Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285792521
label
Society - American Society of Mechanical Engineers [1990]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285792521
contentType
document
title
Society - American Society of Mechanical Engineers [1990]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62085-006
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Allan D. Bromley Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285792521
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0dcb43d3cd8368a4
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Organization Files - Non-Government Organizations
OA/ID Number:
62085
Folder ID Number:
62085-006
Folder Title:
Society - American Society of Mechanical Engineers [1990]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR D. ALLEN BROMLEY
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
FROM:
C. BOYDEN GRAY SMG
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Your Inquiry about an ASME Fellow
This responds to your memorandum asking my advice on the
propriety of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
accepting the services of a fellow arranged through the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), a non-profit organization
recognized by the Internal Revenue Service under section
501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Although I will leave it
to your own counsel to assess any issues that arise specifically
under OSTP's own legal framework, the following is general
guidance on the considerations affecting fellowship programs.
Under federal law, government agencies ordinarily are prohibited
from making use of volunteer services. In the case of the White
House, a number of Department of Justice opinions have concluded
that in positions for which there is no minimum salary level set
by statute or otherwise, it is permissible for the White House to
accept "gratuitous" services -- essentially to "hire" an
individual at a salary of zero. Copies of the opinions are
attached for your reference. Whether or not the DOJ analysis can
be extended to OSTP will depend on the legal authority under
which OSTP staff is hired.
Per DOJ's advice, White House procedures call for volunteers to
enter into an up-front agreement that they will serve without
compensation, and there is a form that the White House Personnel
Office uses for this. (This can avoid having private volunteers
later sue the government for compensation.)
The same Department of Justice opinions addressing the hiring of
volunteers also state that there is no blanket prohibition
against private organizations paying the salary of White House
volunteers, e.g., by providing a fellowship to support an
internship. Because the fellow would be considered a Federal
employee, any such arrangement would be subject to conflict-of-
interest limitations, as discussed below. Assuming such
limitations are met, I would not object on policy grounds to
taking on an ASME fellow. I would object, however, to accepting
volunteer services from an individual employed by or on leave
from an outside company or other organization.
Standard conflict of interest statutes and regulations would
apply to any fellow. As a result, for example, --
the fellow should not participate personally and
substantially in any matter in which the fellow has (or
has attributed to him/her) a financial interest under
18 U.S.C. 208, and the fellow should not work on
matters in which ASME has a financial interest;
the fellow should not deal with ASME on behalf of the
government or deal with the government on behalf of
ASME;
to the extent that the fellow participates personally
and substantially in government matters involving the
rights of specific parties, the fellow will be subject
to post-employment restrictions;
the fellow may not provide non-public government
information to ASME or otherwise use government
resources for private purposes, including ASME
purposes.
There are also general standards of conduct, requiring among
other things that employees (including unpaid employees such as
volunteers and interns) avoid actions that may result in or
create the appearance of impropriety or using public office for
private gain. 3 C.F.R. 100.735-4.
In view of these restrictions, it would be useful for ASME to
commit to you in writing that there are no problematic conditions
attached to the receipt of the fellowship (e.g., that ASME does
not expect any non-public information or special treatment from
the fellow or OSTP on account of the fellow's placement).
Application materials and selection criteria for the fellow
should also reflect the applicability of basic conflict-of-
interest requirements.
Feel free to contact me or Amy Schwartz of my staff if you have
any questions.
Attachments
Office of Legal Counsel
Office of the
Weshington. D.C. 20530
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
MAR 27 1987
Memorandum for Alan Raul
Associate Counsel to the President
Re: White House Use of Volunteers in the Pay of
National Political Organizations
This responds to your request that we review certain state-
ments made in an OLC memorandum prepared in 1982 for the White
House Counsel's Office dealing with the use of volunteers to
perform official governmental duties in the White House Office.
See Memorandum for Fred F. Fielding, Counsel to the President,
from Theodore B. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Legal Counsel, February 9, 1982 ("1982 OLC memorandum"). The
memorandum concluded that the White House Office may hire
employees to serve without compensation; that such employees
would be exempt from the Hatch Act restrictions on political
campaigning; and that private organizations may, in general,
pay the salaries of such employees.
The memo's final conclusion, regarding payment of salaries
by private organizations, was qualified by the advice that any
such arrangements should be examined in light of the Standards of
Conduct applicable to agencies in the Executive Office of the
President, 3 C.F.R. 100.735(1)-(32). These regulations set forth
guidelines for determining when the financial relationship be-
tween a White House employee and a private entity may give rise
to a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of
interest. Inter alia, the regulations prohibit an employee
within the White House Office from accepting anything of monetary
value from a person or organization which has or is seeking a
"contractual or other business or financial relationship" with
the White House Office, conducts activities that are "regulated"
by the White House Office, or "[h]as interests which may be
substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of
his official duty." 3 C.F.R. 100.735-14. These regulations also
generally incorporate the standards of ethical conduct applicable
to all government employees by virtue of Executive Order 11244.
The 1982 memorandum observed that responsible officials in the
White House Office are "in the best position to judge as each
case arises whether the activities of the White House Office and
an employee preclude receipt of a salary from a particular
organization under these regulations."
In addition to these general rules, the 1982 OLC memorandum
offered a "general observation" that payment of White House
volunteers by "political organizations that were established to
pursue national political objectives" would "invariably violate
the spirit if not the letter" of the regulations in several
different respects. The memorandum identified two such organi-
zations as the Republican National Committee and the National
League of Cities. The memorandum recognized that employees of
the White House Office are "expected to be political,' but
argued that the standards of conduct "attempt to assure ...
that employees will at least be independent from the financial
pressure of outside partisan organizations." Accordingly, the
memorandum suggested that "national political organizations
should not pay the salaries of White House Office employees under
the current regulations."
At your request, we have reviewed the 1982 memo's discussion
regarding political organizations. In essence, this discussion
appears to derive from the memorandum's implicit conclusion that
the financial relationship between a White House employee and a
national political organization stands on an entirely different
footing under the standards of conduct than the financial rela-
tionship between a White House employee and any other private
organization that does business with the White House Office or
has interests that could be affected by the performance of the
employee's duties. We see no basis for such a conclusion, either
in the standards of conduct themselves or in any particular
factual aspect of the relationship between a national political
organization and the White House Office. Indeed, given what the
memorandum concedes is the acknowledged and accepted partisan
"political" bent of many White House employees, it strikes us as
counterintuitive to suggest that an objectionable conflict of
interest would be more likely to arise from a financial relation-
ship between a White House employee and a political organization
than one between a White House employee and, say, a private
corporation competing for major government contracts. To the
extent the conflicts of interest in the two above situations are
qualitatively distinguishable at all, it would seem more reason-
able to suggest that the legal presumption should run the other
way.
1 The 1982 OLC memorandum does not appear to distinguish between
the situation of a White House employee drawing a regular salary
from a private entity and one being paid by the private entity on
a retainer or consultancy basis, and its conclusions thus apply
generally to any individual being paid by a private entity while
performing government services. In light of the issues involved
in this case, we see no reason to distinguish between White House
employees on the basis of the details of the financial arrange-
ment between them and the private entity that is paying them.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we see no basis for a determination by this
Office that persons being paid by national political organi-
zations should necessarily be precluded from being assigned to
perform governmental duties in the White House Office. We
believe that the general advice given in the 1982 OLC memo-
randum -- viz., that determinations respecting the employment of
volunteers in the pay of private organizations are best made
under the applicable standards of conduct on a case-by-case basis
in the White House Office itself -- applies in such cases to the
same extent that it applies in any other case.
Samel a all, i
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
- 3 -
9 FEB 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
Counsel to the President
Re: White House Use of Volunteers
This memorandum responds to the oral request from
H.P. Goldfield for an opinion regarding the proposed use of
"volunteers" in the White House Office. We understand that
the volunteers would receive government appointments and
would perform government duties in the White House Office,
but would be paid by private organizations. You have asked
three specific questions. First, does the White House Office
have the authority to employ individuals without paying them
any government salary? Second, assuming the White House
Office does have this power, would these individuals be
subject to the restrictions imposed on public employees by
S 9(a) of the Hatch Act, now codified in 5 U.S.C. §§ 7324?
Third, may private organizations pay the salaries of these
individuals and, if so, what conflicts of interests restrictions
would generally apply to them? For reasons discussed below,
we conclude that: (1) the White-House Office may hire employees
without compensation, (2) the employees would be exempt from
the Hatch Act restrictions on political campaigning, and
(3) private organizations may, in general, pay the salaries
of such employees, but some such organizations may not do so
because, under the particular circumstance, conflict of
interest may make it improper for them to do so. We will
address each of these sets of issues in turn.
I
THE AUTHORITY OF THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE
TO HIRE INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT COMPENSATION
The ability of the White House Office to hire individuals
without paying them any government salary depends on whether
Congress has imposed a minimum salary level for such employees.
For the vast majority of executive positions, Congress has
established a mi' ! um saiary, either direct] or by including
them under the General Schedule or some comparable salary
schedule. In these cases it is illegal for the employing
agency to pay less than the established salary. See, e.g.,
Glavey V. United States, 182 U.S. 595 (1901) i McMath V.
United States, 248 U.S. 151 (1918) Saltzman V. United States,
161 Ct. C1. 634, 639 (1963). On the other hand, in those
few cases where Congress has not established a minimum level
for particular positions, Congress can be said to have granted
the agency the discretion to pay employees nominal sums or even
engage their services without compensation. See generally
United States V. Crosthwaite, 168 U.S. 375, 377 (1897);
United States V. Herron, 170 U.S. 527 (1898) Lee V. United
States, 45 Ct. Cl. 57 (1910).
In the case of employees in the White House Office,
Congress has set no minimum salary levels. Section 105 of
Title 3, United States Code states in pertinent part:
Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2)
of this subsection [which sets certain maxi-
mum salary levels] the President is authorized
to appoint and fix the pay of employees in
the White House Office without regard to any
provision of law regulating the employment
or compensation of persons in the Government
service. Employees so appointed shall perform
such official duties as the President may
prescribe.
The continuing appropriations act currently in effect allocates
$19,664,000 for the "White House Office Salaries and Expenses." 1/
Since Congress has established no minimum salaries for employees
in the White House Office, it may hire individuals for the Office
without salary.
The prohibition contained in section 665(b) of Title
31 on the acceptance of "voluntary service" for the United
States does not affect this conclusion. That section states:
1/ "Treasury, Postal Service, and Federal Government Act,
1982," H.R. 4121, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 12-13 (Nov. 17,
1981). Section 101(a) (3) of the continuing resolution Act,
Pub. L. No. 97-92, 95 Stát. 1183 (Dec. 15, 1981), encorporates
the proposed appropriation for the White House contained in
the draft of the "Treasury, Postal Service, and Federal
Government Act, 1982" as amended by the Senate on November 17,
1981.
- 2 -
No officer or employee of the United States
shall accept voluntary service for the
United States or employ personal service
in excess of that authorized by law, except
in cases of emergency involving the safety
of human life or the protection of property.
A 1913 opinion of the Attorney General, which the Office of
Legal Counsel and the Comptroller General have followed,
distinguishes between a "voluntary service", which is not
permitted under the section, and a gratuitious service,
which has been considered as not violating the section.
A gratutious service, under the Attorney General's analysis,
includes a service provided by a government employee under a
prior agreement assuring that the employee has no right to
reimbursement from the Government. The opinion explains:
[I] t seems plain that the words "voluntary
service" were not intended to be synonymous
with "gratuitous service" and were not
intended to cover services rendered in an
official capacity under regular appointment
to an office otherwise permitted by law to be
unsalaried. In their ordinary and normal sense
these words refer to service intruded by
a private person as a "volunteer" and not
rendered pursuant to any prior contract or
obligation.
30 Op. A.G. 51, 52 (1913) (emphasis added). See 54 Comp. Gen.
560 (1975); 7 Comp. Gen. 810 (1923). J. Weinstein and
W. Bonvillian, A Part Time Clerkship Program in Federal Courts
for Law Students, 68 F.R.D. 265, 269-73 (1975). See also 41 Op.
A.G. 463, 480 (1960). The opinion explains that the underlying
intent of 31 U.S.C. S 665(b) is to prevent private volunteers
from successfully suing the government for the value of
their services. Gratuitous services by a government employee
under contract would not support such claims. Accordingly,
section 665 (b) would not preclude the White House Office from
hiring individuals for positions, such as the present ones,
that are "otherwise permitted by law to be non-salaried."
\
We note, however, that the Attorney General's opinion
emphasizes that there should be a prior agreement between the
employee and the government that the employee serve without
compensation. We recommend that papers relating to the appoint-
ment of the volunteers specify that they will not receive
government compensation.
- 3 -
II
APPLICATION OF THE HATCH ACT TO EMPLOYEES
IN THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE WHO RECEIVE NO
GOVERNMENT SALARY
You have also asked us whether the volunteers described
in this opinion would be covered by the restrictions in the
Hatch Act on the political activities of Executive employees.
The purpose of the Act, as the Supreme Court has observed, is to
further "the impartial execution of the law" by unbiased government
employees, to protect government employees from being coerced
into supporting a particular party, and to assure that an incumbent
does not secure an unfair advantage by the enlistment of campaign
workers at government expense. Civil Service Commission V. Letter
Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 565-66 (1973). Accordingly, the Act
imposes two types of limitations. First, it prohibits "an employee
in an Executive agency", including any employee in the White House
Office, from using "his official authority or influence for the
purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."
5 U.S.C. S 7324 (a) (1). The volunteers in the White House Office
would be subject to this first prohibition because they are
"employees" within the meaning of the Hatch Act. 2/ The second
restriction in the Hatch Act forbids an "employee in an Executive
Agency" from taking "an active part in political management or
in political campaigns," 5 U.S.C. S 7324 (a) (2), although there
are specific exceptions to this second prohibition for certain
types of employees. The only one of these exemptions pertinent
to White House Office volunteers is for "an employee paid from
the appropriation for the office of the President." 5 U.S.C.
S 7324(d) (1). We understand that your opinion request is
2/ The definition of "employee" generally applicable to Title V
covers, in pertinent part, "an officer or an individual" who is
appointed by the President or an employee, is "engaged in the
performance of a Federal function under authority of law", and
is subject to the supervision of another government employee or
officer. 5 U.S.C. S 2105 (a) (1). Under your description of the
responsibilities of the volunteers proposed for the White House
Office, they would fall within this definition.
3/ The following are also exempted from this requirement:
(2) the head or the assistant head of an
Executive department or military department.
(3) an employee appointed by the President,
by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, who determines policies to be
pursued by the United States in its relations
with foreign powers or in the nationwide
administration of Federal laws;
(continued)
- 4 -
directed to this second issue: whether employees in the White
House Office who are not "paid" from any government appropriation
would be excepted by this provision from the restriction on
participation in political campaigns.
The explicit language of section 7324(d) (1) would not
appear to exempt government volunteers in the White House Office
since they are not paid by appropriations for that Office. 4/
Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that Congress actually
intended to prohibit White House Office volunteers from partici-
pating in political campaigns and, at the same time, to permit
campaigning by paid White House Office employees who perform the
same duties under the same type of appointment. The mere fact
that a White House Office employee is not paid would not seem to
justify a restriction on his political activities. In addition,
Congress might well have overlooked the distinction between paid
and unpaid White House employees because voluntary service in
the government is not a common occurrence. The Supreme Court
has recognized that [t] he circumstances of the enactment of
particular legislation may persuade a court that Congress did
not intend words of common meaning to have their literal effect."
Watt V. Alaska, 101 S. Ct. 1673, 1677-78 (1981). Therefore, we
would not rely on the specific wording of the exception in these
circumstances, but look to its legislative history to determine
whether Congress actually intended to preclude the campaign
activities of White House Office volunteers.
Although sparse, the legislative history of section 7324 (a) (1)
reveals that Congress intended to exempt all government workers
employed by the White House Office. The draft of the Hatch Act
that was originally passed by the Senate in 1939 did not provide for
3/ (continued)
(4) The Mayor of the District of Columbia,
the members of the Council of the District of
Columbia, or the Chairman of the Council of
the District of Columbia, as established
by the District of Columbia, Self-Government
and Governmental Reorganization Act; or
(5) the Record of Deeds of the District of
Columbia.
5 U.S.C. S 7324 (d). None of these are relevant to the present
issue.
4/ The Office of Legal Counsel has previously interpreted the
Office of the President" to mean, under recent appropriation
acts, the "White House Office."
- 5 -
any specific exemption for the White House. In response
to criticisms in the House that this broad prohibition would
preclude high level officials from campaigning or defending
the administration policies, see 84 Cong. Rec. 9672 (1939)
(Rem. of Sen. Carl Hatch), the House adopted an amendment, which
was later accepted by the Senate, 84 Cong. Rec. 9674 (1939),
that exempted the President, Vice-President, "persons whose
compensation is paid from the appropriation for the office
of the President," and certain other senior executive officials.
84 Cong. Rec. 9625 (1939). The purpose of the amendment,
as described by Senator Hatch, was to permit the President
and his staff to engage in the partisan political activities
that are inextrically tied to their official responsibilities.
He stated:
[W]hen policy-making officials of the Government
such as the President and members of the Cabinet
inaugurate and carry on great policies of govern-
ment, they must necessarily frequently go before
the country and the people and explain their
policies, and often it is true that they must
defend them when they are assailed. It is
but right and proper that they should have the
full privilege of doing so, and the bill now
so provides. It is also provided that persons
paid from appropriations for the Executive
Office, the staff of that office, are not
affected by the bill, which should be the case.
84 Cong. Rec. 9672 (1939) (emphasis added). Thus, Senator Hatch
assumed that the amendment would cover the whole White House
Office staff, whose policy making role justified the exception.
Expressing a similar understanding, the author of the amendment,
Senator Dempsey, announced on the floor that it "clearly exempts
the President, and Vice-President of the United States, as well as
the staff of the President and those who obtain their salaries
from the appropriation made for White House purposes." 84 Cong.
Rec. 9626 (1939) (emphasis added).
This history, although limited, supports the view that
we should not read the exception narrowly. Congress evidently
intended to exempt the entire staff of the White House Office.
It merely defined the White House Office exception according to
the source of the employees' income. This does not mean that
Congress sought to include within the coverage of the Hatch Act
White House Office staff not paid with White House Office appro-
- 6 -
tions. Rather, it would appear most likely that Congress
simply never considered the possible distinction between
paid and unpaid White House Office employees. 5/ Certainly,
the reasons for which Congress passed the exception -- to
allow the President's policymaking assistants and his staff
to help present and defend the administration's program --
equally applicable to unpaid White House Office staff,
all other things being equal. For all of these reasons, we
believe that, although White House Office volunteers "may be
within the letter" of the prohibition against campaigning,
they are "not within ... its spirit [or] the intention of
its makers." United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193,
201 (1979), (quoting Holy Trinity Church V. United States,
143 U.S. 457, 459 (1892)). We therefore interpret section
7324(d) (1) to permit White House Office volunteers to engage
in the same type of political activities as employees paid
from White House Office appropriations.
5/ Congress' failure to distinguish between paid and unpaid
government employees is also evident from other changes made
by the Dempsey Amendment. The version of the Hatch Act that
was originally passed by the Senate would not have prohibited
political campaigning by any volunteers, although there is
no evidence that Congress ever considered this issue. The
bill would have made it
unlawful for any person employed in any
administrative or supervisory capacity
by any agency of the Federal Government,
whose compensation or any part thereof,
is paid from funds authorized or appro-
priated by any act of Congress, to
...
take [an] active part in political
management or in political campaigns.
S. 1871, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. (1939), reprinted in, 84 Cong.
Rec. 4192 (1939) (emphasis added). Members of Congress
feared that this provision might subject them and their
employees to the prohibitions on campaigning. See 84 Cong. Rec.
9624 (1939) (Rem. of Rep. Celler). TO allay these concerns,
the Dempsey amendment changed the language of the Act to cover
only "any person employed in the executive branch of the
Federal Government," 84 Cong. Rec. 9625 (1939). This change,
which assured that Congress was not covered, had the incidental
effect of bringing unpaid employees within the prohibitions
of the Act, although there is no evidence that Congress ever
recognized this possible effect.
- 7 -
This analysis does not suggest, however, that an employee
detailed to the White House Office from another agency comes
within this exception. An employee detailed to the White
House Office, unlike an unpaid employee in the White House
Office, has not been appointed to a position with the specific
responsibilities of assisting the President in the functions
protected by this exemption. Morover, campaigning by workers
paid by other government agencies could undermine the impartiality
of those other agencies and lead to the improper use of government
personnel and funds for political purposes. See Civil Service
Commission V. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. at 565-66. Accordingly,
we believe that an employee paid from the funds of other
agencies are necessarily in a different position from unpaid
employees appointed to White House Office positions.
III
PAYMENT OF VOLUNTEERS' SALARIES BY
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
You have also asked us whether private organizations,
such as the Republican National Committee or private corporations,
may pay the salaries of the volunteer White House Office employees.
We understand that we are to assume that the volunteers should
be considered employees under the relevant conflict of interest
statutes and regulations.
There is no blanket prohibition against private organi-
zations paying the salaries of White House Office volunteers.
Under 18 U.S.C. S 209(a), it is unlawful for a federal officer
or employee to receive any salary, or any contribution to or
supplementation of salary, from a private source as compensation
for his services to the federal government. However, this
prohibition does not apply to any employee who serves without
compensation. See I8 U.S.C. S 209(c); 3 C.F.R. $ 100.735-13(a).
Since none of the volunteers will receive any federal compensation,
there is no absolute rule prohibiting them from being compensated
for their government work by private sources.
Nevertheless, we recommend that you closely examine
the extent to which the Standards of Conduct Regulations
applicable to agencies in the Executive Office of the President,
see 3 C.F.R. §§ 100.735-(1)-(32), substantially limit the type of
organizations that may pay the salaries of these employees.
The Standards of Conduct were issued in compliance with
Executive Order No. 11222 of May 8, 1965, and Civil Service
Commission regulations implementing that Order. See 5 C.F.R.
735. In pertinent part, they prohibit an employee within the
White House Office from accepting anything of monetary value from
a person or organization which has or is seeking a "contractual
- 8 -
or other business or financial relationship" with the White
House Office, conducts activities that are "regulated" by
the White House Office, or "has interests which may be substan-
tially affected by the performance or nonperformance of his
official duties." 3 C.F.R. S 100735-14. An employee also
may not participate substantially in any matter in which he
knows that he or his employer has a "financial interest."
3 C.F.R. S 100.735-9(a); 18 U.S.C. S 208. More generally,
an employee is instructed to avoid any action, even though
not specifically prohibited, which might result in, or create
the appearance of
(1) Using public office for private gain;
(2) Giving preferential treatment to any
person;
(3) Impeding Government efficiency or
economy;
(4) Losing complete independence or
impartiality;
(5) Making a Government decision outside
official channels; or
(6) Affecting adversely the confidence of
the public in the integrity of the
Government.
3 C.F.R. S 100.735-4(c). See also 3 C.F.R. §§ 100-735-8 and
15(a)(1). We believe that you are in the best position to
judge as each case arises whether the activities of the White
House Office and an employee preclude receipt of a salary
from a particular organization under these regulations.
He offer one general observation, however. Volunteers
should not be paid by political organizations that were
established to pursue national political objectives, such as
the Republican National Committee or the National League of
Cities. Payments by these groups would invariably violate
the spirit if not the letter of the rule against gifts by
organizations which have or seek to establish "a business
or financial relationship" with the White House Office.
Although political groups do not seek a "financial" relationship
with the White House Office in the classic contractual sense,
they are engaged in the "business" of politics. They have
the explicit purpose of influencing and securing favorable
decisions by the White House on various issues. If these
groups paid the salaries of White House Office employees,
it might create the same types of conflict of interests that
would arise if an organization with a financial interest in
the affairs of the Office paid employees' salaries. In addition,
national political organizations have "interests which may
- 9 -
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR SALLY KELLY
FROM:
DAMAR
HAWKINS
SUBJECT:
ASME MEETING REQUEST
Re Referral 062668 dated August 15, 1989, we understood that
Governor Sununu wanted Dr. Bromley to meet with Dr. Belden
of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
In the meantime we have been in touch with Nancy Robleski
of ASME and for one reason or another, the appointment was
postponed several times. Now that Dr. Bromley has senior
staff on board, namely Bill Phillips, Associate Director for
Industrial Technology, designee, it seems more appropriate
for Bill to see Dr. Belden. I informed Nancy of the above
and left the matter with her to contact Dr. Phillips to
arrange the appointment if they wished to do so.
I would appreciate your closing out this referral.
1
ID# 062668
THE WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
INCOMING
DATE RECEIVED: AUGUST 11, 1989
mut
MC0030
NAME OF CORRESPONDENT: DR. DAVID L. BELDEN
SUBJECT: ENCLOSES POSITION PAPER "ENERGY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT" AND REQUESTS WHITE HOUSE MEETING
TO DISCUSS THE RECOMMENDATIONS
ACTION
DISPOSITION
ROUTE TO:
ACT DATE TYPE C COMPLETED
OFFICE/AGENCY
(STAFF NAME)
CODE YY/MM/DD RESP D YY/MM/DD
JOHN SUNUNU
ORG 89/08/11
C 89/08/11
REFERRAL NOTE:
JACKIE KENNEDY
RSA 89/08/11
/ /
REFERRAL NOTE:
18
990STP
A
89/08/16
/ /
REFERRAL NOTE:
AT/N: Dr. Bromley
/ /
/ /
REFERRAL NOTE:
/ /
/ /
REFERRAL NOTE:
COMMENTS:
See attached note dated 1/24/90
ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENTS:
MEDIA:L INDIVIDUAL CODES:
I
CS MAIL
USER CODES: (A)
(B)
(C)
*ACTION CODES:
*DISPOSITION
*OUTGOING
*
*
*
*CORRESPONDENCE:
*
*A-APPROPRIATE ACTION
*A-ANSWERED
TYPE RESP=INITIALS
*
*C-COMMENT/RECOM
*B-NON-SPEC-REFERRAL
*
OF SIGNER
*
*D-DRAFT RESPONSE
*C-COMPLETED
*
CODE = A
*
*F-FURNISH FACT SHEET
*S-SUSPENDED
*COMPLETED = DATE OF
*
*I-INFO COPY/NO ACT NEC*
*
OUTGOING
*
*R-DIRECT REPLY W/COPY *
*
*
*S-FOR-SIGNATURE
*
*
*
*X-INTERIM REPLY
*
*
*
REFER QUESTIONS AND ROUTING UPDATES TO CENTRAL REFERENCE
(ROOM 75,OEOB) EXT-2590
KEEP THIS WORKSHEET ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL INCOMING
LETTER AT ALL TIMES AND SEND COMPLETED RECORD TO RECORDS
MANAGEMENT.
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
Information
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 8920467
FROM:
American Society of
Mechanical Engineers
TO:
Bromley
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 11/20/89
SUBJECT: Thank you for your presentation to the ASME's
Industry Advisory Board
ASSIGNED TO: NOT ASSIGNED TO ANYONE
ACTION REQUIRED: NONE
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: Al Hammond
D. Allan Bromley
NEOB files
noted
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED: 11/02/89
FILE: EOB
я
E+S
The American Society of
as
Mechanical Engineers
Suite 218
1825 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1202
202-785-3756
November 20, 1989
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street & Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley:
On behalf of ASME's Industry Advisory Board, I want to express my
appreciation for your stimulating presentation to the Board
following our November 15 dinner.
The Board members were delighted to have the opportunity to meet
you and to learn of your commitment to give technology issues more
prominence in this Administration than ever before.
We look forward to transmitting additional comments on this topic
as a result of this meeting, and will be in touch with your office
at that time.
Again, my sincere thanks for your thoughtful remarks.
Sincerely,
Keith ROE
K. Keith Roe
Chairman, Industry Advisory Board
President, Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.
1/19/90
APPOINTMENT
REQUEST
Nancy Robleski of ASME, 785-3756, called to request a
meeting w/DAB following up from his address to that
group last November, when he told them orally that he
would be interested in their formulating a "short list"
of technology policy ideas. 4-5 presenters want to
call on him FEb. 2 or week of Feb. 5, when they will be
in town. They would be: Ernie Daman (past president),
Chuck Velzy (current president), Dr. Belden (ex. dir.)
and Keith Roe (head of industrial advisory board) and
one other, probably. I told Nancy you would check
w/DAB and get back to her next week.
Bill Phillipe please
Can someone on the staff meet with this group?
Yes
No
1/24/90 I spoke to Nancy and informed her that the demands of DAB's
time were just too great and that he had suggested the
group meet with Dr. Phillips. She has your WDC phone number
and will probably contact WP.
(wp's)
Marian
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
August 15, 1989
Dear Marian:
Governor Sununu would like
Dr. Bromley to meet w/ Dr. DAvid
Belden for the governor.
If we work out the date
perhaps the governor will be able
to stop in at the meeting.
Let me know what date you
decide on.
Thanks
Juki
x6797
9/14(3)
Jarice Tabato
Jacky told
write after
nov. speech to
+ we would do!
THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE
REFERRAL
AUGUST 18, 1989
TO: OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
ATTN: DR. BROMLEY
ACTION REQUESTED:
APPROPRIATE ACTION
DESCRIPTION OF INCOMING:
ID:
062668
MEDIA: LETTER, DATED AUGUST 8, 1989
TO:
JOHN SUNUNU
FROM:
DR. DAVID L. BELDEN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL
ENGINEERS
345 EAST 47TH STREET
NEW YORK NY 10017
SUBJECT: ENCLOSES POSITION PAPER "ENERGY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT" AND REQUESTS WHITE HOUSE MEETING
TO DISCUSS THE RECOMMENDATIONS
PROMPT ACTION IS ESSENTIAL -- IF REQUIRED ACTION HAS NOT BEEN
TAKEN WITHIN 9 WORKING DAYS OF RECEIPT, PLEASE TELEPHONE THE
UNDERSIGNED AT 456-7486.
RETURN CORRESPONDENCE, WORKSHEET AND COPY OF RESPONSE
(OR DRAFT) TO:
OFFICE OF THE
AGENCY LIAISON, ROOM 91, THE WHITE HOUSE, 20500
SO : E AUGUS 68
CENIED SALLY KELLEY
DIRECTOR OF AGENCY LIAISON
PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE
42648
Я
EXS
as
The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers
David L. Belden, Ph.D., P.E.
345 East 47th Street
Executive Director
New York, NY 10017
212-705-7730
August 8, 1989
The Honorable John H. Sununu
Chief of Staff
Executive Office of the President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
Dear John:
When Ernie Daman and I met with you last year, you encouraged the
engineering societies to speak out on public issues.
I am pleased to enclose ASME's position paper, "Energy and the
Environment." The paper urges action to reduce the potential for
greenhouse warming of the Earth, despite current uncertainties in
the scientific data, by developing and implementing not one
energy option -- but many.
ASME's recommendations have received considerable notice in the
press, and we are now carrying our message to key people in the
administration and Congress.
Chuck Velzy, ASME's new President, Ernie Daman, and I would
appreciate the opportunity to meet with you, or whoever you
suggest on the White House staff to discuss briefly the
statement's recommendations. If Dr. Bromley is aboard, perhaps
he would appreciate ASME's counsel on this important issue.
Janis Tabor of ASME's Washington Center will call your office in
the next few days to see when a meeting might be arranged.
Thank you for your continuing interest and support for our
profession. I hope to see you soon.
Sincerely,
Dave
David L. Belden
DLB/asn
Enclosure
CC: C. Velzy
E. Daman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 5, 1990
Dear Mr. Milder:
Many thanks for your letter of February 1st with which you include the ASME
Council on Engineering statement on nuclear power. This is an interesting document
and I shall pass it on to Admiral James Watkins, the Secretary of Energy, and to my
associates in OSTP who are particularly concerned with the very important question
of the development of alternative energy sources.
As an engineer myself, as well as a physicist, I fully* appreciate the importance of
engineering in these matters and appreciate your writing.
With all best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
Druan D. Allan Bromley Premiley
Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Mr. Nelson L. Milder
Assistant Director
Policy Development and Technical Support
Government Relations
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Suite 218
1825 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1202
я
€
S
The American Society of
B
Mechanical Engineers
Suite 218
1825 K Street. N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1202
202-785-3756
Statement
of the
Nuclear Engineering Division
on
Nuclear Power: Actions Required
to Secure the Nation's Energy Future
January, 1990
NUCLEAR POWER--ACTIONS REQUIRED TO SECURE THE NATION'S ENERGY FUTURE
Nuclear power, currently the nation's second largest source for electricity,
is an essential element of the nation's energy future. This source of
electricity has an enviable safety and environmental record, while providing
low-cost power to the nation's industries and homes. With the rapidly growing
demand for electricity and looming shortages in the mid-1990's, decisive
action must be taken now to ensure a reliable supply of electricity, with
special emphasis on nuclear power. Future vitality of this industry requires
a three-pronged approach:
1) support from the utility industry;
2) design and development of advanced reactor designs by the nuclear
manufacturing industry; and,
3) program support and regulatory reforms by the Government.
Sustained and visible progress in these three areas will strengthen media and
public acceptance of this vital national resource.
Major technical initiatives must be undertaken to bolster the growing support
for nuclear power. This paper addresses the key technical initiatives that
are essential to retaining and developing nuclear power for the nation's long
term environmental and economic well being.
Advanced Reactor Design Characteristics and Objectives
Future reactor designs have to build on the over 30 years of experience with
Light Water Reactors (LWR). Recent work to factor this experience into
advanced reactor designs indicates that future reactor designs should be based
on the following design characteristics.
Simplification - Plant designs should be simplified to enhance
construction, operation and maintenance. Growing complexity in
U.S. nuclear plants is adversely affecting plants in virtually all
respects, including initial capital cost, operating cost,
availability, operability and maintainability.
1
Design Margin - Plant designs should be built which have
substantial built-in margins for accommodating adverse situations
during normal operation, transients and accidents.
Proven Technology - Plant designs should be based on proven
technology, either through established operational experience or
through demonstration in prototype plants.
Safety - Safety must continue to play a dominant role in plant
designs. There is a close connection between safety and reliable
operation of a nuclear power plant. Equipment failures or human
errors that could cause accidents and consequent risk to the
public are similar to shortcomings that lead to low capacity
factors or the need for expensive repairs. Hence, improvements in
safety have the dual benefit of enhancing public acceptance and
protecting the utilities' investments.
The above basic design characteristics should bolster the following key
objectives for viable advanced design candidates for selection by utilities to
meet their capacity addition needs in the coming decades.
Technical excellence in all respects, including performance,
environmental impact, safety, reliability, manufacturing and
construction.
Favorable economics in comparison with other alternatives in both
capital and life cycle costs.
Investment protection - must provide a high assurance of
protecting the utilities' investments through assured
licensability, low risk of accidents, proven technology,
predictable construction cost/schedule and high availability.
2
Safety Features in Advanced Designs
The overall objective of safety designs in nuclear plants is to minimize the
risk of radioactive release to the environment. The body of knowledge for
assuring the safety of nuclear power plants continues to grow and is being
applied to both operating plants and new plant designs. Public concern about
the safety of nuclear power can be faced directly by developing designs which
reduce even further the probability and potential consequences of accidents.
This is possible with the incorporation of the following safety features in
the design of advanced nuclear plants:
Simplification - The simpler the system design, the more reliable
it will be, and the more likely it' will perform its function.
Reduced operator demands - The demands on the operator during
normal operation and emergencies should be minimal. This can be
achieved by enhanced plant margins and simple system designs.
Passive safety systems - To enhance overall system reliability and
to simplify the plant, safety system design should utilize
practical, and simple engineering solutions. Gravity or stored
energy that complement or replace active safety systems are
examples.
Severe Accident Considerations - The overall plant should both
prevent and mitigate the consequences of severe accidents.
The above design features for safety systems build on the lessons learned from
over 30 years of experience with operating nuclear plants. The accident at
Three Mile Island demonstrated the importance of reduced operator challenges
on overall plant safety. A simplified plant achieves the overall objective of
minimizing risk. Increased safety by the use of passive safety systems and
overall plant designs that specifically consider severe accident prevention
and mitigation in the design process further enhance this overall objective.
3
Plant Design Choices for the Future
Before any power plant can be integrated into the U.S. energy system, a number
of essential steps must be taken. These steps are:
Technology Development - establishment of basic principles.
Design - The design of the plant must evolve through the stages of
conceptual, preliminary and detailed design to support
feasibility, certification and construction milestones.
Demonstration - The plant concept must be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the utilities and regulatory authorities either
based upon previous experience or through the construction and
operation of one or more demonstration plants.
Design Certification - Safety Review and Licensing approval by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission must be obtained.
A number of nuclear power plant options are available that meet the design
characteristics and objectives previously discussed. Today, these plant
options are Advanced Light Water Reactors (ALWRs), Modular High Temperature
Gas-Cooled Reactors (MHTGRs) and Liquid Metal Reactors (LMEs). Each of these
plant types is characterized by unique design, funding and schedule
characteristics and each fulfills a different role in the overall energy
future of the nation. A comprehensive nuclear energy plan should incorporate
all these plant types to ensure a viable nuclear energy option. These plant
types and their characteristics are summarized below:
a)
Advanced Evolutionary Light Water Reactors (up to 1400 MWe)
-
Designs complete, ready for NRC Certification by early 1990's.
-
Proven concepts using simplified designs and simplified safety
systems proven on operating plants
-
Minimum investment required until utility selection.
4
b)
Simplified Passive Light Water Reactors (approximately 600 MWe)
-
Conceptual design complete, detailed design and certification in
mid 1990's.
-
Proven concepts using simplified designs and passive safety
systems.
-
Some investment needed to develop designs and obtain NRC
certification.
c)
Modular Liquid Metal Reactors
-
Provides capability for long range energy security and reduction
in long term waste storage requirements.
-
Conceptual design complete and feasibility established.
-
Established technology with several plants in operation and under
construction.
-
Investment needed for prototype plant aimed at power and safety
demonstration by late 1990's.
d)
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors
-
Offers technological growth potential for high efficiency
electrical generation and for process steam/heat.
-
Preliminary design and licensing initiated.
-
Investment needed for prototype plant to assure availability in
late 1990's.
5
Summary and Conclusions
Nuclear power can be beneficially utilized to satisfy the future demand for
electric power. The growing recognition that nuclear power has minimal
environmental impact moves nuclear power to the forefront as a highly
desirable energy option for the foreseeable future. Actions to develop,
design and license standard plants are necessary to ensure the security of the
nation's energy future. Several attractive nuclear plant designs are
available, and their application in the coming decades should be aggressively
pursued as a national priority.
This statement was prepared by the Nuclear Engineering Division of the Council
on Engineering of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). It
represents the considered judgment of this Division, a group of engineers with
expertise in this field, rather than an official position of ASME.
6
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 12, 1990
Dear Dr. Andersen:
This is a belated reply to your letter of March 8th and your gracious offer to provide
an ASME Fellow to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The delay has reflected my efforts to obtain a clear ruling from my office counsel and
from the Office of Government Ethics concerning the conditions under which we
would find it possible accept this offer. As I am sure you are aware, these conditions
have changed substantially since the early 80's when we had ASME Fellows in OSTP.
I regret to say that I've not received a definitive answer, although I expect to do so in
the near future. Let me now then only say that if we can work out the appropriate
details, I would be more than delighted to have a fellow here representing your
organization. As you know, I have added an Associate Director for Industrial
Technology, Dr. William Phillips who has brought experience in the private sector and
I know that he would be most enthusiastic, as would I, about welcoming someone
whom you would select to represent the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
I hope that this delay does not inconvenience you and I promise you that I will be
back to you as soon as I obtain the necessary information. In the meantime, let me
thank you for your offer. We look forward to the possibility of reestablishing a close
working relationship with your organization.
With all best wishes,
Sincerely yours
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Dr. John A. Andersen
Vice President, Government Relations
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Suite 216
1825 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1202
122157
R
€
S
The American Society of
M
Mechanical Engineers
Suite 216
1825 K Street. N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1202
202-785-3756
March 8, 1990
Dr. John Sununu
Fellow, ASME
Chief of Staff
The White House
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
The White House
Gentlemen:
The Government Relations Board of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers is actively
considering a proposal to renew our Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Fellow
program, should this meet with your concurrence. in 1982 we placed Tom Pestorius as an
ASME OSTP Fellow. Dr. Pestorius served under ASME sponsorship for a year, and then was
continued directly by NSF/OSTP for an additional 2 years. This, obviously, was a successful
relationship.
Our current thinking is to recruit a small and very select group of candidates, under guidelines
suitable to OSTP and ASME, for final selection by OSTP. We plan that this would be a cost-free
service to the Government, and we now have seed money for the necessary support from our
Washington staff. We believe that it is possible for ASME to find candidates with no industrial
ties, if this is of concern to OSTP. It may also be possible to find candidates with current
appropriate security clearances.
I would be very pleased to have your thoughts on this important matter.
Yours truly,
John a. andersen
John A. Andersen
Fellow, ASME
Vice President, Government Relations
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 15, 1990
Dear Dr. Andersen:
This is a further response to your letter of March 8 and mine of April 12 regarding
your gracious offer to provide an ASME Fellow to the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
I have now received legal guidance on our policies concerning such an arrangement.
Subject to appropriate conflict of interest and other guidelines, I am most happy to
be able to accept your generous offer.
Might I recommend that your designee meet with my Chief of Staff, Dr. William
Wells, to work out the administrative details. Dr. Wells can be reached at 202/456-
2734.
Again, I am delighted by this outcome and look forward to continuing the rewarding
relationship OSTP has with the ASME.
Sincerely,
Dauan D. Allan Bromley Rowly
Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Dr. John A. Andersen
Vice President, Government Relations
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Suite 216
1825 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1202
CC: Bill Wells
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 12, 1990
Dear Dr. Andersen:
This is a belated reply to your letter of March 8th and your gracious offer to provide
an ASME Fellow to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The delay has reflected my efforts to obtain a clear ruling from my office counsel and
from the Office of Government Ethics concerning the conditions under which we
would find it possible accept this offer. As I am sure you are aware, these conditions
have changed substantially since the early 80's when we had ASME Fellows in OSTP.
I regret to say that I've not received a definitive answer, although I expect to do so in
the near future. Let me now then only say that if we can work out the appropriate
details, I would be more than delighted to have a fellow here representing your
organization. As you know, I have added an Associate Director for Industrial
Technology, Dr. William Phillips who has brought experience in the private sector and
I know that he would be most enthusiastic, as would I, about welcoming someone
whom you would select to represent the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
I hope that this delay does not inconvenience you and I promise you that I will be
back to you as soon as I obtain the necessary information. In the meantime, let me
thank you for your offer. We look forward to the possibility of reestablishing a close
working relationship with your organization.
With all best wishes,
Sincerely yours
D. Allan Bromley Romey
Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Dr. John A. Andersen
Vice President, Government Relations
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Suite 216
1825 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1202
12215'/
я
€
S
The American Society of
a
Mechanical Engineers
Suite 216
1825 K Street. N.W.
Washington. DC 20006-1202
202-785-3756
March 8, 1990
Dr. John Sununu
Fellow, ASME
Chief of Staff
The White House
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
The White House
Gentlemen:
The Government Relations Board of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers is actively
considering a proposal to renew our Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Fellow
program, should this meet with your concurrence. in 1982 we placed Tom Pestorius as an
ASME OSTP Fellow. Dr. Pestorius served under ASME sponsorship for a year, and then was
continued directly by NSF/OSTP for an additional 2 years. This, obviously, was a successful
relationship.
Our current thinking is to recruit a small and very select group of candidates, under guidelines
suitable to OSTP and ASME, for final selection by OSTP. We plan that this would be a cost-free
service to the Government, and we now have seed money for the necessary support from our
Washington staff. We believe that it is possible for ASME to find candidates with no industrial
ties, if this is of concern to OSTP. It may also be possible to find candidates with current
appropriate security cle rances.
I would be very pleased to have your thoughts on this important matter.
Yours truly,
John A. Andersen
Fellow, ASME
Vice President, Government Relations