distric 23 court. - 3 - 1 expressing an interest in purchasing Express, a radio-dispatche 2 car business. After signing such a letter, Subotnick and hi 3 staff began to explore the financial viability of Express, an 4 conducted, inter alia, an audit, a market analysis, and a "du 5 diligence" investigation. 6 Subotnick returned to Kluge with a report that, thoug 7 "optimistic" about Express, advised against the acquisition 8 because Subotnick believed "this was not the kind of business We 9 should be in." Kluge responded by having Subotnick inform William 10 that Metromedia would not purchase Express. William urged Kluge 11 to reconsider, however, and after additional analysis Subotnic) 12 and his staff concluded that Express was a potentially sound 13 acquisition that could be made profitable with expanded operations 14 and improved management. 15 As a result, on March 21, 1985, Metromedia and appellants 16 entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement ("Agreement") pursuant to 17 which Metromedia acquired newly issued common stock representing 18 an 80% interest in Express. In exchange, Metromedia agreed 19 principally to (1) pay $2,000,000 cash to Express or others on 20 Express's behalf, (2) make a $4,000,000 subordinated loan to 21 Express, (3) guarantee up to $3,000,000 in promotional advances 22 from an automobile company to Express, and (4) cure any default on 23 a loan previously made by Citibank, N.A., to William ("Citibank 24 loan") in the original principal amount of $3,500,000. As 25 discussed in greater detail below, the Agreement contained a 26 section entitled "Representations and Warranties of Express and - 5 - 1 appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Nos. 92-5005, -5007 (2d 2 Cir. Dec. 17, 1992). 3 B. The Present Actions 4 In April 1987, Metromedia commenced the first of the 5 present actions, asserting claims against William, International, 6 Travelco, and Roy Fugazy for misrepresentations and nondisclosure 7 of material facts in connection with the issuance of the Express 8 stock, in violation of, inter alia, § 12 (2) of the 1933. Act, 9 5 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act"), 15 10 U.S.C. 5 78j (1988), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 11 C.F.R. $ 240.10b-5, along with claims of common-law fraud, 12 negligent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty. It sought, 13 inter alia, $35,000,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000,000 14 in punitive damages. Defendants asserted various counterclai 15 against Metromedia and brought third-party claims against Kluge, 16 contending, inter alia, that he had entered into written 17 agreements entitling them to contribution or indemnification for 18 any judgment Metromedia might recover against them. 19 In 1989, Metromedia commenced a second action against 20 William and Roy, alleging that they had engaged in, and conspired 21 to engage in, a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 22 RICO, 18 U.S.C. 5 1962(b)-(d). The complaint alleged that th 23 predicate RICO crimes vere bankruptcy fraud, in violation of 1 24 U.S.C. $ 152 (1988) : mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1341 25 (1988) ; wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 5 1343 (1988) ; and - 7 - 1 with ... Express in order to make Express's statement look 2 better." 3 William and Roy admitted in the Pretrial Order that at the 4 time William transferred the Express License to Roy, both had 5 actual knowledge that Express was in bankruptcy. They admitted 6 that the transfer was not authorized by the bankruptcy court. 7 At trial, in support of its securities fraud and RICO 8 claims, Metromedia presented evidence that, inter alia, in January 9 1985, it had received by mail from Express financial statements 10 for Express and one of its subsidiaries. Subotnick testified that 11 these financial statements contained material misrepresentations 12 on which Metromedia relied in deciding to purchase Express. In 13 particular, a "Consolidating Income Statement for the 9 Months 14 Ended Nov [sic] 30, 1984" showed Fugazy Express with a nine-sonth 15 net loss of $2,683,256. While Metromedia's analysts speculated 16 that the loss might perhaps be as high as $4,700,000, they did not 17 anticipate that Express's eventual audited financials would in 18 fact reveal a net loss of $9,912,802 for the fiscal year. 19 Similarly, though appellants gave Metromedia an unaudited 20 consolidated balance sheet as of November 30, 1984, which showed 21 Express as having a net worth of $2,869,890, the audited balance 22 sheet as of February 28, 1985, received by Metromedia months after 23 the purchase was consummated, revealed a net worth of minus 24 $5,530,468. 25 Prior to the purchase, Subotnick wondered whether Express 26 might have liabilities or obligations that had not been disclosed. - 9 - 1 there was no dispute that there were express warranties in the 2 Agreement and that those warranties had been breached, and 3 reading New York law as not requiring any other proof of reliance 4 in such circumstances, the court granted Metromedia's motion for 2 5 directed verdict as to appellants' liability on the breach-of- 6 warranty claim. 7 In addition, the district court ruled that the Bankruptcy 8 Court Decision collaterally estopped William from denying that he 9 had engaged in bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 152. 10 That section makes it unlawful for any person "either individually 11 or as an agent or officer of any person or corporation, with 12 intent to defeat the provisions of title 11, [to] knowingly and 13 fraudulently transfer(] the property of such other person or 14 corporation.' The bankruptcy court had found that William's 15 conduct constituted a "clear violation" of 5 549 (a) (2) (B) of the 16 bankruptcy code, 11 U.S.C. § 549 (a) (2) (B) (1988), Bankruptcy Court 17 Decision at 22, and that it was "serious misconduct" by William 18 "in a less than arms-length transaction" in "connivance" with Roy, 19 id. at 25-26. Accordingly, the district court decided that it 20 would instruct the jury that, in considering Metromedia's RICO 21 claim, the jury must find that William had engaged in bankruptcy 22 fraud, but that whether or not that fraud constituted part of the 23 alleged pattern of racksteering activity would remain a question 24 for the jury to decide. 25 As for the counterclaims asserted by defendants, all but 26 one asserted by William were withdrawn after the close of the - 11 - 1 should have been dismissed for lack of causation because there was 2 no evidence of reliance by Metromedia itself; and (4) that the 3 allegation of bankruptcy fraud should have been dismissed because 4 Express's License was not an asset of the bankruptcy estate when 5 William transferred it to Roy. In support of their motion for a 6 new trial, appellants argued, inter alia, that the question of 7 whether the warranties that were breached had been "bargained for" 8 should have been submitted to the jury; that the court's 9 instructions to the jury with respect to the RICO claims were 10 erroneous; and that Metromedia had waived any right to assert 11 collateral estoppel with respect to its allegation of bankruptcy 12 fraud, because collateral estoppel had not been pleaded. 13 In an Opinion dated December 5, 1990, and published at 753 14 F. Supp. 93, the district court denied both motions. Reviewing 15 the trial evidence in the light most favorable to Metromedia as 16 the nonmoving party on the motion for judgment n.c.v., the court 17 rejected all of defendants' challenges to the sufficiency of the 18 evidence. It also rejected most of the legal premises of their 19. motions for dismissal and their challenges to the instructions. 20 Reviewing the evidence under a more relaxed standard on the new 21 trial motion, the court stated that it would not order a new trial 22 unless it were persuaded that prejudicial error had crept into the 23 record or that a substantial injustice had been done, and it 24 concluded that it was not so persuaded. The court noted that 25 though appellants were perhaps correct in their contention that 26 willfulness was a prerequisite for use of a $ 12 (2) claim as a - 13 - 1 that the court (1) should have granted his motion for judgmen 2 n.o.v. dismissing the 5 12 (2) claim: (2) erred in ruling that h 3 was collaterally estopped from contending that he had no 4 committed bankruptcy fraud, instead of ruling that Metromedia wa: 5 collaterally estopped from contending that he had committed suc! 6 fraud; and (3) erred in its instructions to the jury as to RICO': 7 pattern requirement and the elements of the various RICO predicate 8 acts. For the reasons below, we find no basis for reversal. 9 A. The Breach-of-Warranty Claim 10 In the Pretrial Order, appellants admitted (a) that in the 11 "Representations and Warranties of Express and the Stockholders" 12 section of the Agreement, they had warranted that Express had no 13 pending or threatened litigation or outstanding contracts that 14 were not there disclosed; and (b) that in fact there were six such 15 litigations, four confessions of judgment, and a number of 16 contractual obligations that were not there disclosed. 17 Nonetheless, they contend that the district court erred in 18 directing a verdict against them as to liability on Metromedia's 19 breach-of-warranty claim, on the premise that there was a triable 20 issue of fact as to whether the express warranties given by them 21 in the Agreement were "bargained for." We reject their 22 contention. 23 The trial court may direct a verdict where the evidence, 24 viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, "is 25 such that, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses or - 15 - 1 as here, the express warranties are bargained-for terms of the 2 seller." Id. at 506 n.5, 554 N.Y.S.2d at 454 n.5. The court 3 stated that an "express warranty is as much a part of the 4 contract as any other term." Id. at 503, 554 N.Y.S.2d at 453. 5 Since as a matter of law, an express warranty is as much a 6 part of the contract as any other term, the inclusion in the 7 Agreement here of the "Representations and Warranties of Express 8 and the Stockholders" established that those representations and 9 warranties were part of the bargain reached between Metromedia 10 and appellants. No rational juror could have found that it was 11 not part of the bargain. Indeed, it is noteworthy that 12 appellants in their proposed jury instructions did not ask to 13 have the jury decide such a question. Rather, they asked the 14 court to inform the jury that Metromedia could prevail on its 15 breach-of-warranty claim if it proved (1) the existence of an 16 express warranty, (2) material breach of the warranty, (3) damages 17 proximately resulting from the material breach, and (4) 18 justifiable reliance- on the warranty. Neither in their initial 19 submission of this request nor in a slightly amended version 20 thereafter did appellants make any mention whatever of a supposed 21 question as to whether the warranties were "bargained for." 22 The first two questions appellants sought to have the jury 23 consider had been answered by appellants' admissions in the 24 Pretrial Order: the fourth was a matter of law under the ruling in 25 CBS Inc. V, Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. Only the matter of damages 26 was left to be decided, and that question was given to the jury. - 17 - 1 15 U.S.C. 5 771(2) In support of their contention that this 2 section does not apply to private sales, William cites only to 3 general statements about the 1933 Act's legislative history and to 4 various cases stating that the legislation was intended to protect 5 the-public. The section has, however, consistently been applied 6 to private as well as public offerings of securities. see, e.g., 7 Hill York Corp. Y, American International Franchises, Inc., 448 8 F.2d 680, 695 (5th Cir. 1971) ("liability under Section 12 (2) 9 would not be affected by a finding that the offering was 10 private") : see Wilson V, Saintine Exploration & Drilling COLD,, 11 872 F.2d 1124 (2d Cir. 1989) (applying $ 12 (2) to private sale); 12 Adalman V. Baker, Watts & Co., 807 F.2d 359 (4th Cir. 1986) 13 (same) ; Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. V. Jones, 482 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th 14 Cir. 1973) (same), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974) : see also L. 15 Loss, Fundamentals of Securities Regulation 1021-22 (1983). 16 With respect to William's contention that he was entitled 17 to judgment n.c.v. on the ground that the evidence was 18 insufficient to establish an offer or sale "by Beans of" a 19 prospectus or oral communication, our standard of review is 20 identical to that with respect to review of the decision on a 21 motion for directed verdict. see, e.g., sir Speedy, Inc. V. L & P 22 Graphics, Inc., 957 F.2d at 1038-39; 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, 23 Federal Practice and Procedure 5 2524, at 541-42 (1971) ("9 Wright 24 & Miller"). Again we view the evidence in the light most 25 favorable to the party against which the motion was made, see, 26 2.9., Auwood Y. Harry Brandt Booking Office. Inc., 850 F.2d 884, - 19 - 1 mails or instruments of interstate transportation or communication 2 have been used in the sale of the securities. See, e.g., 3 Schillner v, H. Vaughan Clarke & CO2, 134 F.2d 875, 877 (2d Cir. 4 1943) : Creswell-Keith. Inc. V, Willingham, 264 F.2d 76, 81 (8th 5 Cir. 1959) ("a sale of securities induced by oral face to face 6 fraudulent representations, which is completed by means of payment 7 of the purchase price by mail, is protected by section 12(2)"); L. 8 Loss, Fundamentals of Securities Regulation 1027-28 (1983). 9 Here, the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational 10 juror to infer that false and misleading oral communications- by 11 William were instrumental in causing Metromedia to purchase the 12 Express stock. Appellants delivered financial statements to 13 Metromedia falsely showing, for example, that Express had a net 14 worth of some $2.9 million when in fact its net worth was minus 15 $5.5 million, and William assured Subotnick in a face-to-face 16 conversation that "[t]here was nothing that [Metromedia] didn't 17 know about." Subotnick testified that William also repeatedly 18 telephoned him and attempted to convince him to consumnate the 19 acquisition, describing various Express prospects that William 20 said would improve its business; that prior to the acquisition 21 Metromedia did not know Express's true financial condition; and 22 that had it known, it would not have proceeded with the 23 acquisition. with Subotnick's testimony fully credited and all 24 reasonable factual inferences drawn in favor of Metromedia, the 25 record permitted the jury to find that in orally touting Express's 26 prospects to Subotnick in an effort to persuade Metromedia to - 21 - 1 contends that in order to use a violation of § 12 (2) as a 2 predicate for a RICO claim, a plaintiff must prove that the 3 violation was willful. He argues that the district court erred in 4 failing to instruct the jury as to the need to find willfulness in 5 considering the RICO claim. Accepting William's legal premise as 6 valid, see Sedima. S.P.R.L. V. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 488 7 (1985) ("'a racketeering activity must be an act in itself 8 subject to criminal sanction' (emphasis added)" (quoting S. Rep. 9 No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 158 (1969)) ; Holmes V, Securities 10 Investor Protection Corp., 112 S. Ct. 1311, 1325 (1992) (O'Connor, 11 J., concurring) (RICO "unmistakably requires" that securities 12 fraud, in order to serve as a predicate act, must have been 13 "sufficiently willful to constitute a criminal violation"); Trane 14 Co. V, O'Connor Securities, 718 F.2d 26, 29 & n.4 (2d Cir. 1983) : 15 § 24 of the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77x (1988) (imposing criminal 16 liability under 5 12(2) only for violations that are "willful"), 17 we nonetheless conclude that in light of the procedural posture of 18 the case and the-evidence in the record, there is no basis for 19 reversal. 20 Several sets of procedural principles are pertinent. 21 First, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (b) generally prohibits judgment n.o.v. 22 on any ground not raised in a motion for a directed verdict. See 23 Abeshouse Y, Ultragraphics. Inc., 754 F.2d 467, 473 (2d Cir. 24 1985) : 5A Moore's Federal Practice I 50.08, at 50-83 to 50-86 (2d 25 ed. 1992) : 9 Wright & Miller 5 2537, at 598. Relief from this 26 requirement is available only to prevent a "manifest injustice." - 23 - 1 Processors, Inc., 715 F.2d 703, 710 n.8 (2d Cir. 1983). A party 2 who only belatedly noticed the failure to submit a needed question 3 to the jury could ask the court to submit that question in a 4 postverdict interrogatory, and the trial judge would have 5 discretion to submit such an interrogatory. see, e.g., Croce V, 6 Kurnit, 737 F.2d 229, 233-34 (2d Cir. 1984). 7 Finally, a motion for a new trial on the ground that the 8 verdict was against the weight of the evidence is committed to the 9 sound discretion of the trial judge. see, e.g., Brady V, Chemical 10 Construction COID,, 740 F.2d 195, 200 (2d Cir. 1984) : Bevevino V. 11 Saydiari, 574 F.2d 676, 684 (2d Cir. 1978). Assuming that the 12 district court's denial of such a motion is reviewable, but see 13 Dunlap-McCuller V, Riese Organization, Nos. 92-7676, etc., slip 14 op. 189, 197 (2d Cir. Nov. 25, 1992) ("district court order 15 granting or denying a motion for a new trial on the grounds that a 16 verdict is against the weight of the evidence is not reviewable in 17 this Circuit"); Kirschner V, Office of the Comptroller, 973 F.2d 18 88, 96 (2d Cir. 1992) (same) ; Roberts v, Consolidated Rail Corp., 19 893 F.2d 21, 26. (2d Cir. 1989) (same), such a denial will not be 20 reversed unless the denial constituted an abuse of discretion, 21 Brady V, Chemical Construction COID., 740 F.2d at 201-02; Bevevino 22 V, Saydiari, 574 F.2d at 684. See generally 11 C. Wright & A. 23 Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure $ 2819, at 120 (1973) 24 (noting trend away from view that such decisions are not 25 reviewable at all). Where the resolution of the issues depended 26 on assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, it is proper - 25 - 1 new trial on the ground that appellants had not raised the 2 question before the jury retired to begin its deliberations. The 3 finding of default is clearly supported by the record. Defendants 4 made no request for an instruction that $ 12 (2) could not serve as 5 a RICO predicate act unless the violation was willful. Their 6 requests to charge included a lengthy proposed instruction with 7 respect to Metromedia's claim directly under that section; that 8 request, properly, did not mention any need for a finding of 9 willfulness. Though defendants also made a number of requests for 10 instructions with respect to the other alleged RICO predicate - 11 acts, they made no mention of $ 12(2) as a RICO predicate or of 12 any additional questions to be considered by the jury in that 13 connection. Further, defendants did not object to the trial 14 court's instructions with respect to use of the § 12 (2) claim as a 15 RICO predicate: and they did not object to the special verdict 16 form, which expressly instructed the jury that if it found in 17 favor of Metromedia on the § 12 (2) claim it was required to find 18 that Metromedia had proven securities fraud as a RICO predicate 19 act. Nor did they request that a postverdict interrogatory be 20 submitted to the jury on the question of villfulness. 21 In this appeal, William argues that the trial court should 22 have excused appellants' failure to raise the issue timely in 23 order to avoid "obvious injustice." Given our interpretation of 24 the tarm "willful" and given the evidence of record, we are not 25 persuaded that a new trial was needed to avoid injustice. - 27 - 1 that, with respect to oral communications in violation of 5 12 (2), 2 willfulness may be established by a showing (1) that the 3 defendant either (a) knowingly made false or materially incomplete 4 misleading statements or (b) made false -or materially incomplete 5 misleading statements with respect to facts to which he had 6 deliberately closed his eyes but which he had a duty to see, and 7 (2) that he knew that his statements significantly increased the 8 possibility of a sale of the securities in question. 9 We conclude that had the jury been so instructed in. the 10 present case, it could easily have found that William's violation 11 of § 12 (2) was willful. As discussed in Part II.B. above, William 12 made oral statements falsely assuring Subotnick that all material 13 facts had been disclosed to Metromedia, and he made other oral 14 statements that were materially misleading because of their 15 implicit adoption of, and failure to disclose the falseness of, 16 the financial documents' representations as to Express's 17 condition. As to willfulness, there was a sufficiently great 18 disparity between, the Express financial statements given to 19 Metromedia prior to the acquisition (assets of some $11.65 million 20 and liabilities of some $8.77 million) and the postacquisition 21 revelation of its true financial condition (assets of 22 approximately $8.59 million and liabilities exceeding $14 23 million) to permit the jury to infer that the preacquisition 24 financials were false and that their inaccuracy vas not 25 attributable merely to negligence. The jury could also infer that 26 William, given his 100% ownership of, and top executive positions - 29 - 1 that at the time of that transfer the License was not property or 2 the bankruptcy estate. He also argues that Metromedia waived the 3 right to assert collateral estoppel by failing either to plead it 4 originally or to ask for leave to file a supplemental pleading 5 asserting it, and that he was unduly prejudiced by Metromedia's 6 presentation of evidence as to an issue on which there was to be 7 an estoppel. We reject all of his contentions. 8 The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, 9 bars a party from relitigating in a second proceeding an issue of 10 fact or law that was litigated and actually decided in a prior 11 proceeding, if that party had a full and fair opportunity to 12 litigate the issue in the prior proceeding and the decision of the 13 issue was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the 14 merits. See, e.g., Gelb V, Royal Globe Insurance Co,, 798 F.2d 15 38, 44 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 948 (1987) : Zdanok 16 v. Glidden Co., Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944, 955 17 (2d cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 (1964) : see generally 18 Parklane Hosiery Co. V. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5 (1979) : 18 C. 19 Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 20 5 4416, at 136-48 (1981) ("18 Wright & Miller"); Restatement 21 (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982). Certain of these conditions 22 warrant elaboration for purposes of the present appeal. 23 First. the -- - 31 - 1 Whether a judgment that is not final within the meaning of 5 1291 2 "ought nevertheless be considered 'final' in the sense of 3 precluding further litigation of the same issue, turns upon such 4 factors as the nature of the decision (1.e., that it was not 5 avowedly tentative), the adequacy of the hearing, and the 6 opportunity for review." Lummus Co. Y. Commonwealth oil Refining 7 Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir. 1961), cart. denied, 368 U.S. 986 8 (1962). The mere fact that the damages awarded to the plaintiff 9 have not been yet calculated, though normally precluding an 10 immediate appeal, see our companion opinion filed today in In re_ 11 Fugazy Express, Inc., Nos. 92-5005, -5007 (2d Cir. Dec. 17, 1992), 12 does not prevent use of a final ruling on liability as collateral 13 estoppel. Zdanok V. Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods 14 Division, 327 F.2d at 955; 18 Wright & Miller § 4434, at 321 15 ("Recent decisions have relaxed traditional views of the finality 16 requirement by applying issue preclusion to determinations 17 of liability that have not yet been completed by an award of 18 damages or other relief."). 19 When two lawsuits have resulted in inconsistent final 20 decisions of the same issue, the general rule is that "it is the 21 later, not the earlier, judgment that is accorded conclusive 22 effect in a third action." Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 23 15 (1982). Although we question whether such a rule would be 24 applicable to inconsistent decisions if the second "judgment" were 25 an administrative agency decision and the first were a court 26 decision, we have no doubt that where the court decision is - 33 - 1 with procedures established in 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a) (1988). The 2 fact that the appeal of that matter from the district court to 3 this Court is being dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction 4 does not mean that the bankruptcy court's decision was not 5 sufficiently final for purposes of collateral estoppel. 6 On the other hand, even if there were no bankruptcy court 7 decision, the language of the FCC Letter itself suggests that it 8 could not be the basis for collateral estoppel in favor of 9 William. That letter, which does not appear to have been issued 10 after court-type proceedings, stated in part as follows: 11 Express, Inc., licensee of record, assigned 12 the license for KXY-610 to R.D.F. Limousine, who then 13 became the licensee of record for our purposes. 14 Information submitted to us, the Consent Order of the 15 Bankruptcy Court in particular, casts doubt upon the 16 validity of this transaction, and would under other 17 circumstances require an administrative inquiry on 18 our part. 19 Affidavits submitted with the pleadings establish 20 that KXY-610 ceased operations in December, 1986. 21 Under Section 90.157 of our Rules, 47 C.F.R. 22 5 90.157, the license for KXY-610 has therefore d 23 cancelled and must be returned to the Commission. 24 The reference to the need, or lack thereof, for "administrative Q 25 inquiry" suggests that the agency itself treated its ruling as an 1 26 administrative decision. Moreover, it is hardly clear that a H 27 decision as to whether the License was bankruptcy estate property e 28 when William transferred it would have been necessary to a 29 regulatory decision as to whether to approve the trustee's sale of 30 the License to Metromedia. Nor is it likely that the regulatory n. 31 principles shaping such a decision would have been the same as the - 35 - 1 The waiver argument borders on the frivolous. The bankruptcy 2 court decision was filed on the day the present case went to 3 trial. Metromedia's counsel made reference to the decision in his 4 opening statement to the jury and asserted during trial that the 5 decision collaterally estopped defendants from contesting that 6 there had been bankruptcy fraud. Appellants had as much notice of 7 the claim of estoppel as could reasonably be required. 8 Nor is there merit in the contention that appellants were 9 unduly prejudiced by Metromedia's presentation of evidence in 10 connection with a matter as to which they were collaterally 11 estopped. Though the question of whether William had committed 12 bankruptcy fraud had been determined, Metromedia was nonetheless 13 required to introduce some evidence with respect to that fraud in 14 order to show that it was part of the alleged pattern of 15 racketeering activity. 16 3. The Mail and Wire Fraud Predicate Acts 17 William argues that the jury's findings with respect to 18 mail and wire fraud as RICO predicate acts should be reversed 19 because (1) the district court failed to instruct the jury 20 properly as to the required "causal nexus" between these predicate 21 acts and Metromedia's injury, and (2) the evidence adduced by 22 Metromedia was insufficient to support a finding of justified 23 reliance. We find no basis for reversal. 24 RICO provides that "[a]ny person injured in his business 25 or property by reason of" a RICO violation may bring a civil - 37 - 1 absence of such an instruction here provides no basis fo: 2 reversal. Subotnick testified that he received some of the fals. 3 financial statements in the mail, that he had numerous telephon 4 conversations with William urging Subotnick to have Metromedi: 5 make the purchase, and that if Subotnick had known the extent t. 6 which the financial figures provided by William and Express wer 7 inaccurate, Metromedia would not have entered into the stoc 8 purchase agreement. Thus, there was plainly sufficient evidenc. 9 for the jury to find causation and reliance. 10 Finally, we reject William's contention that any relianc 11 by Metromedia could not have been justified because it had a tea 12 of attorneys and financial experts studying Express's condition 13 Appellants" nisrepresentations and nondisclosures denie 14 Metromedia's advisors access to accurate information, and tb 15 record does not suggest that they knew the true state of Express' 16 affairs. The suggestion that Metromedia could not justifiabl 17 raly on appellants' representations is meritless. 18 4. RICO's Pattern Requirement 19 William challenges the trial court's instruction as t 20 what Metromedia was required to prove in order to establish 21 "pattern" of racketeering activity within the meaning of RICC 22 The court told the jury, inter alia, that Metromedia vas require 23 to show that William's unlawful acts were neither isolated nc 24 sporadic, that those acts were related to each other, and the 25 they were continuing or constituted a threat of continuir - 39 - 1 bankruptcy fraud found by the bankruptcy court, the jury found 2 that William had committed three other types of predicate acts-- 3 mail fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud. The record supports 4 inferences that the securities and mail fraud began at least as 5 early as January 1985, when appellants mailed to Subotnick 6 financial statements for Express that significantly overstated its 7 net worth and understated the losses incurred in its recent 8 performance. The unlawful activity continued at least until 9 January 1987, when William committed bankruptcy fraud by 10 transferring one of Express's assets to his son. The jury was 11 instructed that in order to find for Metromedia on the RICO claim 12 it must find that the predicate acts were related, and it 13 presumably so found. The related predicate acts that the jury 14 found proven spanned approximately two years, and the 15 instructions' reference to a few weeks or months was therefore 16 harmless. 17 CONCLUSION 18 We have considered all of appellants' arguments on this 19 appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. The amended 20 judgment of the district court is affirmed. - 41 - MEDAL SOCIETY UNITED street 3 CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SOCIETY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CHARTERED BY THE CONGRESS May 25, 1993 Dear Medal Recipient: We were disturbed to learn that you accepted a medal at Ellis Island on May 16, 1993 which has been called the "Ellis Island Congressional Medal of Honor" and "The Medal of Honor". Our Society is offended by the use of these terms. The medal is not sanctioned by Congress. Furthermore, the funds solicited for the ticket sales have never gone to Ellis Island. As deserving as you. may be of recognition, we consider this medal to a sham and crass commercialism intended to sell dinner tickets and to provide publicity for the presenters of the medals. We assume that you were unaware of the enclosed Village Voice article. We would hope that your acceptance of the medal resulted from an innocent lack of information about the medal's background. We would also hope that had you known all the facts about the medal, it would have been rejected by you, as it was by others. The members of our Society feel deeply about the medal that they earned risking their lives for America. It is the only Congressional Medal of Honor, or Medal of Honor, sanctioned by the United States Congress. The dinner and medals ceremony in which you participated demeans the heroism and value of the medal for which the members of our Society and the families of those recipients no longer living feel strongly. We have-also included a copy of the Court of Appeals decision regarding the organizer of this medal ceremony. We look forward to hearing from you concerning this matter. Sincerely, J. Elliott Williams, President Congressional Medal of Honor Society 40 PATRIOTS POINT ROAD, MT. PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA 29464, TELEPHONE (803)884-8862 Sunday Star-Ledger MAY 30, 1993 SUNNY AND PLEASANT Details on Page 2 JUST DOING THEIR JOBS, THEY SAY MEN OF COURAGE, MEN OF HUMILITY Medal of Honor recipients content in their obscurity There's nothing in By DAVID SCHWAB Nicholas Oresko's You've probably never heard of Nicholas Oresko. Born in Bayonne, living room from his war the son of a laborer at the Bayway years. He will take you to Refinery, Oresko worked for the Vet- erans Administration for 32 years be- the dark cellar, where fore retiring in 1978 as a supervisor of the adjudication division. black and white pho- Now 76, his wife having died tographs of Oresko with years ago, he spends much of his time cooking, sewing and maintain- presidents and generals ing his modest Tenafly home almost line one wall. He apolo- as if to pass inspection. You wouldn't know it by his de- gizes when he discovers meanor or conversation, but he is also a recipient of the Medal of his original framed cita- Photo by Jerry McCrea Honor, this nation's highest military tion, signed by President Truman, its glass cracked, decoration for bravery in action. You might think the medal in the middle of a stack of plaques piled on a chair. would make a person famous, that the nation would know and remem- ber its 204 living recipients. But in many instances, we don't. Most civilians wouldn't recog- nize the Medal of Honor, a small, dull bronze star that hangs beneath a field of 13 tiny white stars on a pale blue ribbon worn around the neck- certainly not the way they would spot an Olympic gold medal That's partly because of the na- tion's collective memory lapse the more time passes between wars and partly because of the way recipients view themselves. Oresko and others downplay what they did, insisting they were only doing their duty. They keep their medals in a drawer, taking them out only for occasional func- tions, normally military affairs where it is the equivalent of the Olympic gold. Medal of Honor recipients be long to one of the nation's most se- lective fraternities. They are invited to every presidential inauguration and given VIP seats. Presidents and generals salute those wearing the medal As he presented them with their medals at the White House, President Truman would tell some recipients he would rather have that honor than be president. "It's hard to explain," said Photo by Plan Von Oresko. a short man with silver Hector Cafferata, left, enjoys a chat with old friend Richard Bernard glasses and white hair, when asked at an outing in Oxford. Bernard lost both legs in action in Korea. why recipients appear so modest Cafferata received the Medal of Honor for heroism that saved about the medal Bernard's life. At top, Nicholas Oresko at his Tenafly home, where "You're happy that you have it, THE SUNDAY STAR-LEDGER, May 30, 1993 Courageous men content with their obscurity There's a flagpole in Bayon. Continued from Page One Medal of Honor recipients say that sits in the middle of a block-lo: park bounded on one side by Gre you are so grateful you are alive, and Lane, which runs from 23d Street that actually is good enough," he said. they were just doing their duty 24th Street. The street was named I Oresko still remembers the chill Stephen R. Gregg, the second of t that came over him when he realized An enemy grenade landed in a city's two World War II Medal he was preparing to die as he jumped In March 1968, Bucha, an Army foxhole occupied by wounded Marines Honor recipients. Graffiti cover t: from a foxhole in Germany one frigid captain. directed his company of and Cafferata rushed forward to throw base of the flagpole, as well as t. January day in 1945. An Army master about 90 soldiers to engage what later it free; the grenade exploded, severing stone monument to Sister Miria sergeant, he destroyed two machine turned out to be a force 15 times his part of one finger. Teresa, a candidate for sainthood, f gun bunkers that threatened his pla- own in the thick jungles of Vietnam, He killed 15 and wounded many whom the park is named. toon before collapsing from bullet then organized a withdrawal and de- more, forcing a retreat and saving the vounds. In August 1944, Gregg was fense until his men could be evacuat- lives of several fellow Marines until he Army technical sergeant in Fran But he's not eager to talk about ed. After learning he was to receive the was shot himself and forced to evacu- who in two days personally led medi his, and his official citation sits amid Medal of Honor, his first reaction was ate. Witnesses say he fought in his to rescue seven injured soldiers; W 1 stack of plaques piled on a chair in to turn it down. bare feet, having had no time to pre- briefly captured by German soldie is cellar. He shrugs when he men- Bucha, 49, is a partner in Port pare for the surprise attack. but escaped when they were fire ions how police in New Jersey period- Liberte, the struggling real estate ven- Cafferata, now 63, a resident of upon, and then recaptured a mort cally pull him over, not recognizing ture in Jersey City on the Hudson Alpha who works at the state's trout iis specially issued license plate, be- position, killing or injuring three ar River. who moved there from New hatchery in Pequest, declined to be taking two prisoners. leving it a fake. York several years ago. The son of an interviewed. But he's willing to be Precisely because Medal of Honor Army colonel. he attended West Point Ever since returning to Bayon quoted as saying he's no hero. in 1945, Gregg has worked for th ecipients are known for their refusal and received his master's degree from "It was just a case of doing my Hudson County Sheriff's Office. No 0 seek anything for themselves, a CO- job, like every other Marine, which was 78, he is chief of the uniformed of lition of other veterans organizations Stanford Business School before re to defend each other and keep the cers. He had expected to return S mounting a campaign on their be- porting to duty. He later taught a hill," he said. the Kearny shipyards but was offere alf to increase recipients' special West Point and worked for Ross Pero For some time there had been the job by then Jersey City May nonthly stipends. for many years. talk of honoring Cafferata in Mont- Frank Hague, a legendary Hudsc A bill to increase it from $200 to Bucha knows many Medal 0 ville, where he grew up and where his County political figure. 500, the first raise in 14 years, was Honor recipients and understand skills with a hunting rifle were con- Hague also offered a similar pos introduced in the House of Represent- why they may feel uncomfortable il sidered legendary before he joined the tion to a another Medal of Honor r atives last month. This is needed be- the spotlight. He believes that's be Marines. But he had let it be known he cipient, Army Technical Sgt. Job cause at least 40 recipients are liv- cause the medal recognizes not sim would not approve-until last year Meagher of Jersey City, and the tu ing at or near the poverty level, sup- ply daring on the battlefield but self- that is. worked side by side for some 35 year porters say. Recipients like Oresko lessness, putting the lives of others When construction of a new sub- Meagher retired 13 years ago an will have little or nothing to do with before your own, assuming they would division began in the woods near moved to Toms River. He's now at t} the effort. do the same. Recipients really don't where Cafferata used to hunt, Caffera- Veterans Affairs Medical Center Leading this national campaign think they are special. ta Court, now a cul-de-sac with two Lyons. is Richard Bernard, a deputy commis- "It recognizes common day homes, was born. Sitting in his basement office sioner in the New Jersey Department Americans who lived up to the po- About the same time, the Lance the Hudson County Courthous of Military and Veterans' Affairs. tential that resides in every single Cpl. Robert J. Slattery detachment 01 Gregg fondly recalled the many la As a 19-year-old Marine reserv- kid," Bucha said of the medal. the Marine Corps League of Morris ish, black-tie affairs he has been in ist, Bernard was in Korea in November Each recipient will insist he Plains decided a plaque should be vited to attend. He remembered hat knows others in his unit who were 1950 as the First Marine Division tried erected at town hall. The event grew ing drinks with Eddie Rickenbacke to retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in more worthy. Bucha himself recom- into a major celebration even though being greeted by Cabinet membe: mended a medic from his own unit for the face of an overwhelming attack by organizers held back on publicity for during a lawn party at the Whit Chinese soliders. The Marines even- the Medal of Honor. fear that Cafferata might disapprove House with John Kennedy, and Ge: tually succeeded in breaking out; Ber- This all heips explain an impor- of the larger crowds that would cer- Colin Powell giving a prompt "Ye nard lost both his legs. tant distinction the Congressional tainly attract. sir!" when asked if he would join hir Sliding out of his wheelchair onto Medal of Honor Society draws: sol- Last October, more than 700 peo- so his wife could snap a picture. diers didn't "win" the award-as one a couch in his East Hanover home, ple filled the stadium at the high His voice lowered just a bit whe Bernard, now 62, explained some of might a contest-but were chosen school. There were speeches by locahe's asked if he considers himself what happened. He was shot in the without their knowing to receive it, dignitaries and by Gen. Alfred Grayhero. as one might hold a trust for others. Jr., the retired Marine Corps comman- "We shy away from that word be legs and spine, but had to wait with This selfless attitude is why dant. cause we saw so many who were kille others for five days to be evacuated. Bucha believes the effort to increase A Marine Corps color guard and His life was saved, in part, by the the monthly stipend could be doomed. a detachment in its dress blue uni- Continued on next page 30-degree below zero temperatures This is one constituency that simply forms prepared to pass in review tc that caused the blood to coagulate will not speak out and may not be 110- honor Cafferata. He invited the other around his wounds. And it was saved ticed otherwise, like a decoration kept members of his unit to the front to by other Marines who continued to in a drawer. share in the honor. They stood in line, fight, including another Medal of "Recipients are like well placed their hands over their hearts, as the Honor recipient who lives in New Jer- flagpoles, of interest to people on cer- young Marines marched by. sey, his friend, Hector A. Cafferata Jr. tain days. But the vast majority of One of those who understands According to the official military the time they are not aware of their the psychology of the Medal of Honor citation, Cafferata, a 20-year-old Ma- presence," he said. He insists this recipient is Paul Bucha. rine private, single-handedly held off doesn't bother him. an attacking force with grenades and Section One: Page 17 THE SUNDAY STAR-LEDGE Like other recipients, Sigler had been led to believe that job offers and May 30, 1993 opportunities might come his way, and like others he was disappointed. He had applied for jobs with the state Veterans game warden, the VA and others. Yet in August 1947 he was unemployed and engaged to be married. That's when The Star-Ledger dedicated published a front page article explain- ing how town leaders two years before had raised $7,000 for a homecoming parade to honor him and had never to humility given him a share of the money they had promised. A week later, he was appointed a state fish and game war- den. From preceding page For 12 years, Sigler worked as a detective with the Passaic County who could have been heroes had they Sheriffs Office. He retired in 1962, lived," he said. "Men died beside you, spent 10 years with a firm that built in front of you We who were there golf courses and now lives in Hamp- know what action is and don't love to ton in Sussex County. brag about it anyhow." Sigler, 68, doesn't attend many The Medal of Honor is present- military functions these days. But he ed by the President, on behalf of the mentioned how honored he was to re- Congress, which is why it is often im- turn last fall to Parris Island, S.C., precisely called the Congressional for the graduation of his grandson, Medal of Honor. Pvt. Derrick J. Peter. It is given on the basis of recom- Peter recalled how thrilled the mendations of commanding officers or young Marines were to meet his peers that are verified through inter- grandfather. They had never seen a views with witnesses. Recipients are Medal of Honor but knew what it sym- normally unaware they have been bolizes. nominated. Since the Civil War, 3,393 Sigler is asked whether he feels men and one woman have received the Medal of Honor recipients have been honor. About 60 percent of those hon- forgotten. ored died in combat. "No, I don't think so," he said. The Medal of Honor recognizes "You got to realize the war's been over those who have acted "above and be- for quite a while, and the only ones yond the call of duty," which normally who know would be people in the mili- means they did something they didn't tary. have to do at the risk of being killed, often in hand to hand combat. None has been given since the Vietnam War. Most of the awards have gone to infan- trymen. Many, therefore, believe the Medal of Honor tends to recognize the common man. When Marine Pvt. Franklin E. Sigler returned to Little Falls with his medal, he thought about returning to work at a gas station. Sigler had been at Iwo Jima in March 1945 and was recognized for fighting and helping to rescue other Marines even after a grenade took off a part of his ear and nose and he was shot through the hand. The Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Washington DC 20420 THE Mack- - The President should not accept their medal. It would cause him problems. I'll be glad to discuss if you meed further information Habl nton As 'Serious' ior towards elected officials," secretary Dee Dee Myers said Campbell's former boss. Hallsaid, "and if there's a charge Clinton had been advised of Thompson is already in Europe Doe Hall. "The Air Force feels it's a that this has been violated; they Campbell's alleged remarks be- and his initial report is due later as serious charge that the Air need to look into it' fore the case became public but this month )C(UPI)-AnAir Force needs to look into." Hall said Campbell would not insisted the matter should be Campbell, 53, a highly deco- I who allegedly During a public speech in be allowed to assume command left to the Air Force. rated fighter pilot who served I ing public re- Europe last month, Maj. Gen. of the De fense Fuel supply Cen- "The Air Force is investigat- two tours of combat duty during President Clinton Harold Campbell allegedly ter near Washington until the ing at this point," Myers said. the Vietnam War, was deputy a a scheduled so- called Clinton A "gay-loving." Air Force's investigation is com- "We'll leave it to them." chief of staff for plans and pro- nd until that "pot-smoking," "draft-dodg- plete. She said Clinton would have grams at the commander at rge is fully inves- ing." "womanizing" com- "According to the Air Force," no comment on case. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base ntagon said 8 June. mander-in-chief, the Pentagon spokesman said, The Air Force investigation in Ohio through the end of last serious matter," "There are specific "his future assignment has been of the incident is being carried month. The command oversees a 'spokesman Bob guidelines. in terms of behav- delayed until the completion of out by LL Gen. Dale Thomp- See Air Force, Pg. 10 INSTRUD CourtAction Mulled Over 'Medal'Of Honor' Promoter prise for the promotion of one person's purse." Disability Denied Williams said the CMHS had Air Force Veteran By Sheryl Henderson The society is considering received complaints from the With Brain Tumor Stars and Stripes Writer court action against William VFW, The American Legion and Page 2 Fugazy, promoter of the "Ellis the Ancient Order of Hiberni- Since when are former vice- Island Congressional Medal of ans, who thought the organize- WWII's Costliest presidential candidate Geraldine Honor, who for the past seven tion had loaned Fugazy's group Ferraro, comedian Jay Leno, years has been awarding the its name and was somehow con- Battle Marks singer Gloria Estephan and medals to U.S. citizens of ethnic nected with the awards. JUNE 12 Dept Mil & Vet Affairs Irenton, NJ 08625-0340 50th Anniversary President Bill Clinton eligible descent who can plop down as CMHS President J. Elliott Page 5 for the Congressional Medal of much as $1,500 for a scat at the Williams has called the presen- 18816 you 03/30/94 tation crass commercialism" Deputy Commissioner Honor? event. Foundation They aren't, according to the "This has nothing to do with that is "blatantly offensive to Veterans Affairs Congressional Medal of Honor the military,' said Mike Wil- the legitimate military heroes Honoring Vietnam Society (CMHS), whose mem- liams, director of the CMHS. and families of the heroes who Memorial Sculptor bers are recipients of thenation's According to Williams," the 15. earned the Medal of Honor." Page 14 highest military honor for acts., award is no medal of honor at Fugazy, who has been accused 340 of bravery in wartime. all, but part of "a private enter- See Court Action, Pg. 10 W ti Vietn m vetes will I inf The delegation also inter- tion on MIAs from both coun- viewed several Vietnamesemili- main for U.S. military teams From 1 tries, the joint archive, Presi- tary and prison officials, includ- regarding particular cases. dent Clinton's pledge to declas- ing Col. Doan Hanh, who man- "We'do not yet have the full sify American POW documents aged POW camps, and Gen. Affairs. accounting we insist upon," said by 11 Nov., and the newly-re- Tran Van Quang, the subject of The resulting 1,223-page re- James LA Brazee Jr., president leased documents. the controversial Russian docu- port of the 15-month investiga- of Victnam Veterans of Among the documents given ment that alleged more P1 tion said there was "no compel- America, Inc. who was among to the delegation are prisoners' ers were being held in Vic ling evidence" that any Ameri- the delegates, "but we are four medical records, statistical com- during the war than the U.S. cans currently remain alive in steps closer to determining what captivity in Victuam, though the became of our lost brothers." report also said questions re- The four steps include an mi Submarine S'te Court Action Mulled Over 'Medal Of Honor' Promoter lage Voice found that "every From 1 time a resolution authorizing the wards has been introduced in of forgery and an "alleged pat- Congress it has died in commit- term. of racketeering activity," tee. was found guilty last year of mail fraud, wire fraud, securi- Past recipients of the award include numerous state attor- ties fraud and bankruptcy fraud, according to U.S. Court of Ap- neys general and state supreme peals records. court justices, several congress- Although Fugazy and the men, FBI Director William Ses- National Ethnic Coalition of sions, Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Organizations (NECO), the Norman Schwarzkopf, former group that sponsors the awards, U.S. Secretary of State James haverepeatedly claimed that the Baker and five former presi- wards "are sanctioned on each dents occasion by the United States According to a White House New Jamey Gov. Jim Florio, econd fromleft, joins veterans viewing the future m Congress," an investigative ar- aide, President Clinton is ex- ubmarke, in the bay offVeterans Park in blands. Florio recen thy visited the Acres funds for open space preservation statewide. ghlands, which received a ticle published last month in the pected to accept his award on Jemey Navel Massum to Veterans Park. Also pictured are Herb Georges, of Hac kons New York newspaper The VII- his next trip to New York. * Jersey Naval and Museum Submarine, and Paul Russ, MCPO state commander, $ The Starsilland Stripes The National Tribune "To Care For Him Who Shaft Have Borne The Battle And For His Widow And His Orphan THE OLDEST NATIONAL VETERANS' WEEKLY NEWSPAPER Abraham Uncoin 116th Year Number 24 WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE WEEK OF 14 - 20 JUNE 1993 75¢ Per Copy U.S. Edition S. Delegation Cites BBL Contribution ew POW Cooperation /ith Vietnam nam 8 June reportedly encour- By Sheryl Henderson aged by Victnam's release of 12 S and Stripes Staff Writer new documents and the opening of a joint archive, said the state- A U.S. delegation to Hanoi ment. is the Victnamese govern- "This trip reassured me that ent is showing "a significant recent progress toward an ac- level of cooperation" in the counting for our POW/MIAs is arch for U.S. servicemen still genuine," said Sen. John iss from the Vietnam War, McCain (R-AZ), a former Viet- coording to a statementreleased nam POW. 1st week. The delegation's trip came Daties Cowboy legend Roger Staubach, second from left, recently presented representatives of the Dallas VA The bipartisen congressional four months after an exhaustive Medical Center with a check for $15,000 on behalf of the Resevolent Bowlers League (BBL) The BBL is comprised of lelegation led by Sen. John investigation by the Senate So- representatives of various bowling centers in the Dallas area. The VAMC will use $12,000 of the money to construct Kerry (D-MA) returned from a lighted softball field for veteran patients. The remaining funds will be used for patient bowling activities. Standing, lect Committee on POW/MIA from left, are Terry Wickmen, chief, Recreation Therapy Service; Stanbach; William Cox, assistant medical center the Memorial Day trip to Vict- See U.S. Delegation, Pg. 10 director; and Charlie Baker, chief, voluatary service, Daffas VAMC. -19. Alleged Ridicule the investigation." son, vice commander of the Air 4798 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON D.C. 20506 June 30, 1993 ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM H. ITOH THROUGH: ROBERT G. BELL RGB FROM: KEITH HAHN KH SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: S.134, Veteran Travel Privileges Authorization opposing Attached at Tab II is a draft Defense report on S.134, a bill authorizing veterans who are totally disabled as the result of a service-connected disability to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel. We have reviewed the draft report and concur. Concurrence by: Jeremy / Rosner RECOMMENDATION That you sign the memo to Ronald Peterson at Tab I. Attachments Tab I Memorandum to Ronald Peterson Tab II Incoming Correspondence 4798 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON, D C. 20506 MEMORANDUM FOR RONALD K. PETERSON FROM: WILLIAM H. ITOH SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: S.134, Veteran Travel Privileges Authorization The National Security Council staff has reviewed the Defense proposed report and concurs. 4798 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Washington, D.C. 20503 SPECIAL June 24, 1993 LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM LRM #I-722 TO: Legislative Liaison Officer - NSC - William H. Itoh - (202) 395-3723 - 249 TRANSPORTATION - Tom Herlihy - (202) 366-4687 - 226 VA - Robert Coy - (202) 535-8113 - FROM: RONALD K. PETERSON (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference OMB CONTACT: MIKE GOAD (395-7301) Secretary's line (for simple responses) : 395-6194 SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: S 134, Veteran Travel Privileges Authorization DEADLINE: TUESDAY, July 20, 1993 OMB requests the views of your agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship to the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular A-19. Please advise us if this item will affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. CC: W. Waites B. Thierwechter T. Grams LRM #I-722 RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM If your response to this request for views is simple (e.g., concur/no comment) we prefer that you respond by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is simple and you prefer to call, please call the branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a message with a secretary. You may also respond by (1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail if the analyst does not answer) i (2) sending us a memo or letter; or (3) if you are an OASIS user in the Executive Office of the President, sending an E-mail message. Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below. TO: MIKE GOAD Office of Management and Budget Fax Number: (202) 395-5691 Analyst/Attorney's Direct Number: (202) 395-7301 Branch-Wide Line (to reach secretary) : (202) 395-6194 FROM: (Date) (Name) (Agency) (Telephone) SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: S 134, Veteran Travel Privileges Authorization The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject: Concur No objection No comment See proposed edits on pages Other: FAX RETURN of pages, attached to this response sheet DRAFT FOR OMB A-19 The Honorable Sam Nunn Chairman, Committee on Armed Services REVIEW United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request of January 25, 1993, for the views of the Department of Defense on S. 134, 103rd Congress, a bill "to amend Title 10, United States Code, to authorize veterans who are totally disabled as the result of a service-connected disability to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such aircraft." The Department must necessarily oppose the legislation. S. 134 would permit veterans rated by the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs as totally disabled due to a service-connected disability to fly on a space-available basis under the same conditions as retired military members now fly. While the Department of Defense (DoD) greatly values the contribution of every veteran, especially those who have sacrificed in the service of their country, there are a number of reasons why the Department cannot support granting the space-available privilege to totally disabled veterans. Space-available travel is a highly-valued privilege which accrues to the active duty military member. Although travel is available to other categories of travelers at a lower priority, the principal objective of the space-available travel privilege is the morale and welfare of those currently serving on active duty. In addition, DoD aircraft are designed to move a fit fighting force, and are not equipped to accommodate handicapped personnel. Space-available transportation privileges are granted under the assumption that travelers fly in the plane as they find it, with no special modifications. Accessories and special services for handicapped travelers that are prevalent in commercial airlift are not practical for military aircraft that provide space-available travel. Additionally, the entire space-available program is resource constrained. Any increase in the current demand for service would severely tax resources provided for mission support activities. To expand the privilege to other categories would consume added resources and diminish the value of the limited benefit currently available to active duty personnel and their dependents. In light of these considerations, and in the current climate of budget reductions impacting a myriad of high-priority defense programs including military manpower, it is not practical to expand the space-available program. The DoD receives numerous requests to extend space-available travel to additional categories of people, including service-connected disabled veterans, widows of military retirees, retired Federal Civil Service employees, and Public Health Service officers. In each case, our review of present and future air travel requirements has precluded the Department from expanding the privilege. As a matter of DoD policy, the space-available travel privilege has not been extended to persons or groups beyond those currently authorized. This policy is primarily based on mission requirements and resource constraints. We ask your support in ensuring the privilege is also not expanded by legislation. The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely, CC: Honorable Strom Thurmond Ranking Republican 4815 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON. D.C. 20506 June 30, 1993 ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM H. ITOH THROUGH: ROBERT G. BELL Roby FROM: KEITH HAHN KH SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: H.R. 594, Temporary Lodging Payment Incurred by Certain Individuals supportins, with modi fication, Attached at Tab II is a draft Defense report on H.R. 594, a bill to provide payment of temporary lodging expense to the family of a member hospitalized for serious injury or serious illness. We have reviewed and concur in the response. Concurrence by: Jeremy Rogner Ganba RECOMMENDATION That you sign the memo to Ronald Peterson at Tab I. Attachments Tab I Memorandum to Ronald Peterson Tab II Incoming Correspondence 4815 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC 20506 MEMORANDUM FOR RONALD K. PETERSON FROM: WILLIAM H. ITOH SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: H.R. 594, Temporary Lodging Payment Incurred by Certain Individuals The National Security Council staff has reviewed and concurs in the Defense proposed report. 4815 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Washington, D.C. 20503 June 24, 1993 SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM LRM #I-732 TO: Legislative Liaison Officer - GSA - William R. Ratchford - (202) 501-0563 - 237 NSC - William H. Itoh - (202) 395-3723 - 249 TRANSPORTATION - Tom Herlihy - (202) 366-4687 - 226 FROM: RONALD K. PETERSON (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference OMB CONTACT: MIKE GOAD (395-7301) Secretary's line (for simple responses) : 395-6194 SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: HR 594, Temporary Lodging Payment Incurred by Certain Individuals DEADLINE: WEDNESDAY, July 14, 1993 OMB requests the views of your agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship to the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular A-19. Please advise us if this item will affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. CC: T. Stanners B. Thierwechter LRM #I-732 RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM If your response to this request for views is simple (e.g., concur/no comment) we prefer that you respond by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is simple and you prefer to call, please call the branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a message with a secretary. You may also respond by (1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail if the analyst does not answer) ; (2) sending us a memo or letter; or (3) if you are an OASIS user in the Executive Office of the President, sending an E-mail message. Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below. TO: MIKE GOAD Office of Management and Budget Fax Number: (202) 395-5691 Analyst/Attorney's Direct Number: (202) 395-7301 Branch-Wide Line (to reach secretary) : (202) 395-6194 FROM: (Date) (Name) (Agency) (Telephone) SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: HR 594, Temporary Lodging Payment Incurred by Certain Individuals The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject: Concur No objection No comment See proposed edits on pages Other: FAX RETURN of pages, attached to this response sheet DRAFT The Honorable Ronald Dellums Chairman, Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 REVIEW Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request of January 28, 1993 for the views of the Department of Defense on H.R. 594, a bill "To amend title 37, United States Code, to provide for the payment of temporary lodging expense incurred by family members who receive transportation incident to the hospitalization of a member of the Armed Forces for a serious illness or serious injury sustained by the member in the line of duty." The Department supports the legislation, but we recommend changing the term used to describe the entitlement to "per diem allowances." "Temporary lodging expense" is a term used to describe an entitlement service members and their dependents have when making a permanent change of station move to, from, or between duty stations within the Continental United States, as provided in 37 U.S.C. 404a. To refer to subject entitlement in the same way would confuse the two. Using the "per diem allowance" to refer to subject entitlement would use the same term used to reimburse members for similar expenses of their dependents while performing travel incident to a permanent change of station, as provided for in 37 U.S.C. 406. H.R. 594 would provide a much needed service to the family of a member hospitalized for serious injury or serious illness. Currently, family members must pay their own expenses during long durations of hopitalization of the Service member. Authorizing this payment will increase morale and ease the family's financial burden. The Department appreciates the Committee's interest and concern for the welfare of those service members who are hospitalized for a serious illness or serious injury sustained in line of duty. The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely, 4817 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 June 30, 1993 ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM H. ITOH THROUGH: ROBERT G. BELL RGB FROM: KEITH HAHN KH SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: H.R. 1243, Prohibition Against Foreign Acquisition of Allison Transmission that takes no position with regard to Attached at Tab II is a draft Defense report on H.R. 1243, a bill to prohibit any foreign person from acquiring, directly or indirectly, Allison Transmission, a division of General Motors Corporation. We have reviewed and concur in the response. Concurrence by: Jeremy Rosher a RECOMMENDATION That you sign the memo to Ronald Peterson at Tab I. Attachments Tab I Memorandum for Ronald Peterson Tab II Incoming Correspondence 4817 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON. D.C. 20506 MEMORANDUM FOR RONALD K. PETERSON FROM: WILLIAM H. ITOH SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: H.R. 1243, Prohibition Against Foreign Acquisition of Allison Transmission The National Security Council staff has reviewed and concurs in the Defense proposed response. Withdrawal/Redaction Marker Clinton Library DOCUMENT NO. SUBJECT/TITLE DATE RESTRICTION AND TYPE 001. memo Legislative Referral Memorandum #1-733. [CIA Act] [partial] (1 page) 06/25/1993 P3/b(3) COLLECTION: Clinton Presidential Records National Security Council Defense Policy and Arms Control (Robert Bell) OA/Box Number: 45 FOLDER TITLE: Chron File - June 1993 #3 [3] 2016-0152-F vz4425 RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act - 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)] Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)] P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA| b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA] P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA] financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA] b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA] b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA| b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of of gift. financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA] PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C. h(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information 2201(3). concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA] RR. Document will be reviewed upon request. 4817 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Washington, D.C. 20503 SPECIAL June 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM LRM #I-733 TO: Legislative Liaison Officer - CEA - Francine Obermiller - (202) 395-5036 - 242 CIA - (b)(3) [001] COMMERCE - Michael A. Levitt - (202) 482-3086 - 324 JUSTICE - Faith Burton - (202) 514-2141 - 217 NEC - Sonia Mathews - (202) 456-6722 - 429 NSC - William H. Itoh - (202) 395-3723 - 249 OSTP - Susanne Bachtel - (202) 456-7116 - 288 USTR - Fred Montgomery - (202) 395-3475 - 223 STATE - Julie C. Norton - (202) 647-2137 - 225 TREASURY - Richard S. Carro - (202) 622-1146 - 228 FROM: RONALD K. PETERSON (for) Ronald K. Peterson Assistant Director for Legislative Reference OMB CONTACT: MIKE GOAD (395-7301) Secretary's line (for simple responses) : 395-6194 SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: HR 1243, Prohibition Against Foreign Acquisition of Allison Transmission DEADLINE: THURSDAY, July 15, 1993 OMB requests the views of your agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship to the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular A-19. Please advise us if this item will affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. CC: A. McNutt-Miller J. McClelland K. MacIntyre LRM #I-733 RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM If your response to this request for views is simple (e.g., concur/no comment) we prefer that you respond by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is simple and you prefer to call, please call the branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a message with a secretary. You may also respond by (1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail if the analyst does not answer) i (2) sending us a memo or letter; or (3) if you are an OASIS user in the Executive Office of the President, sending an E-mail message. Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below. TO: MIKE GOAD Office of Management and Budget Fax Number: (202) 395-5691 Analyst/Attorney's Direct Number: (202) 395-7301 Branch-Wide Line (to reach secretary) : (202) 395-6194 FROM: (Date) (Name) (Agency) (Telephone) SUBJECT: Defense Proposed Report RE: HR 1243, Prohibition Against Foreign Acquisition of Allison Transmission The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject: Concur No objection No comment See proposed edits on pages Other: FAX RETURN of pages, attached to this response sheet JUN 25 '93 7:41 FROM OSD-LRS TO PETERSON PAGE 003 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL COUNSEL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-1600 The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs House of Representatives REVIEW OMB A-19 DRAFT Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Defense on H.R. 1243, 103d Congress, a bill, "To prohibit any foreign person from acquiring, directly or indirectly, Allison Transmission, a division of General Motors Corporation. The Department of Defense has no specific goals that would be served by the legislation. Allison Transmission has been a critical supplier of new components and spare parts for more than 42,000 U.S. Army tracked combat vehicles; such as the Abrams tank series, family of M109 self-propelled howitzers, Field Artillery Ammunit on Resupply Vehicles. Currently, and in the foreseeable future, Allison's products primarily support system upgrades and sustain fielded systems. New production is not anticipated. The Department agrees that Allison Transmission is an important component to the defense industrial base but believes that the proposed sale to a foreign corporation will not reduce employment opportunities or relocate job opportunities outside the United States. H.R. 1243 would prohibit any foreign person from acquiring, directly or indirectly, ownership or control of Allison Transmission, a division of General Motors Corporation. The bill would require the Attorney General to seek appropriate relief, including injunctive or divestment relief, in the district courts of the United States in order to carry out this section. This legislation would have no effect nor is it expected that it will result in any additional cost to the Department. The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely, Jamie S. Gorelick ** TOTAL PAGE. 003 ** SECRET RECORD ID: 9320745 NSC/RMO PROFILE RECEIVED: 01 JUL 93 09 TO: LAKE FROM: GROSSMAN, M DOC DATE: 30 JUN 93 SOURCE REF: 9315193 KEYWORDS: COCOM EXPORT CONTROLS IWG RUSSIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS PERSONS: SUBJECT: STATE COMMENTS ON DRAFT NSC PAPER ON COCOM LIST LIBERALIZATION ACTION: FOR RECORD PURPOSES DUE DATE: 05 JUL 93 STATUS: C STAFF OFFICER: NONE LOGREF: FILES: IFG NSCP: CODES: DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION FOR ACTION FOR CONCURRENCE FOR INFO ANDREASEN BARTH BELL BURNS FORSYTHE GOTTEMOELLER HAHN KELLY, C PONEMAN SODERBERG TENET WALKER DECLASSIFIED E.O. 13526 White House Guidelines, September 11, 2006 By V2 NARA, Date 10/3/2020 1-2510-9162 COMMENTS: DISPATCHED BY DATE BY HAND W/ATTCH OPENED BY: NSJEB CLOSED BY: NSJEB DOC 1 OF 1 SECRET SECRET RECORD ID: 9320745 ACTION DATA SUMMARY REPORT DOC ACTION OFFICER CAO ASSIGNED ACTION REQUIRED 001 X 93070109 FOR RECORD PURPOSES SECRET S/S 9315193 United States Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 20745 June 30, 1993 SECRET DECL: OADR MEMORANDUM FOR MR. ANTHONY LAKE THE WHITE HOUSE SUBJECT: State Comments on the Draft NSC Paper on COCOM List Liberalization The attached paper summarizes State's comments on the draft NSC paper of June 29 concerning options for initial COCOM liberalization proposals. Rase Marc Grossman Executive Secretary Attachments: As stated. DECLASSIFIED E.O. 13526 Department of State Guidelines, September 11. 2006 By VZ NARA, Date 10/3/2016 2016-0152-F Withdrawal/Redaction Marker Clinton Library DOCUMENT NO. SUBJECT/TITLE DATE RESTRICTION AND TYPE 002. paper State Department Commetns on Options for Initial COCOM 06/30/1993 P1/b(1) Liberalizations. (4 pages) COLLECTION: Clinton Presidential Records National Security Council Defense Policy and Arms Control (Robert Bell) OA/Box Number: 45 FOLDER TITLE: Chron File - June 1993 #3 [3] 2016-0152-F vz4425 RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)] Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)] PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA| b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA] an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA] P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or h(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA] financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA] b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA] b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRAJ b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of of gift. financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIA] PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C. b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information 2201(3). concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA] RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.

nara / coll_wjc-nscdp / doc

Chron File - June 1993 No. 3 [3]

ID: 122245676
Type: document

Citation Image

Metadata

id	122245676
sourceUrl	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122245676
contentType	document
collections	Records of the National Security Council Defense Policy and Arms Control Office (Clinton Administration) Robert Bell's Files
iiifBase	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2016/2016-0152-F_Seg01/42-t-7585451-20160152F-Seg1-009-003-2017.pdf
thumbnailUrl	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2016/2016-0152-F_Seg01/42-t-7585451-20160152F-Seg1-009-003-2017.pdf
largeImageUrl	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2016/2016-0152-F_Seg01/42-t-7585451-20160152F-Seg1-009-003-2017.pdf
imageCount	1
hasImages	yes
source	import

Additional Source Fields

url	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122245676
naId	122245676
levelOfDescription	fileUnit
otherTitles	42-t-7585451-20160152F-Seg1-009-003-2017
recordType	description
ocrSource	nara-archive

Pages

Page 1 OCR

Survos folio item chat

Ask the Scholar

Scholar Source Context