Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118565628
label
Iran/Arms Transaction: Contras - Project Democracy
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118565628
contentType
document
title
Iran/Arms Transaction: Contras - Project Democracy
citationUrl
identifierLocal
123
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
Arthur Culvahouse's Office Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118565628
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1988-12-31
year
1988
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1987-01-01
year
1987
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0f9608f1963b87e9
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Culvahouse, Arthur B.: Files
Folder Title: Iran/Arms Transaction: Contras -
Project Democracy
Box: CFOA 1131
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B.:FILES
Withdrawer
DLB
4/1/2014
File Folder
IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: NOTES FROM NSC
FOIA
MEETINGS
S643
Box Number
CFOA 1131
SYSTEMATIC
126
ID
Doc Type
Document Description
No of Doc Date Restrictions
Pages
164703
EMAIL
OLIVER NOTH TO JOHN POINDEXTER,
1 7/15/1986 B1
RE: PRIVATE BLANK CHECK, PROJECT
DEMOCRACY ASSETS
164704
LETTER
OLIVER NORTH TO ROBERT
1 11/8/1985 B1
MCFARLANE, RE: RESPONSE TO
LETTER FROM CONGRESSMAN MIKE
BARNES
164705
LETTER
DRAFT LETTER - MCFARLANE TO
1
ND
B1
CONGRESSMAN BARNES
164706
MEMO
DUPLICATE OF #164704
1 11/8/1985 B1
164707
LETTER
DUPLICATE OF #164705
1
ND
B1
164708
LETTER
EDITED DRAFT MCFARLANE TO
1
ND
B1
CONGRESSMAN BARNES
The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B. FILES
DLB 4/1/2014
File Folder
FOIA
IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: CONTRAS - PROJECT
S643
DEMOCRACY
SYSTEMATIC
Box Number
CFOA 1131
126
ID
Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
Document Description
pages
tions
164703 EMAIL
1 7/15/1986 B1
OLIVER NOTH TO JOHN POINDEXTER, RE:
PRIVATE BLANK CHECK, PROJECT DEMOCRACY
ASSETS
The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B. FILES
DLB 4/1/2014
File Folder
FOIA
IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: CONTRAS - PROJECT
S643
DEMOCRACY
SYSTEMATIC
Box Number
CFOA 1131
126
ID
Document Type
No of Doc Date
Restric-
Document Description
pages
tions
164704 LETTER
1 11/8/1985
B1
OLIVER NORTH TO ROBERT MCFARLANE, RE:
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM CONGRESSMAN
MIKE BARNES
The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
TAB
I
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B. FILES
DLB 4/1/2014
File Folder
FOIA
IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: CONTRAS - PROJECT
S643
DEMOCRACY
SYSTEMATIC
Box Number
CFOA 1131
126
ID
Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
Document Description
pages
tions
164705 LETTER
1
ND
BI
DRAFT LETTER - MCFARLANE TO
CONGRESSMAN BARNES
The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
The Honorable Michael D. Barnes
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
TAB
II
DANTE B. FASCELL. FLORIDA, CHARMAND
LEE H. HAMILTON, INDIANA
WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD, MICHIGAN
GUS YATRON, PENNSYLVANIA
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
STEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New YORK
ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, CALIFORNIA
DON BONKER WASHINGTON
JIM LEACH, IOWA
GERRY E. STUDDS, MASSACHUSETTS
TOBY ROTH, WISCONSIN
DAN MICA, FLORIDA
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, MAINE
MICHAEL D. BARNES, MARYLAND
HENRY J. HYDE. ILLINOIS
HOWARD WOLPE, MICHIGAN
GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New YORK
Congress of the United States
GEO. W. CROCKETT, JR., MICHIGAN
DOUG BEREUTER. NEBRASKA
SAM GEJDENSON, CONNECTICUT
MARK D. SILJANDER, MICHIGAN
MERVYN M. DYMALLY. CALIFORNIA
ED ZSCHAU. CALIFORNIA
Committee on foreign Affairs
TOM LANTOS, CALIFORNIA
ROBERT K. DORNAN, CALIFORNIA
PETER H. KOSTMAYER. PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New JERSEY
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New JERSEY
CONNIE MACK, FLORIDA
LAWRENCE J. SMITH, FLORIDA
MICHAEL DEWINE. OMIO
House of Representatives
HOWARD L BERMAN, CALIFORNIA
DAN BURTON, INDIANA
HARRY M. REID, NEVADA
JOHN McCAIN, ARIZONA
MEL LEVINE, CALIFORNIA
Washington, DC 20515
EDWARD F. FEIGHAN, OMO
TED WEISS, New YORK
GARY L ACKERMAN, New York
BUDDY MACKAY, FLORIDA
October 29, 1985
MORRIS K. UDALL ARIZONA
ROBERT GARCIA, New YORK
JOHN J. BRADY, Ja.
Customer OF STAPP
The Honorable Robert C. McFarlane
Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs
Executive Office of the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. McFarlane:
I am writing with respect to my request for information and documentation on
the activities of members of the staff of the National Security Council in
connection with the Nicaraguan rebels.
I appreciate your willingness to share some such information and documentation
with me. However, it is my belief that the procedures that you have suggested
under which I would have access to this information would be inadequate to
permit me to reach any confident conclusions regarding the relationship of the
NSC staff with the rebels. Clearly, competent staff must have the opportunity
to subject this information to serious analysis if any meaningful conclusions
are to be drawn. I have consulted with the leadership of the House, which
shares my belief on this matter.
Accordingly, and after consultation with the Chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, I hereby request
that you provide this information and documentation to the Intelligence Com-
mittee under that Committee's normal procedures for Member and staff access to
and review of highly classified materials.
I believe that this proposal would surely resolve any concerns that the
Administration might have about the security of the information, while at
the same time fulfilling the responsibilities of the House.
As you requested during our recent meeting, I am attaching an outline of the
information that we are requesting.
- 2 -
Once again, I appreciate your willingness to be forthcoming on this matter and
trust that this proposal will resolve the issue of congressional access to this
information to everyone's satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Mile Bames
Michael D. Barnes
Chairman
Subcommittee on Western
Hemisphere Affairs
cc: The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton
The Honorable Dante B. Fascell
MDB:vj
ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF INFORMATION REQUIRED OF THE NSC ON ITS RELATIONS WITH THE CONTRA
1. A complete list of all meetings or contacts between Lt. Col. North or any
other member or official of the NSC staff and:
(a) "members of the Nicaraguan resistance since the opposition began to
organize in 1982" (September 12 McFarlane letter, P. 1. third para.).
(b) "leaders of the Nicaraguan resistance" since October, 1984 (September
12 McFarlane letter, P. 2, first full para.).
(c) the Nicaraguan resistance that "have focused on ensuring that the $27
million in humanitarian assistance is properly administered and fully com-
pliant with the legal requirements contained in the legislation" (September
12 McFarlane letter, P. 2, last para.).
(d)paramilitary groups such as CMA, Soldiers of Fortune, etc.
(e) Friends of the Americas, a Louisiana group headed by Woody Jenkins.
(f) representatives of South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, or any other country,
in July, 1984, or at any other time, pertaining to assistance for the
Nicaraguan resistance.
(g) John Hull, an American rancher with land in northern Costa Rica,
(h) General Singlaub, or any other person involved in fundraising for the
resistance, regarding fundraising plans or activities, military needs of
the resistance, or any other matter relating to the Nicaraguan resistance,
(i) any person pertaining to the Nicaraguan refugee fundraising dinner that
was held in April, 1985.
2.
All information with respect to any meeting or other
contact referred to above, including any membranda, reports, minutes, meeting
schedules, appointment calendars, memoranda of calls, phone logs, and any
other information.
3. Any memoranda or other documents prepared by Lt. Col. North or any other member
or officer of the NSC staff containing or discussing plans or programs with
respect to aid for the Nicaraguan resistance, any supporting documentation or
other information related to such documents, any records of NSC consideration
or review of any such plans or programs, and any documents pertaining to the
adoption or implementation of any such plans or programs.
Congress of the United States
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Hants B. Fascell
House of Representatives
M.
Mashington, D.C. 20515
Official Business
The Honorable Robert C. McFarlane
Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
Executive Office of the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
II
TA
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 8, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR OLLIE NORTH
FROM:
KARNA SMALL
SUBJECT:
Cong. Barnes and the media
I wanted you to be aware that I just received a phone call from
Bob Parry, AP, asking for comments, confirmation, on the following:
Parry says Cong. Barnes has written to McFarlane and has
rejected NSC's offer to let Barnes look at documents
pertaining to NSC involvement with special interest groups
since the time of a cut-off of CIA funding for the contras.
He says he understands that NSC had said Barnes could come
in by himself, look at some selected documents, could
not take them with him, could not have staff with him.
Barnes rejected that as too restrictive and suggested
that instead, the NSC supply a whole range of documents
pertaining to these questions to the House Intelligence
Committee since that's the committee that has more of a
tradition in dealing with sensitive matters of this type.
He says the letter was sent near the end of October.
(I asked if he had the letter; he said he doesn't have
it but generally knows its contents).
He wants to confirm that such a letter was sent or that
this was our offer and that we were willing to let
Barnes see such things; also wants to confirm that we
were willing to make documents available to House
Intelligence committee.
I wanted you to have this detail not because I am going to
comment on the story (I don't believe we should be commenting
on private correspondence between Bud and a Congressman) but
because you can add into your calculus the obvious fact that
Barnes, or his staff, is leaking everything to the Associated
Press (or at least it certainly appears that way). I told
Parry I'd have to get back to him. Any guidance?
Thanks.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B. FILES
DLB 4/1/2014
File Folder
FOIA
IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: CONTRAS - PROJECT
S643
DEMOCRACY
SYSTEMATIC
Box Number
CFOA 1131
126
ID
Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
Document Description
pages
tions
164706 MEMO
1 11/8/1985 B1
DUPLICATE OF #164704
The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B. FILES
DLB 4/1/2014
File Folder
FOIA
IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: CONTRAS - PROJECT
S643
DEMOCRACY
SYSTEMATIC
Box Number
CFOA 1131
126
ID
Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
Document Description
pages
tions
164707 LETTER
1
ND
B1
DUPLICATE OF #164705
The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
DANTE 9. FASCELL FLORIDA, CHARMAN
LEE M. HAMILTONE
WILLIAM 3. BROOMFIELD, Миснавам
GUS YATRON PUNNSYLVANIA
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN. New YORK
STEPHEN J SOLARZ NEW YORK
ROBERT 1 LAGOMARSINO, CALIFORNIA
DON BONKER WASHINGTON
JIM LEACH IOWA
GERRY E. STUDOS MARKACHUSETTS
TOBY ROTH. WISCONSIN
DAN MICA, FLORIDA
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE. MAINE
MICHAEL D. BARNES. MARYLAND
HENRY J. HYDE. ILLINOIS
HOWARD WOLFE MICHIGAN
GERALD BH. SOLOMON. New YORK
Congress of the United States
GEO. W. CROCKETT, JR., MICHIGAN
DOUG BEREUTER. NEBRASKA
SAM GEJDENSON COMMECTICUT
MARK D. SILJANDER, MICHIGAN
MERVYN M. DYMALLY. CALIFORNIA
ED ZSCHAU. CALIFORNIA
Committee on Foreign Affairs
TOM LANTOS. CALIFORNIA
ROBERT K. DORNAN, CALIFORNIA
PETER M. KOSTMAYER PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTOPHER M. SMITH, NEW JERSEY
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New JERSEY
CONNIE MACK, FLORIDA
LAWRENCE J. SMITH, FLORIDA
MICHAEL DEWINE, OHIO
House of Representatives
HOWARD L BERMAN, CALIFORNIA
DAN BURTON, INDIANA
HARRY M. REID. REVADA
JOHN McCAIN, ARIZONA
MEL LEVINE CALIFORNIA
Washington, DC 20515
EDWARD F. FEIGHAN. ONEO
TED WEISS. New YORK
GARY L ACKERMAN, New YORK
BUDDY MACKAY, FLORIDA
October 29, 1985
MORRIS K. UDALL ARLZONA
ROBERT GARCIA - York
JOHN J. BRADY, JR.
Cheer OF STARF
The Honorable Robert C. McFarlane
Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs
Executive Office of the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. McFarlane:
I am writing with respect to my request for information and documentation on
the activities of members of the staff of the National Security Council in
connection with the Nicaraguan rebels.
I appreciate your willingness to share some such information and documentation
with me. However, it is my belief that the procedures that you have suggested
under which I would have access to this information would be inadequate to
permit me to reach any confident conclusions regarding the relationship of the
NSC staff with the rebels. Clearly, competent staff must have the opportunity
to subject this information to serious analysis if any meaningful conclusions
are to be drawn. I have consulted with the leadership of the House, which
shares my belief on this matter.
Accordingly, and after consultation with the Chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, I hereby request
that you provide this information and documentation to the Intelligence Com-
mittee under that Committee's normal procedures for Member and staff access to
and review of highly classified materials.
I believe that this proposal would surely resolve any concerns that the
Administration might have about the security of the information, while at
the same time fulfilling the responsibilities of the House.
As you requested during our recent meeting, I am attaching an outline of the
information that we are requesting.
- 2 -
Once again, I appreciate your willingness to be forthcoming on this matter and
trust that this proposal will resolve the issue of congressional access to this
information to everyone's satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Mike Bamer
Michael D. Barnes
Chairman
Subcommittee on Western
Hemisphere Affairs
CC: The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton
The Honorable Dante B. Fascell
MDB:vj
ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF INFORMATION REQUIRED OF THE NSC ON ITS RELATIONS WITH THE CONTRA
1. A complete list of all meetings or contacts between Lt. Col. North or any
other member or official of the NSC staff and:
(a) "members of the Nicaraguan resistance since the opposition began to
organize in 1982" (September 12 McFarlane letter, P. 1. third para.).
(b) "leaders of the Nicaraguan resistance" since October, 1984 (September
12 McFarlane letter, P. 2, first full para.).
(c) the Nicaraguan resistance that "have focused on ensuring that the $27
million in humanitarian assistance is properly administered and fully com-
pliant with the legal requirements contained in the legislation" (September
12 McFarlane letter, P. 2, last para.).
(d)paramilitary groups such as CMA, Soldiers of Fortune, etc.
(e) Friends of the Americas, a Louisiana group headed by Woody Jenkins.
(f) representatives of South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, or any other country,
in July, 1984, or at any other time, pertaining to assistance for the
Nicaraguan resistance.
(g) John Hull, an American rancher with land in northern Costa Rica,
(h) General Singlaub, or any other person involved in fundraising for the
resistance, regarding fundraising plans or activities, military needs of
the resistance, or any other matter relating to the Nicaraguan resistance.
(i) any person pertaining to the Nicaraguan refugee fundraising dinner that
was held in April, 1985.
2.
All information with respect to any meeting or other
contact referred to above, including any membranda, reports, minutes, meeting
schedules, appointment calendars, memoranda of calls, phone logs, and any
other information.
3. Any memoranda or other documents prepared by Lt. Col. North or any other member
or officer of the NSC staff containing or discussing plans or programs with
respect to aid for the Nicaraguan resistance, any supporting documentation or
other information related to such documents, any records of NSC consideration
or review of any such plans or programs, and any documents pertaining to the
adoption or implementation of any such plans or programs.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 8, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR OLLIE NORTH
FROM:
KARNA SMALL
SUBJECT:
Cong. Barnes and the media
I wanted you to be aware that I just received a phone call from
Bob Parry, AP, asking for comments, confirmation, on the following:
Parry says Cong. Barnes has written to McFarlane and has
rejected NSC's offer to let Barnes look at documents
pertaining to NSC involvement with special interest groups
since the time of a cut-off of CIA funding for the contras.
He says he understands that NSC had said Barnes could come
in by himself, look at some selected documents, could
not take them with him, could not have staff with him.
Barnes rejected that as too restrictive and suggested
that instead, the NSC supply a whole range of documents
pertaining to these questions to the House Intelligence
Committee since that's the committee that has more of a
tradition in dealing with sensitive matters of this type.
He says the letter was sent near the end of October.
(I asked if he had the letter; he said he doesn't have
it but generally knows its contents).
He wants to confirm that such a letter was sent or that
this was our offer and that we were willing to let
Barnes see such things; also wants to confirm that we
were willing to make documents available to House
Intelligence committee.
I wanted you to have this detail not because I am going to
comment on the story (I don't believe we should be commenting
on private correspondence between Bud and a Congressman) but
because you can add into your calculus the obvious fact that
Barnes, or his staff, is leaking everything to the Associated
Press (or at least it certainly appears that way). I told
Parry I'd have to get back to him. Any guidance?
Thanks.
Congress of the United States
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Hanto B. Fascell
House of Representatives
M.C.
Mashington, D.C. 20515
Official Business
The Honorable Robert C. McFarlane
Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
Executive Office of the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
DISTRICT
United States Department of the Interior
OCT
i
1901
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
If
8
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
October 7, 1981
Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Dingell:
This is an interim response to the subpoena issued by your Subcommittee on
September 28, 1981, and served on this Department on October 2, 1981.
As you are aware, the Department of the Interior is currently evaluating
whether Canada should be determined to be a nonreciprocating nation for
purposes of Mineral Lands Leasing Act. In my August 6 testimony before
your Subcommittee, I stated that the Department of the Interior would
attempt to make this determination within 120 days. Deliberations are now
proceeding both within the Department of the Interior and among various
Federal agencies regarding this question and other generally related issues.
Certain documents which the Subcommittee has subpoenaed reflect the
nature and details of these ongoing deliberations.
As you are also aware, the question of reciprocity carries important
implications for the Nation's foreign policy generally and its relations with
Canada in particular. A number of the documents which the Subcommittee
has subpoenaed contain information the unauthorized disclosure of which
reasonably could be expected to cause identifiable damage to our conduct of
foreign policy.
It is our intention to make every reasonable accommodation to the legitimate
needs of the Legislative Branch and your Subcommittee in this matter. We
believe that the information which we have provided to date and which we
have offered to provide at a future date will more than adequately meet the
Subcommittee's stated need for information on this subject.
On September 24, 1981, we supplied to the Subcommittee a large percentage
of the documents subsequently demanded by the subpoena. Our submission
included a list of 36 published sources and copies of 160 documents. Only a
small number of documents were withheld at that time because of the need
to protect the deliberative processes and the effective conduct of the
Nation's foreign policy. After receiving the Subcommittee's subpoena, we
have initiated a process of interagency review of these documents, involving,
in addition to the Department of the Interior, the Departments of Commerce,
Treasury, and State and the United States Trade Representative. We are
confident that we will be able to release a substantial amount of material to
your Subcommittee once this review process is complete, by October 14 at
the latest. In addition, we may well be able to release additional materials
Nigeo
3/2/21
(CLIPTO 1479)
once this Department has completed its deliberations with respect to the
status of Canada under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act.
I hope that during the coming week the release of additional documents to
your Subcommittee will convince you that your needs have been satisfied,
taking into account the Executive's need for confidentiality in its
decisionmaking processes and the conduct of our foreign policy. Also, the
affected Departments, including my own, stand ready to meet with you or
your staff to work out an acceptable solution to the problems posed by the
issuance of the subpoena.
Sincerely,
un
James G. Watt
SECRETARY
File
MATERIAL ON
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGES
1. Attorney General Opinion - October 13, 1981
2. Memorandum for the Secretary of the Interior -
October 13, 1981
3. Memorandum for Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies
March 24, 1969
Office of the Attorney General
Washington, B. 20530
13 OCT 1981
The President,
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
You have requested my advice concerning the propriety of
an assertion of executive privilege in response to a subpoena
issued by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee).
The subpoena was issued on September 28, 1981, and served on
the Department of the Interior on October 2, 1981. It demands
the production of certain documents by October 14, 1981. It
seeks "all documents relative to the determination of reciprocity
under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. S 181, including
documents relating to the general matter of reciprocity and
the specific question of the status of Canada, utilized or
written by officials and staff of the Department of Interior
on or before September 18, 1981." 1/ The Office of Legal
Counsel of the Department of Justice has examined documents
embraced by the subpoena and identified by the Department of
the Interior as being potentially subject to a claim of
executive privilege, and has concluded that a proper claim
of privilege may be asserted with respect to all of the
documents identified in the attachment hereto. I concur in
that conclusion. I believe that the documents identified
are properly subject to a claim of executive privilege and
that the privilege should be asserted with respect to those
documents.
I.
I understand that on September 24, 1981, the Department
of the Interior supplied the Subcommittee with a large number
of the materials presently demanded by the subpoena, including
a list of 36 published sources and copies of 143 documents.
1/ The Mineral Lands Leasing Act (Act) provides, in pertinent
part, that "citizens of another country, the laws, customs or
regulations of which deny similar or like privileges to
citizens of this country, shall not by stock ownership, stock
holding, or stock control, own any interest in any lease
acquired under the provisions of this Act."
Once the subpoena was issued, the Department of the Interior,
in consultation with other Departments having an interest in
the matter, including the Departments of State, Commerce,
Treasury, Justice, and the Offices of the United States
Trade Representative and the White House Counsel, once again
reviewed the documents which had not previously been provided
to the Subcommittee. In an effort to make every reasonable
accommodation to the legitimate needs of the Legislative
Branch, the Department of the Interior released an additional
31 documents to the Subcommittee on October 9, 1981. One
document was shown to the Subcommittee staff at that time
but was not released. In addition, the Subcommittee was
provided with a written list and oral description of the 31
documents which had been withheld. The Subcommittee staff
was permitted to ask questions concerning the nature of
those documents, a procedure designed to provide the Subcommittee
with enough information to assure itself that the documents
are not essential to the conduct of the Subcommittee's legislative
business. Finally, the Subcommittee was informed that an
additional 5-10 documents would be released once the Department
of the Interior had concluded its deliberations regarding
the status of Canada under the Act.
All of the documents in issue are either necessary and
fundamental to the deliberative process presently ongoing in
the Executive Branch or relate to sensitive foreign policy
considerations. Several of the documents reflect views of
officials of the Canadian Government transmitted in confidence
to United States officials as well as statements regarding
the status of Canada by officials of the Department of State.
Other documents, prepared for the Cabinet Council on Economic
Affairs and the cabinet-level Trade Policy Committee, are
predecisional, deliberative memoranda which have been considered
by officials at the highest levels of government. Both the
Cabinet Council and the Trade Policy Committee prepare recommen-
dations for Presidential action; in addition, you personally
attend some Cabinet Council meetings and chair these meetings
when you do attend. Finally, a large portion of the documents
being withheld reflect internal deliberations within the
Department of the Interior regarding the status of Canada
under the Act. Some of these documents are staff level
advice to policymakers containing recommendations regarding
decisions which have not yet become final. Others contain
internal Interior Department deliberations regarding its
participation in the Trade Policy Staff Committee and the
Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs. Still other documents
reflect tentative legal judgments regarding questions arising
under the Act.- -In- addition, the subpoena encompasses preliminary
drafts of congressional testimony by the Secretary of the
Interior. These latter documents, although generated at
levels below that of the Cabinet and subcabinet, are of a
highly deliberative nature and involve an on-going decisional
process of considerable sensitivity.
- 2 -
Once the subpoena was issued, the Department of the Interior,
in consultation with other Departments having an interest in
the matter, including the Departments of State, Commerce,
Treasury, Justice, and the Offices of the United States
Trade Representative and the White House Counsel, once again
reviewed the documents which had not previously been provided
to the Subcommittee. In an effort to make every reasonable
accommodation to the legitimate needs of the Legislative
Branch, the Department of the Interior released an additional
31 documents to the Subcommittee on October 9, 1981. One
document was shown to the Subcommittee staff at that time
-
but was not released. In addition, the Subcommittee was
provided with a written list and oral description of the 31
documents which had been withheld. The Subcommittee staff
was permitted to ask questions concerning the nature of
those documents, a procedure designed to provide the Subcommittee
with enough information to assure itself that the documents
are not essential to the conduct of the Subcommittee's legislative
business. Finally, the Subcommittee was informed that an
additional 5-10 documents would be released once the Department
of the Interior had concluded its deliberations regarding
the status of Canada under the Act.
All of the documents in issue are either necessary and
fundamental to the deliberative process presently ongoing in
the Executive Branch or relate to sensitive foreign policy
considerations. Several of the documents reflect views of
officials of the Canadian Government transmitted in confidence
to United States officials as well as statements regarding
the status of Canada by officials of the Department of State.
Other documents, prepared for the Cabinet Council on Economic
Affairs and the cabinet-level Trade Policy Committee, are
predecisional, deliberative memoranda which have been considered
by officials at the highest levels of government. Both the
Cabinet Council and the Trade Policy Committee prepare recommen-
dations for Presidential action; in addition, you personally
attend some Cabinet Council meetings and chair these meetings
when you do attend. Finally, a large portion of the documents
being withheld reflect internal deliberations within the
Department of the Interior regarding the status of Canada
under the Act. Some of these documents are staff level
advice to policymakers containing recommendations regarding
decisions which have not yet become final. Others contain
internal Interior Department deliberations regarding its
participation in the Trade Policy Staff Committee and the
Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs. Still other documents
reflect tentative legal judgments regarding questions arising
under the Act.- -In- addition, the subpoena encompasses preliminary
drafts of congressional testimony by the Secretary of the
Interior. These latter documents, although generated at
levels below that of the Cabinet and subcabinet, are of a
highly deliberative nature and involve an on-going decisional
process of considerable sensitivity.
- 2 -
II.
The Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice
has examined each of these documents and has concluded that
they may properly be withheld from the Congress at this
time. These documents are quintessentially deliberative,
predecisional materials. Each of the agencies which generated
the documents has stated that their release to the Subcommittee
would seriously interfere with or impede the deliberative
process of government and, in some cases, the Nation's conduct
of its foreign policy. Because the policy options considered
in many of these documents are still under review in the
Executive Branch, disclosure to the Subcommittee at the
present time could distort that decisional process by causing
the Executive Branch officials to modify policy positions
they would otherwise espouse because of actual, threatened,
or anticipated congressional reaction. Moreover, even if
the decision at issue had already been made, disclosure to
Congress could still deter the candor of future Executive
Branch deliberations, because officials at all levels would
know that they could someday be called by Congress to account
for the tentative policy judgments which they had earlier
advanced in the councils of the Executive Branch. As the
Supreme Court has noted, "human experience teaches that
those who expect dissemination of their remarks may well
temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their
own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705 (1974). You must
have access to complete and candid advice in order to provide
the soundest basis for presidential decisions. I have concluded
that release of these documents would seriously impair the
deliberative process and the conduct of foreign policy.
There is, therefore, a strong public interest in withholding
the documents from congressional scrutiny at this time.
Against this strong public interest I must consider the
interest of Congress in obtaining these documents. The Sub-
committee, in its letter to Secretary Watt of August 13,
1981, stated that it was conducting a "legislative oversight
inquiry" into the impact of Canadian energy policies upon
American companies. The Subcommittee's next formal communication
to Secretary Watt, the subpoena issued on September 28 and
served October 2, did not further explain the Subcommittee's
need for the information. I therefore presume that the
- 3 -
Subcommittee's interest in obtaining these documents is one
of legislative oversight. 2/
Congress does have a legitimate interest in obtaining
information to assist it in enacting, amending, or repealing
legislation. This interest extends beyond information bearing
on specific proposals for legislation; it includes, as well,
the congressional "oversight" function of being informed re-
garding the manner in which the Executive Branch is executing
the laws which Congress has passed. Such oversight enables
the Legislative Branch to identify at an early stage shortcomings
or problems in the execution of the law which can be remedied
through legislation.
While I recognize the legitimacy of the congressional
interest in the present case, it is important to stress two
points concerning that interest. First, the interest of
Congress in obtaining information for oversight purposes is,
I believe, considerably weaker than its interest when specific
legislative proposals are in question. At the stage of
oversight, the congressional interest is a generalized one of
ensuring that the laws are well and faithfully executed and
of proposing remedial legislation if they are not. The
information requested is usually broad in scope and the
reasons for the request correspondingly general and vague.
In contrast, when Congress is examining specific proposals
for legislation; the information which Congress needs to
enable it to legislate effectively is usually quite narrow in
scope and the reasons for obtaining that information
correspondingly specific. A specific, articulated need for
information will weigh substantially more heavily in the
constitutional balancing than a generalized interest in
obtaining information. See United States V. Nixon, supra;
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
V. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 731-33 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc).
Second, the congressional oversight interest will support
a demand for predecisional, deliberative documents in the
possession of the Executive Branch only in the most unusual
circumstances. It is important to stress that congressional
oversight of Executive Branch actions is justifiable only as
a means of facilitating the legislative task of enacting,
2/ The House Committee on Energy and Commerce does have
pending before it several bills, H.R. 4033, H.R. 4146, and
H.R. 4186, which would amend the Act in certain respects.
The pendency of these bills has not been formally asserted
as a reason for obtaining the documents. Moreover, the
documents requested appear to have a tangential relevance at
best to the subject matter of the bill.
- 4 -
amending, or repealing laws. When such "oversight" is used
as a means of participating directly in an ongoing process
of decision within the Executive Branch, it oversteps the
bounds of the proper legislative function. Restricted to
its proper sphere, the congressional oversight function can
almost always be properly conducted with reference to information
concerning decisions which the Executive Branch has already
reached. Congress will have a legitimate need to know the
preliminary positions taken by Executive Branch officials
during internal deliberations only in the rarest of circumstances.
Congressional demands, under the guise of oversight, for
such preliminary positions and deliberative statements raise
at least the possibility that the Congress has begun to go
beyond the legitimate oversight function and has impermissibly
intruded on the Executive Branch's function of executing the
law. At the same time, the interference with the President's
ability to execute the law is greatest while the decisionmaking
process is ongoing.
Applying the balancing process required by the Supreme Court,
it is my view that the Executive Branch's interests in safeguarding
the integrity of its deliberative processes and its conduct
of the Nation's foreign policy outweigh the stated interest
of the Subcommittee in obtaining this information for oversight
purposes. It is, therefore, my view that these documents
may properly be withheld from the Subcommittee at the present
time.
III.
Finally, a brief word is in order concerning the negotiations
between the Department of the Interior and the Subcommittee during
this dispute. In cases in which the Congress has a legitimate
need for information that will help it legislate and the
Executive Branch has a legitimate, constitutionally recognized
need to keep information confidential, the courts have referred
to the obligation of each Branch to accommodate the legitimate
needs of the other. See United States V. American Tel. &
Tel. Co., 567 F.2d 121, 127, 130 (D.C. Cir. 1977); see generally
United States V. Nixon, supra. The accommodation required is
not simply an exchange of concessions or a test of political strength.
It is an obligation of each Branch to make a principled effort
to acknowledge, and if possible to meet, the legitimate needs
of the other Branch.
It is my view that the Executive Branch has made such a
principled effort at accommodation in the present case. Prior
to the issuance of the subpoena, the Department of the Interior
supplied the Subcommittee with a large number of the documents
subsequently requested by the subpoena. In response to the
subpoena, the interested Executive Branch departments reviewed
those documents which had been withheld and identified documents
- 5 -
that could be supplied in an effort to further accommodate
the Subcommittee's needs. Substantial additional materials
were released to the Subcommittee on October 9, 1981, despite
the fact that at least some of these materials were deliberative
in nature and therefore presumptively subject to a claim of privilege.
Moreover, the Department of the Interior has promised to release
additional material once its deliberations regarding the
status of Canada under the Act are completed. Finally,
members of the Subcommittee staff were provided a comprehensive
list of the materials being withheld from disclosure, and
were briefed orally by the various federal agencies regarding
the nature of those documents.
In contrast, the Subcommittee has not to date shown
itself sensitive to the legitimate needs of the Executive
Branch. As noted, it has never formally stated its need for
the materials beyond a generalized interest in "oversight."
It responded to the submission of documents by the Executive
Branch on September 24 by issuing a subpoena four days later --
a subpoena which was broader in scope than the Subcommittee's
original August 13 request. To date, the Subcommittee has shown
little interest in accommodating legitimate interests of the
Executive Branch in safeguarding the privacy of its deliberative
processes and conducting the Nation's foreign policy. This lack
of accommodation on the Subcommittee's part lends further support
to my conclusion that the documents in question may properly be
withheld.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the documents now being
withheld are well within the scope of executive privilege. The
process by which the President makes executive decisions and
conducts foreign policy would be irreparably impaired by
production of these documents at this time. I recommend that
executive privilege be asserted.
Sincerely,
William
William French Smith
Attorney General
- 6 -
OFFICE OF THE
RECEIVED
THE WHITE HOUSE
RECEIVED
WASHINGTON
Her 27 Ct) 35 AM '59
MAR 2 6 1989
March 24, 1969
GARDE of LEGAL COUNSEL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE TO GOVERN COMPLIANCE
WITH CONGRESSIONAL DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION
The policy of this Administration is to comply to the fullest extent
possible with Congressional requests for information. While the
Executive branch has the responsibility of withholding certain infor-
mation the disclosure of which would be incompatible with the public
interest, this Administration will invoke this authority only in the
most compelling circumstances and after a rigorous inquiry into the
actual need for its exercise. For those reasons Executive privilege
will not be used without specific Presidential approval. The following
procedural steps will govern the invocation of Executive privilege:
1. If the head of an Executive department or agency (hereafter
referred to as "department head") believes that compliance with
à request for information from a Congressional agency addressed
to his department or agency raises a substantial question as to
the need for invoking Executive privilege, he should consult the
Attorney General through the Office of Legal Counsel of the
Department of Justice.
2. If the department head and the Attorney General agree, in accord-
ance with the policy set forth above, that Executive privilege shall
not be invoked in the circumstances, the information shall be re-
leased to the inquiring Congressional agency.
3. If the department head and the Attorney General agree that the
circumstances justify the invocation of Executive privilege, or
if eithor of them believes that the issue should be submitted to
the President, the matter shall be transmitted to the Counsel
to the President, who will advise the department head of the
President's decision.
4. In the event of a Presidential decision to invoke Executive
privilege, the department head should advise the Congres-
sional agency that the claim of Executive privilege is being
made with the specific approval of the President.
5. Pending a final determination of the matter, the department
head should request the Congressional agency to hold its
demand for the information in abeyance until such determin-
ation can be made. Care shall be taken to indicate that the
purpose of this request is to protect the privilege pending the
determination, and that the request does not constitute a claim
of privilege.
Richard Histon
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 13, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
SUBJECT:
Congressional Subpoena for Executive
Branch Documents
I have been advised that the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the
House of Representatives has issued a subpoena requiring you
to produce documents relating to the issue of reciprocity
under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act. I understand that you
have provided both documents and testimony on this subject
to the Subcommittee.
Nevertheless, it has been brought to my attention that
thirty-one documents that may be covered by the subpoena
have not been furnished to the Subcommittee. It is my
decision that you should not release these documents, since
they either deal with sensitive foreign policy negotiations
now in process or constitute materials prepared for the
Cabinet as part of the Executive branch deliberative process
through which recommendations are made to me. Therefore, I
am compelled to assert Executive privilege with respect to
these documents and to instruct you not to produce them to
the Subcommittee. I request that you advise the Subcommitee
of my decision in this matter.
I also request that you remain willing to meet informally
with the Subcommittee to provide such information as you
can, consistent with your obligations of confidentiality to
the President, and without creating a precedent that would
violate the Constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
Ronald Rengan
Items Not Being Released
1. Memorandum from William Brock, United States Trade
Representative to members of the Trade Policy Committee, regarding
options paper on Canadian Investment Policy dated July 6, 1981,
and attached options paper.
2. Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Energy and
Minerals to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the
Solicitor of the Department of Interior regarding Canadian recipro-
city determination under Mineral Lands Leasing Act, dated July 2, 1981
3. Portions of meetings of Trade Policy Meetings dated
July 7, and July 24, 1981.
4. Undated memorandum to the Secretary from the Solicitor of
Interior regarding reciprocity determination.
5 Classified telegrams from U.S. Embassy in Canada dated
July 17 and July 22, 1981.
6. Classified State Department memoranda from commercial
officer AMCONGEN Calgary dated July 27, 1981.
7. Minutes of meeting of United States/Canada consultations
on operations of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, dated
June 12, 1981.
8. Drafts of testimony for Secretary of the Interior con-
cerning foreign investment policy dated July 17, 1981, July 31,
1981 and August 5, 1981.
9. Undated paper prepared for Secretary of the Interior's
use in Cabinet Council discussion entitled "Foreign Investment in
the U.S. Energy and Mineral Industries."
RR
10. Undated memorandum to the Undersecretary of Interior
from
to the Solicitor, regarding legal issues on Canadian reciprocity.
11. Memorandum from Perry Pendley to Secretary Watt
dated July 23, 1981, regarding Mineral Leasing Act.
12. Memorandum from Roger Porter to Cabinet Council on
Economic Affairs, dated July 21, 1981, regarding Mineral Lands
Leasing Act.
13. Memorandum from Roger Porter to James G. Watt regarding
Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs meeting, July 22, 1981.
14. Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs agenda and issue
paper on Canadian Foreign Investment Policy, dated July 21 and
23, 1981.
15. Memorandum for the Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs
from Roger P. Porter, dated July 21 and 27, 1981.
16. Memorandum from Donald Hodel to Roger Porter and
attached Cabinet Council issue paper on Canadian foreign invest-
ment policy, dated July 24, 1981.
17. Untitled, undated paper on Foreign Investment in the
U.S. Energy and Minerals Energy.
18. Untitled, undated State Department paper on Mineral
Lands Leasing Act of 1920.
19. Memorandum from William Brock to Trade Policy Committee,
dated July 6, 1981, regarding attached paper on Canadian investment
policy.
20. Memorandum to Director of Bureau of Land Management and
:
Solicitor of Interior, dated July 2, 1981, regarding Canadian
reciprocity determination under 1920 Mineral Leasing Act.
RR
21. Memorandum from Jack Campbell to Mark Santucci,
dated September 4, 1981, regarding comments on early papers for
TPSC response to Canada.
22. Undated memorandum to Secretary of Interior from
Solicitor of the Interior regarding reciprocity determinations.
23. Memorandum from Jack Campbell to Frank Vukmanic
dated July 14, 1981, regarding issues of concern to the
Department of the Interior in foreign (Canadian) investment in
U.S. companies.
24. Memorandum from Ligia Salcedo, July 14, 1981, regarding
limited reciprocal status in Canada within the meaning of the
Mineral Leasing Act.
25. Cabinet Council issue paper, July 24, 1981, regarding
Canadian foreign investment policy.
26. Interior Department memorandum regarding issues concerning
the Mineral Lands Leasing Act reciprocity provision.
27. Interior Department memorandum from Jack Campbell dated
September 9, 1981, regarding further issues concerning the Mineral
Leasing Lands Act reciprocity provision.
28. Interior Department memorandum from Jack Campbell, dated
August 11, .1981, regarding first stage review of reciprocity provision
of the Mineral Act.
29. Paper entitled "Legal Questions concerning the Non-
Reciprocal Provision of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920."
30. Paper entitled "Options for Making Reciprocity Provisions
under the Authority of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920."
31. Untitled Interior Department Options paper on foreign
investments
RR
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR .:FILES
DLB 4/1/2014
File Folder
FOIA
IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: CONTRAS - PROJECT
S643
DEMOCRACY
SYSTEMATIC
Box Number
CFOA 1131
126
ID
Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
Document Description
pages
tions
164708 LETTER
1
ND
B1
EDITED DRAFT MCFARLANE TO CONGRESSMAN
BARNES
The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
As I love stated in earlier consepandence,
the involvement of members of the WSC has been
within the letter and the spirit of the law
I box passually appeared briekd spe the HPSCI
and love awwered follow-up question to the
Wender setisfaction on all of these issues raised
by them. I have also net my you and de32.
in detail our action as documented
Beyond that offer I du not at Attanty un wor
it le to provide items to menter of
your stall
E-19
'c
=