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
118567676
label
JGR/Cabinet Council on Legal Policy (2 of 3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118567676
contentType
document
title
JGR/Cabinet Council on Legal Policy (2 of 3)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118567676
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9eda47841ead493f
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Cabinet Council on
Legal Policy (2 of 3)
Box: 6
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS osa
SUBJECT:
Cabinet Council on Legal Policy: Status of
the Administration's Immigration Reform
Legislation
The status of the Administration's immigration reform
legislation has been placed on the agenda of the Cabinet
Council on Legal Policy meeting scheduled for 2:00 p.m.
today. The Deputy Attorney General has prepared a
memorandum for the members of the Cabinet Council, reviewing
the background and current status of the Simpson-Mazzoli
bill, and outlining the major unresolved differences between
the Senate and House versions. The legislation has passed
the Senate, and the House version has been favorably
reported out of the House Judiciary Committee. Three other
House committees have reviewed the bill and recommended
substantive amendments. The House Rules Committee must now
establish a procedure for floor consideration. Speaker
O'Neill, in a volte-face, has promised to bring the bill to
the floor in early 1984.
The two principal differences between the Senate and House
versions are money and timing of legalization. The Senate
bill would establish a block grant program to aid the States
in meeting the welfare costs of legalized aliens. The
Administration has committed to fund this program at $1.4
billion for five years. The House bill authorizes full
Federal reimbursement to the States of the cost of
legalization, at an OMB-estimated cost of $11.2 billion for
five years.
With respect to the related issue of timing of legalization,
the Senate bill provides permanent resident status for
illegal aliens who continually resided in the United States
since before 1977, and temporary resident status for aliens
who arrived before 1980. Ineligibility for federal benefits
would extend for three years after permanent resident
status, six years after temporary resident status. The
House bill would provide permanent resident status to any
alien who arrived in the United States before 1982.
Schmults's memorandum reviews the other, less significant
differences between the Senate and House bills, primarily
in the details of the temporary worker program and the
administration of employer sanctions. The memorandum
- 2 -
concludes on an optimistic note, contending that the
strength of the Senate vote on the Administration-favored
version (76-18) augurs well for resolving many of the
differences between the Senate and House bills in the
Administration's favor in conference.
David Stockman has sumbitted a memorandum of his own,
raising serious budgetary and policy concerns about both the
Senate and House bills. His main concern is the
multi-billion dollar cost of either version. Stockman
argues that the conference outcome is likely to be an
"unacceptable" $11.7 billion for 1984-89, and that unless
the Administration acts forcefully before the bill is
scheduled for House action, it will be "too expensive."
Stockman's language strikes me as irresponsibly loose, in
light of the circumstances surrounding the fate of the
Simpson-Mazzoli bill. Speaker O'Neill torpedoed the bill
last year because of an alleged plan by the President to
veto it, and only agreed to floor consideration this year
after assurances that his fears were absurd. Now Stockman
circulates a memorandum on the bill laced with words such as
"unacceptable" and "too expensive." Perhaps it would be
wise to admonish the Cabinet Council participants to be
particularly circumspect concerning the confidentiality of
the memorandum, if that will do any good. Obviously the
Administration should work to eliminate the expensive House
amendments, but the President is committed, as a practical
matter, to signing anything that reaches his desk and looks
remotely like Simpson-Mazzoli.
Attachment
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 . OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Edward C. Schmults
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Cabinet. Council on Legal Policy
Status f the administration's Immigration
Reform Legislation
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
WHOLL
ORIGINATOR 84,01,13
/ /
Referral Note:
WAT 18
r 84,01,13
584,01,16
Referral Note:
10:00am
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
I
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CABINET AFFAIRS STAFFING MEMORANDUM
Date: 1/13/84
Number: 168885CA
Due By:
Subject: Cabinet Council on Legal Policy - Monday, January 16, 1984
2:00 P.M. - Roosevelt Room
Action
FYI
Action
FYI
ALL CABINET MEMBERS
CEA
CEQ
Vice President
OSTP
State
ACUS
Treasury
Defense
Attorney General
Interior
Agriculture
Baker
Commerce
Deaver
Labor
Darman (For WH Staffing)
HHS
Jenkins
HUD
Mc Farlane
Transportation
Svahn
Energy
Fielding
Education
Counsellor
OMB
CIA
UN
USTR
CCCT/Gunn
CCEA/Porter
GSA
CCFA/
EPA
CCHR/Simmons
OPM
CCLP/Uhlmann
VA
CCMA/Bledsoe
SBA
CCNRE/
REMARKS: The Cabinet Council on Legal Policy will meet on Monday, January
16, 1984 at 2:00 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room.
The agenda will include the following items:
- Legal Equity for Women - BAR
- Immigration Policy - JGR
- Bankruptcy Judges sime
- Crime Legislation
The briefing papers are attached.
RETURN TO:
Craig L. Fuller
Katherine Anderson
Don Clarey
Assistant to the President
Tom Gibson
Larry Herbolsheimer
for Cabinet Affairs
Associate Director
456-2823
Office of Cabinet Affairs
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CABINET AFFAIRS STAFFING MEMORANDUM
Date: 1/13/84
Number: 168885CA
Due By:
Subject:
Cabinet Council on Legal Policy - Monday, January 16, 1984
2:00 p.m. - Roosevelt Room
Action
FYI
Action
FYI
ALL CABINET MEMBERS
CEA
CEQ
Vice President
OSTP
State
ACUS
Treasury
Defense
Attorney General
Interior
Agriculture
Baker
Commerce
Deaver
Labor
Clark
HHS
Darman (For WH Staffing)
HUD
Jenkins
Transportation
Svahn
Energy
Fielding
Education
Counsellor
OMB
CIA
UN
USTR
CCCT/Gunn
CCEA/Porter
GSA
CCFA/
EPA
CCHR/Simmons
OPM
CCLP/Uhlmann
VA
CCMA/Bledsoe
SBA
CCNRE/
REMARKS:
Attached is an additional paper for the CCLP meeting which is
scheduled for Monday, January 16, 1984.
The agenda was sent to you earlier today with the background
papers.
RETURN TO:
Craig L. Fuller
Katherine Anderson
Don Clarey
Assistant to the President
Tom Gibson
Larry Herbolsheimer
for Cabinet Affairs
Associate Director
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF management AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
JAN 13 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CABINET COUNCIL ON LEGAL POLICY
FROM:
DAVID A. STOCKMAN
PAS
SUBJECT:
OMB's Concerns with the Immigration
Legislation
The purpose of this memorandum is to express OMB's budgetary and
policy concerns with the immigration legislation and to urge the
Administration to determine the budget magnitude and policy
compromises it is willing to support in preparation for devising
a legislative strategy to effect passage of a bill the
Administration can accept.
Budget Concerns
O
Both the House and Senate bills have serious budget
implications for 1984-89: $13.3 billion in H.R. 1510 and
$10.1 billion in S. 529.
Despite repeated expressions of Administration concern,
the budgetary impact of the legislation has not been
addressed, especially in the House bill.
-- The Senate ignored the Administration's request to limit
the block grant to $1.4 billion over four years. The
block grant remains uncapped.
- The House Judiciary Committee defeated amendments to
control costs by limiting Federal reimbursements as well
as the population of legalized aliens.
- Representative Lungren, intended block grant sponsor on
the House Floor, has indicated the lack of support
for a block grant. He is considering more expensive
amendments.
-- Given the costs of the current House and Senate bills, the
conference outcome (if it splits the difference) is likely
to be an unacceptable $11.7 billion for 1984-89 without
forceful intervention by the Administration.
Policy Concerns
O Both bills create a large new entitlement group of legalized
aliens contrary to Administration efforts to control
entitlement spending.
2
Reimbursement authority in the House bill has no cost control.
States determine costs and the Federal Government pays. For
example, the Federal Government would pay the full cost of
educating legalized aliens.
O The uncapped block grant in the Senate still creates serious
budget exposure. States will argue that immigration is a
Federal problem and press for the Federal Government to pay
all costs.
O The House bill also significantly weakens enforcement:
-- Verification of employment eligibility is voluntary
until the first violation, thereby giving employers an
affirmative defense against sanctions.
-- Employers of casual labor (i.e., agriculture and
construction) are not required to check worker ID for 24
hours. This provision eliminates any fear of penalty and
effectively exempts day labor from employer sanctions.
-- There would be no penalty assessed for an employer's first
violation.
-- Employers of illegals would be exempted from employer
sanctions for three years by participating in the
transition worker program.
Unless the Administration reasserts its budget and policy
concerns before the bill is scheduled for House action, the
Administration will be faced with a conference bill that is too
expensive and contains significant enforcement loopholes.
Senator Simpson's offer to take the post-conference bill to the
President for concurrence puts pressure on the President to take
responsibility for the outcome of the bill. Given these factors,
the Administration needs to determine the dollar magnitude and
policy compromises it is willing to accept and to follow that
determination with an appropriate legislative strategy.
U.S. Department
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
The Deputy Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
January 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Members of the Cabinet Council
on Legal Policy
FROM:
Edward C. Schmults
Deputy Attorney General DD
SUBJECT:
Status of the Administration's
Immigration Reform Legislation
This memorandum sets forth the current status of immigration
reform legislation in the 98th Congress.
I. Historical Overview
Following receipt of the Final Report of the Select
Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy in March of 1981,
the President established a Cabinet Task Force, chaired by the
Attorney General, to study the Commission's recommendations for
comprehensive immigration reform. Based on that review the
Administration submitted a legislative package of immigration
reform proposals to the Congress in October of 1981 which
embodied the most important recommendations of the Select
Commission.
The principal provisions of the Administration bill were
(1) penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens,
(2) legal status for illegal aliens who were in the U.S. before
January 1, 1980, (3) an expanded temporary foreign worker program
where domestic workers are unavailable, (4) reform of our pro-
cedures to return persons who enter the U.S. illegally, (5)
expanded legal.authorities to deal with mass arrivals of undocu-
mented aliens, and (6) increased legal immigrant admissions for
Canada and Mexico.
After extensive hearings on the Administration bill, Senator
Simpson and Congressman Mazzoli, the Chairmen of the Senate and
House Immigration Subcommittees, respectively, in March of 1982
introduced their own immigration reform legislation which
incorporated most of the Administration's proposals. The most
significant exception to that incorporation was the deletion of
the Administration's mass immigration emergency plan. At the
Cabinet Council meeting on April 16, 1982, it was decided that
the Simpson-Mazzoli bill would become the Administration's
vehicle for immigration reform.
- 2 -
Thereafter, on August 17, 1982, the U.S. Senate passed a
substantially unchanged Simpson-Mazzoli bill on an over-
whelming, bipartisan vote of 80-19. The following month the
House Committee on the Judiciary reported its amended version of
the legislation to the House floor where it became stalled during
the post-election "lame duck" session.
II. Current Status
On February 17, 1983, Senator Simpson introduced the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983, S. 529, an identical
bill to the legislation which passed the Senate in the 97th
Congress. On the same date Congressman Mazzoli introduced H.R.
1510, identical in all major respects to the reform legislation
previously reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Expedited hearing and mark-up schedules were established by
the relevant Senate and House Committees. During the week of
April 4, 1983, both the Senate and House Immigration Subcommittees
completed mark-up on their respective bills. The Senate bill was
reported to full Committee unanimously, and House Subcommittee
passage was by a 7-1 vote.
Thereafter, on April 19th, the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary reported S. 529 to the full Senate on a 13-4 vote and
on May 18th that body passed the legislation on a gratifying
76-18 vote.
Obtaining House action on its version of the legislation,
H.R. 1510, has been significantly more complex. On May 5th the
House Judiciary Committee favorably reported the bill on
a 20-9 vote. However, four other House Committees then requested
sequential referral to consider those portions of the legislation
under their jurisdiction. The referral period expired June 27th,
at which time three of the Committees -- Agriculture, Education
and Labor, and Energy and Commerce -- reported out fairly sub-
stantive amendments. The Ways and Means Committee elected not to
invoke its referral jurisdiction.
Currently we are awaiting House Rules Committee action on
establishing a procedure for floor consideration of H.R. 1510.
Although Rules. Committee Chairman Pepper has yet to schedule the
matter, an effort will be made to ensure that his Committee acts
before the Lincoln/Washington Congressional recess from February
10th to February 21st. This would be consistent with Speaker
O'Neill's recent press statements that the immigration reform
bill would be brought to the floor of the House early in 1984.
III. Significant Remaining Issues
The immigration reform issues which remain problematic
principally reflect the differences between the Senate and House
- 3 -
bills, and between the House Judiciary Committee bill (on which
the Administration has focused) and the amendments proposed by
the sequential referral committees. The committees' proposals
are discussed below to the extent they are relevant.
1. One of the most significant of the issues separating the
Senate and House bills is the appropriate mechanism for assisting
state and local governments with the costs which arise as the
newly legalized residents gain access to welfare programs. The
Senate bill takes the strongly preferred approach of establishing
a block grant/impact aid program which the Administration has
committed to fund at $1.4 billion for five years. The House bill
authorizes the Federal government to reimburse 100% of all state
and local welfare programs for legalized aliens, including educa-
tional expenses. OMB has estimated that the five-year cost of
this approach would be $8.2 billion for welfare expenditures and
$3 billion for educational program support.
2. A corollary issue is whether to advance the legalization
eligibility date to adjust the status of a larger portion of the
illegal alien population and in light of the fact the immigration
reform effort is one year older. The Senate bill maintains last
year's Administration-supported "Grassley compromise," which
provides permanent resident status for eligible aliens who
continuously resided in the United States since before January 1,
1977, and temporary resident status for such aliens who arrived
here before 1980 with adjustment to permanent status after three
years. Ineligibility for federal benefits would extend for three
years from the time permanent resident status was obtained. The
House bill utilizes a "one tier" approach, providing permanent
resident status to eligible aliens who have resided in the U.S.
since before January 1, 1982.
To date we have consistently opposed advancing the eligi-
bility date both on equity grounds and from the point of view of
limiting federal outlays. Our argument has been that legaliza-
tion is not intended to give legal status to all illegal aliens,
but only to those who have demonstrated a commitment to this
country by long-term, continuous residence as contributing,
self-sufficient members of their communities. Any other standard
would be unfair to our legal residents and to legal immigrants
waiting patiently in line, often for years, to obtain immigrant
visas. Every effort will be made to obtain ultimately the
legalization program outlined in the Senate bill.
3. Another contentious issue is the appropriate mechanism
for assisting agricultural employers who have become dependent on
an illegal migratory workforce. Both the Senate and House bills
provide for a statutory and streamlined "H-2" (non-immigrant,
temporary worker! program for agricultural workers similar to a
regulatory program already in existence. Both bills also contain
a supplementary program permitting agricultural employers to hire
"undocumented" workers, subject to numerical limitations estab-
lished by the Attorney General, for a three-year "transition"
- 4 -
period. The Administration position has been to support the
streamlined H-2 program pursuant to an April 16, 1982, Cabinet
Council meeting and to support the transition worker program.
This latter decision was ratified at a May 10, 1983, White House
meeting on the status of the immigration reform effort.
4. More recently, agricultural interests have initiated a
strong lobbying campaign to obtain Administration support for yet
another program to mitigate the effects of employer sanctions.
Specifically, they urge that we support the Panetta amendment
proposed by the Agriculture Committee to establish a "guest
worker" program for growers of perishable commodities. The
premise is that a more flexible program than H-2 is necessary
because of the uncertainty of harvest schedules for certain
fragile crops. The question arises, however, whether such an
additional program would "unbalance" the reform legislation in
agriculture's favor.
5. The Education and Labor Committee has proposed a sub-
stantive amendment to H.R. 1510, also relating to the ongoing
tension between Labor and Agricultural interests on the appro-
priate criteria for the admission of temporary workers to the
U.S. The Miller amendment adopted by the Committee would, in
general terms, eliminate some of the "streamlining" in the
proposed statutory H-2 program while at the same time estab-
lishing a "commission" tc. resolve some of the most divisive
issues separating Labor and Agriculture. The Committee also
adopted a Hawkins amendment modifying employer sanctions by
creating a special counsel within the U.S. Immigration Board to
bring actions against employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens
(instead of INS District Directors bringing those actions) and
against employers who discriminate against legal residents under
the guise of complying with employer sanctions. This last
provision is in response to the assertion by some Hispanic groups
that employer sanctions will be discriminatory because employers
will avoid hiring those with certain linguistic or physical
characteristics. The Administration has taken the position that
increased discrimination is not anticipated (indeed there may be
less discrimination when employers are no longer permitted to
hire "malleable" illegal workers in preference to legal
residents) and that the legislation contains extensive reporting
requirements to ensure that increased discrimination does not
result. It is also notable that the legislation mandates a
uniform employment eligibility verification procedure for all new
hires specifically designed to eliminate any incentive for an
employer to discriminate. Finally, a legal remedy is already
available for discriminatory employment practices under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
6. Two other important, though less problematic, differences
between the Senate and House bills should be mentioned. The
first is the changes in our current system for legal immigration
contained in the Senate bill, principally the "overall cap" of
425,000 on legal immigration including immediate relatives. The
House bill, at the insistence of Chairman Rodino, specifically
rejects changes in our current preference system. The Adminis-
tration has likewise argued that changes in our legal immigration
system should be deferred until after we have addressed the more
urgent problem of uncontrolled illegal migration. Indications
are that our view will prevail in conference and significant
other portions of the Senate bill may well be obtained in
exchange.
7. The second "second tier" issue concerns the Senate and
House treatment of our current overburdened adjudication and
asylum system. The Senate bill provides for more streamlined
procedures which promise some finality in judgments while the
House procedures are in several particulars even more cumber-
some than current law. Attempts will be made to narrow the gap
by amending the House bill and to have our preference for the
Senate procedures prevail in conference.
IV. Prospects
Despite the apparent multitude of issues remaining to be
resolved, prospects for final enactment of immigration reform
legislation are good. As previously indicated, Speaker O'Neill
has publicly stated his intention to bring the House bill to the
floor and, significantly, he predicts it will pass. National
editorial support for immigration reform continues to be over-
whelming, and the public opinion polls, without exception, indi-
cate strong support for each of the major elements of the
legislation. As to the final Congressional product, the 76-18
vote on the Senate bill, which reflects the Administration's
position, augurs well for our success in the conference committee
which will resolve the differences between the House and Senate
versions.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 236
SUBJECT:
Cabinet Council on Legal Policy With
The President: (1) Task Force on Legal
Equity for Women (2) Victims of Crime
Legislation (3) Interim Report by the
Task Force on Family Violence
We have received the briefing papers for tomorrow's meeting
of the Cabinet Council on Legal Policy (CCLP). Three topics
are on the agenda: (1) a report concerning the activities
of the Task Force on Legal Equity for Women, (2) a decision
on whether to support Justice's proposed victims of crime
legislation, and (3) an interim report from the Attorney
General's Task Force on Family Violence.
1. Task Force on Legal Equity for Women. The Attorney
General has submitted a memorandum for the President on this
topic, reviewing the formation of the Task Force in 1981 and
the various reports it has submitted through the CCLP since
that time. The memorandum notes that the Fourth Quarterly
Report was submitted last December, containing reports from
26 agencies concerning reviews of sex bias in regulations,
policies, and practices. The Fifth Quarterly Report,
currently in utero, will contain such progress reports from
15 agencies.
The Attorney General recommends three steps be taken to
expedite and promote the work of the Task Force. First, he
urges that the Administration move actively to obtain
passage of S. 501, the bill designed to correct the gender
specific language in the U.S. Code identified in previous
quarterly reports filed by the Task Force. Second, he
recommends that the President direct agencies to complete
their internal review of sex bias by April 1, to expedite
preparation of the next quarterly report. Third, the
Attorney General asks the President to direct the Task Force
to take an active role in correcting sex bias identified by
the agencies as soon as possible.
I have no objection to any of these recommendations. The
Administration is already on record as supporting S. 501,
and the other recommendations simply promote the work of the
Task Force.
- 2 -
2. Victims of Crime Legislation. A memorandum from
John Svahn to the members of the CCLP outlines the dispute
between Justice and OMB on proposed legislation to aid
victims of crime. Justice's bill, awaiting OMB clearance,
would create a Crime Victim's Assistance Fund. Money would
flow into the fund from: (1) new fees assessed against
every federal convict ($25 for misdemeanant, $50 for felon),
(2) all criminal fines from federal convicts, (3) a
percentage of the salaries paid to federal inmates, (4) a
percentage of any payments to parolees, (5) all proceeds
from literary rights sold by a criminal arising from his
criminal act, (6) public contributions, (7) funds from other
Federal agencies. Of money available in the Fund, 50
percent would go to reimburse states that reimburse victims,
30 percent to states for nonfinancial assistance to victims,
and 20 percent for federal nonfinancial assistance to
victims.
Justice argues that the bill is consistent with the
Administration commitment to help victims of crime. It is
fiscally responsible, since no new appropriation is re-
quested, and funds would only be disbursed to the extent
available. Reimbursing the states avoids excessive federal
intrusion into a matter primarily of state concern. Most
states that have victim relief provisions do not distinguish
between victims of state and federal crime, so some federal
support for such programs is appropriate.
OMB objects to the bill largely on the ground that, in the
hands of Congress, it will become an item of ever-increasing
appropriations. The Justice scheme will fund compensation
only for a minute percentage of victims, resulting in
pressure for appropriated funds to supplement the Fund.
I do not have strong feelings either way. There is merit to
the Justice contention that some federal reimbursement is
appropriate, since current state victim relief systems
benefit victims of federal as well as state crime. The
approach of a "users' fee" on federal criminals also has a
certain appeal, although the small, flat fee for felons is a
little disconcerting (Murder? That'll be $50).
3. Interim Report of the Task Force on Family
Violence. Lois Herrington will deliver an interim report on
the work of this task force, established by the Attorney
General on September 19, 1983. The Task Force, chaired by
Detroit Chief of Police William Hart, has had several
meetings. There are no briefing papers on this topic.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CABINET AFFAIRS STAFFING MEMORANDUM
2/13/84
Number:
168909CA
Date:
Due By:
ubject:
Cabinet Council on Legal Policy with the President
Tuesday, February 14, 1984 - 2:00 p.m.
Action
FYI
Action
FYI
ALL CABINET MEMBERS
CEA
Vice President
CEQ
OSTP
State
ACUS
Treasury
Defense
Attorney General
Interior
Agriculture
Baker
Commerce
Deaver
Labor
HHS
Darman (For WH Staffing)
HUD
Jenkins
Transportation
Mc Farlane
Energy
Svahn
Education
Fielding
Counsellor
OMB
CIA
UN
USTR
CCCT/Gunn
GSA
CCEA/Porter
EPA
CCFA/
OPM
CCHR/Simmons
VA
CCLP/Uhlmann
SBA
CCMA/Bledsoe
CCNRE/
REMARKS: The Cabinet Council on Legal Policy will meet with the President
on Tuesday, February 14, 1984 at 2:00 p.m. in the Cabinet Room.
The agenda items are:
1) Task Force on Legal Equity for Women
2) Victims of Crime Legislation
3) Interim Report by the Task Force on Family Violence
Papers are attached for items 1 and 2. There will be no paper
on Family Violence.
RETURN TO:
Craig L. Fuller
Katherine Anderson
Assistant to the President
Don Clarey
Tom Gibson
for Cabinet Affairs
Larry Herbolsheimer
Associate Director
456-2823
OF SIGNITURE
Office of the Attorney General
THE
Washington, D. C. 20530
POLICY
JUSTITIA
February 10, 1984
DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR:
The President
FROM:
William French Smith
WAS
Attorney General
SUBJECT:
CCLP Meeting -- Task Force
on Legal Equity for Women
Executive Order 12336 put in place a mechanism for
identifying and eliminating federal laws and practices
discriminating against women. After reviewing the substantial
progress that has been made to this end, the Cabinet Council on
Legal Policy has concluded that the initiatives under this
executive order should be further expedited, and makes three
specific recommendations to accomplish this.
I.
Executive Order 12336
Executive Order 12336 of December 21, 1981, established the
Task Force on Legal Equity for Women "to provide for the
systematic elimination of regulatory and procedural barriers
which have unfairly precluded women from receiving equal treat-
ment from Federal activities." (See Tab 1.) Section One of the
Order provides that the President shall appoint the Task Force
members from among nominees of the heads of 21 specified execu-
tive agencies, each of which is to have one representative on the
Task Force.
Section Two of the Order provides that each Task Force
member is responsible for coordinating and facilitating in his or
her respective agency, under the direction of the head of the
agency, the implementation of changes ordered by the President in
sex-discriminatory federal regulations, policies, and practices.
The Task Force is charged with making "periodic reports" to the
President on the progress made in implementing the President's
directives.
In addition, Section Two of the Order directs the Attorney
General to complete a review of federal laws, regulations,
policies, and practices which contain language that unjustifiably
differentiates, or effectively discriminates, on the basis of
sex. The Attorney General is directed to report his findings to
- 2 -
the President on a quarterly basis through the Cabinet Council on
Human Resources (this function was subsequently transferred to
the CCLP).
II. Attorney General Quarterly Reports
I assigned to the Department's Civil Rights Division the
task of coordinating the review of sex-discriminatory laws and
regulations mandated by Executive Order 12336 and preparing
progress reports for transmittal to the White House via the CCLP.
The review effort was designed to proceed essentially in two
phases: first, the Justice Department was to conduct a review of
sex bias in federal statutes, and, second, individual agencies
were to undertake a review of sex bias in regulations, policies,
and practices under their respective jurisdictions. The first
phase is essentially completed and the results embodied in
pending legislation; the second phase is proceeding as scheduled
and due to be completed this spring.
The Justice Department transmitted the First Quarterly
Report to the CCLP on June 28, 1982. This report contained:
(1) a list of federal statutes reflecting sex bias (based upon a
1976 computer search performed by President Carter's Task Force
on Sex Discrimination) ; (2) a discussion of selected women's
issues; and (3) a summary of efforts made by federal agencies to
correct discrimination in laws and regulations.
The Second Quarterly Report, transmitted on December 3,
1982, announced that the Department had authorized an updated
computer-assisted search of the U.S. Code and Code of Federal
Regulations and was in the process of coordinating new agency
review efforts. These tasks were reported to be "well underway."
The Third Quarterly Report was transmitted to the CCLP in
July 1983. This was the final report on federal statutes
containing distinctions based on sex, and was the product of the
most comprehensive computer-assisted review of the U.S. Code ever
undertaken to identify gender-based distinctions. The report
also summarized the initial progress made by several agencies in
reviewing their regulations and policies for sex-based dis-
tinctions.
The Fourth Quarterly Report was transmitted to the White
House in December 1983. This report was a lengthy compilation of
reports from 26 agencies summarizing their surveys of
regulations, policies, practices, field instruments, and publica-
tions under their respective jurisdictions. The introduction to
the Fourth Quarterly Report, and brief summaries of the
individual agency reports (prepared by the Justice Department),
are attached at Tab 2. Several agencies reported that they had
taken steps to implement their findings through elimination of
sex-discriminatory language in agency documents, and several
reported adoption of policy statements to ensure that documents
drafted in the future will be sex-neutral.
- 3 -
The Justice Department is in the process of preparing the
Fifth Quarterly Report, which will contain progress reports on 15
agencies. Of particular interest are the reports from the
Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human
Services, which identify sex bias in actuarial tables used by
these agencies to compute tax liability and qualification for
certain welfare programs, respectively. The reports also
describe steps being taken to convert to gender-neutral tables.
As of the Fifth Quarterly Report, 27 of the 42 agencies
involved in the review process will have completed their reviews.
The Civil Rights Division has asked the remaining 15 agencies to
complete their reviews by mid-April, and currently projects that
the review procedure mandated by Section Two of Executive Order
12336 will be completed with the issuance of a final Quarterly
Report by mid-May.
III. Recommendations
A. Legislative Initiative
Part of the work produced by the Department's review process
has been embodied in Senator Dole's S. 501, a bill to amend the
laws of the United States to eliminate gender-based distinctions.
The initial version of S. 501 addressed many of the gender-based
distinctions identified by the First Quarterly Report, and, in
September 1983, the Administration proposed substantial amendments
to S. 501 to amend several dozen additional sex-biased statutes
identified by the Third Quarterly Report. The Senate Judiciary
Committee voted unanimously on November 10, 1983, to report
S. 501 to the Senate floor, and anticipates filing the Committee
Report late this month. No action has taken place on any comparable
bill before the House.
The Administration should move actively to obtain passage of
S. 501 when Congress returns and to initiate action on parallel
legislation in the House.
Approve
Disapprove
B. The Department's Review Process
As indicated above, the review of sex-discriminatory agency
regulations and practices mandated by Executive Order 12336 is
currently scheduled to be completed by mid-May. We believe,
however, that this process can and should be completed more
quickly. Thus, the CCLP recommends that the President instruct
the agencies participating in the review process to complete
their reviews by April 1, so that the Justice Department can
issue its final Quarterly Report by mid-April.
Approve
Disapprove
- 4 -
C. Task Force Activity
When the Justice Department's review of the U.S. Code
was completed (with the issuance of the Third Quarterly Report),
the CCLP and the Justice Department appropriately took the lead
in incorporating the results of the review into S. 501. Now the
second part of the review effort -- the survey of agency regula-
tions and practices -- is well on its way to completion. Thus,
the CCLP recommends that you instruct the Task Force to take an
active role to correct the sex-discriminatory provisions identi-
fied as soon as possible.
Approve
Disapprove
Attachments
104
62239
fuderal Register
Presidential Documents
job 4a. No. 240
Wednesday. December 23. 1981
Executive Order 12336 of December 21, 1981
Title
The President
The Task Force on Legal Equity for Women
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution of the United
States of America. and in order to provide for the systematic elimination of
regulatory and procedural barriers which have unfairly precluded women
from receiving equal treatment from Federal activities, it is hereby ordered as
follows:
Section 1. Establishment (a) There is established the Task Force on Legal
Equity for Women
(b) The Task Force members shall be appointed by the President from among
nominees by the heads of the following Executive agencies. each of which
shall have one representative on the Task Force.
(1) Department of State.
(2) Department of The Treasury.
(3) Department of Defense.
(4) Department of Justice.
(5) Department of The Interior.
(6) Department of Agriculture.
(7) Department of Commerce.
(8) Department of Labor.
(9) Department of Health and Human Services.
(10) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(11) Department of Transportation.
(12) Department of Energy.
(13) Department of Education.
(14) Agency for International Development.
(15) Veterans Administration.
(16) Office of Management and Budget
(17) International Communication Agency.
(18) Office of Personnel Management
(19) Environmental Protection Agency.
(20) ACTION.
(21) Small Business Administration.
(c) The President shall designate one of the members to chair the Task Force.
Other agencies may be invited to participate in the functions of the Task
Force.
Sec. 2 Functions. (a) The members of the Task Force shall be responsible for
coordinating and facilitating in their respective agencies, under the direction
of the heud of their agency, the implementation of changes ordered by the
President in sex-discriminatory Federal regulations. policies. and practices.
(b) The Task Force shall periodically report to the President on the progress
made throughout the Government in implementing the President's directives.
62240 Federal Register / Vul. 40. No. 246 / Wednesday. December 23. 1981 / Presidential Documents
(c) The Attorney General shall complete the review of Federal laws. regula-
tions, policies. and practices which contain language that unjustifiably differ-
entiutes, or which effectively discriminates. on the busis of sex. The Attorney
General or his designee shall, on a quarterly basis, report his findings to the
President through the Cabinet Council on Human Resources.
Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The head of each Executive agency shall. to the
extent permitted by law, provide the Task Force with such information and
advice as the Task Force may identify as being useful to fulfill its functions.
(b) The agency with its representative chairing the Task Force shall. to the
extent permitted by law. provide the Task Force with such administrative
support as may be necessary for the effective performance of its functions.
(c) The head of each agency represented on the Task Force shall. to the extent
permitted by law. furnish its representative such administrative support as is
necessary and appropriate.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Section 1-101(h) of Executive Order No. 12258,
as amended. is revoked.
(b) Executive Order No. 12135 is revoked.
(c) Section 6 of Executive Order No. 12050. as amended, is revoked.
Ronald Reagan
THE WHITE HOUSE.
December 21. 1981.
Editorial Note: The President's remarks of Dec. 21. 1631. on signing Executive Order 12330 are
printed in the Wookly Compilation of Presidential Documents (voL 17. no. 52).
FR Doc. 81-36758
Filed 12-21-81: 2:43 pm|
Billing code 3193-01-M
li
The Fourth Quarterly
Report of the Attorney General
to the President and the Cabinet
Council on Legal Policy as Required
by Executive Order No. 12336
Prepared by the
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
INTRODUCTION AND HIGHLIGHTS
This is the Fourth Quarterly Report of the Attorney General
to the President and the Cabinet Council on Legal Policy as
required by Executive Order No. 12336. It contains reports from
26 agencies on their reviews of Federal laws, regulations, policies,
practices, field instruments, and publications for sex discrimina-
tion. Eight of these reports are updates from reports contained
in the Third Quarterly Report. Eighteen are the agency's first and
in several instances the agency's final report. Preceeding each
report is a status summary that concisely sets forth the sex
discrimination issues, if any, that the agency is addressing and
the degree of completion of the agency review.
Sex Discrimination Agency Reports and Summaries
Table of Contents
Agriculture, Department of
Agency for International Development
*Civil Aeronautics Board
Commerce, Department of
*Education, Department of
Energy, Department of
Farm Credit Administration
*Federal Emergency Management Agency
General Services Administration
*Health and Human Services, Department of
Interior, Department of
Interstate Commerce Commission
Justice, Department of
*National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Railroad Retirement Board
*
Reports by these agencies are second and/or third submissions.
Some agencies have submitted two reports.
*Small Business Administration
State, Department of
Tennessee Valley Authority
*Transportation, Department of
Treasury, Department of
United States Information Agency
*Veterans Administration
*
Reports by these agencies are second and/or third submissions.
Some agencies have submitted two reports.
Department of Agriculture
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers a wide
variety of programs under the authority of numerous Acts of
Congress. Programs relate to the growth and cultivation of crops,
the raising and slaughtering of livestock and the grading and
marketing of certain food products; loans of several kinds,
insurance, housing, and assistance for the benefit of those
engaged in agricultural activities or who reside in rural areas;
energy and utility delivery and environmental protection; and
research into these many areas.
USDA has submitted individual agency reports for inclusion
in the Fourth Quarterly Report. The thoroughness of the reviews
vary. Most of the agencies will be asked for additional informa-
tion or to conduct more comprehensive reviews aimed at identifying
substantive sex bias.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reports that it has
reviewed its statutes and regulations and that none contain
substantive or terminological references. FNS has been asked to
reconsider its review because one statute listed as gender free
contains substantive distinctions on the basis of sex. The
statute, 42 U.S.C. $1773 is listed in the Third Quarterly Report:
Section One.
The Rural Electrification Administration (REA) report only
responds to references in the 1978 Interim Report to the President.
REA reports that in 1981 one publication was revised to remove
discriminatory photographs. No mention is made of changes to
other publications or efforts to remove sex discriminatory
language from publications. REA has not reported that it has
reviewed its statutes, regulations, policies, practices, and
field instruments. The agency will be asked to do SO.
The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) submitted a two
paragraph report that states that the agency completed the
comprehensive rewrite of regulations and forms it had agreed to
in 1979. Because of the extensive substantive sex bias in earlier
FmHA regulations, internal issuances, and forms, it is important
that FmHA take the time necessary to list each document, the
reviewer, the review completion date, and the product of the
review. This is necessary to ensure that all documents are free
of sex bias. FmHA to our knowledge has never reviewed its state
supplements which in earlier reports by Justice were noted to
contain substantive sex bias. Because these supplements are the
working guidelines used by FmHA to process loans it is particularly
important that they be reviewed and corrected as necessary.
The National Agriculture Library (NAL) report lists two
documents that are not gender free. It appears that NAL probably
has reviewed the few documents it has but the report does not
indicate what, if any, statutes, regulations, publications, or
other agency issuances it has and if they were reviewed.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (the Service) has
had a policy since 1977 that prohibits the use of sex discriminatory
language in publications. This policy presumably covers all
Service directives. All directives have been reissued since 1977
and the Service reports they are gender free. The Service's
report does not indicate if it has any regulations or publications
and if they need to be reviewed.
The Forest Service (the Service) report sets forth corrective
action taken by the agency to ensure that agency programs are
conducted free of sex discrimination. The Service does not report
on its review of statutes, regulations, issuances, and publications
for sex discrimination.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) reports that
all FCIC regulations have been reviewed in the last five years
for the purpose of correcting sex biased language. FCIC does not
state if it has reviewed statutes, internal issuances, and
publications for sex discrimination.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
reports that all regulations, internal operation guidelines,
internal administrative directives have been reviewed and
revised as necessary. APHIS has agreed to forward a copy of the
index of administrative directives which is necessary to ensure
that APHIS has completed its review.
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
submitted a one sentence report. This agency will be asked for
specific additional information.
The Office of Personnel report indicates that no review
has been conducted since 1978. This office will be asked to
conduct a review of its regulations, issuances, directives, and
publications issued since 1978.
The Office of Finance and Management (OFM) reports that it
has reviewed "various documents and issuances." The attached
form does not list what documents the agency reviewed. The
OFM will be asked to provide this information.
The Office of Administrative Law Judges reports that it
"does not issue any regulations, guidelines, programs or policies
internally or externally which result or could result in unequal
treatment based on sex." It is unclear if this conclusion is
based on an actual review or is simply speculation. The agency
will be asked to conduct a review if it has not done SO.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) report does not indicate
if regulations, programs, policies, and field instruments were
reviewed. In its report SCS only refers to issues raised in the
1978 Report, a general statement regarding efforts to improve
stereotyping in publications, and the issuance of a Sexual
Harassment Guideline.
The Economic Management Staff report is on behalf of six
economic agencies in Agriculture. The report states that no
review was conducted of statutes, regulations, or other field
instruments. Coordination and Review staff will meet with the
agencies to determine what documents, if any, should be reviewed.
The report does indicate a heightened awareness of sex
discrimination issues and specific actions taken by Agriculture
including the revision of a writing guide called Author to Reader
that will include a section on how to write without gender based
distinctions.
The Office of Transportation (OT) reports that it issues
only publications and reports all of which are technical in
nature. OT writers are instructed to draft documents in sex
neutral terminology. A review of the index of publications and
reports indicates that OT has completed its review.
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS) states that its national directives, handbooks, forms, and
regulations have been reviewed and corrected as necessary. The
ASCS review appears to be completed although specific information
on corrections will be requested.
The Foreign Agricultural Service reports in a chart format
that all chapters of title three of the Code of Federal Regulations
have been reviewed. However, there is no information on the
review findings and the report does not indicate what other
documents need to be reviewed.
The Packers and Stockyards Administration (PSA) reports in
chart format that all regulations were reviewed and have been
corrected as necessary. PSA will be asked to report in more
detail on its regulatory review and to report on other documents
that should be reviewed.
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis submitted a
"negative" report. Coordination and Review staff will meet with
this agency to discuss the review. Similarly the Office of Rural
Development Policy states that it does not have any programs and
therefore nothing to review. This agency will be contacted by
Coordination and Review staff.
The Office of Governmental and Public Affairs reports that
it has reviewed its regulations and when it republishes this Fall
all gender specific terminology will be corrected.
The Agriculture Cooperative Service (ACS) reports that it
has reviewed 100 publications for gender specific words and when
reprinted, publications will be revised. ACS will be asked if it
has reviewed regulations, programs, and policies for substantive
sex bias.
Agency for International Development
The Agency for International Development (AID) administers
assistance programs designed to help people in developing countries
to develop their human and economic resources, to increase
productive capacities, and to improve the quality of human life
as well as promote economic and political stability in friendly
countries.
AID has completed its review of statutes, regulations,
internal policies, guidelines, and procedures. The only sex bias
identified relates to personnel and is contained in agency
handbooks. AID is presently revising the handbooks and will
correct the offending language.
Two Federal statutes administered by AID were listed in
the Third Quarterly Report as statutes that contain substantive
sex bias. AID has discussed these two statutes, 22 U.S.C.
SS2151 (k) and 2225, in its report. Both statutes were enacted by
Congress to ensure that the concerns and needs of women in the
countries served were recognized and factored into the respective
programs. Based on AID's report and the legislative intent in
enacting both statutes, neither appear to be the type of statute
that the Executive Order contemplates for repeal. Both appear to
"justifiably differentiate on the basis of sex."
AID has completed its review and no further reports have
been requested.
The Civil Aeronautics Board
The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) promotes and regulates
the civil air transport industry within the United States and
between the United States and other nations. The Board grants
licenses to provide air transporation services and opposes or
disapproves proposed agreements and corporate relationships
involving air carriers.
Although CAB reported in the Third Quarterly Report that
the Rules and Legislation Division of the Office of General
Counsel issued a notice to all Bureaus and Offices to draft gender
neutral regulations, the notice was not issued because now the
Office of General Counsel drafts all CAB regulations.
The CAB has completed its review.
Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) encourages, serves
and promotes the Nation's economic development and technological
advancement. TO accomplish this purpose and to promote the
national interest by encouraging the competitive free enterprise
system, the Department provides a wide variety of programs.
Commerce conducted a comprehensive review of its statutes,
regulations, internal issuances, and publications in 1976.
Commerce has submitted two reports for inclusion in this report.
The first submission points out that two statutes listed as
"Uncorrected" and attributed to Commerce in the First Quarterly
Report are administered by the Departments of Treasury and
Transportation (46 U.S.C. SS331, 601). We noted this correction
and the change was made in the Third Quarterly Report. Commerce
also reports that the Maritime Administration has been transferred
to the Department of Transportation (DOT). Therefore, earlier
concerns relating to the Merchant Marine Academy should be directed
to DOT.
The second submission includes the results of Commerce's
review of its statutes and regulations since 1976 for substantive
sex bias. The submission does not list 15 U.S.C. $1052, a statute
that contains substantive sex bias although Commerce lists this
provision in a memo directing components to conduct the Task
Force review. The report in chart form sets forth each category
reviewed, the title of the document, the name of the reviewer,
the sex bias identified (to include substantive and
terminological), and the recommended action for correcting the
change. The report does not indicate if Commerce has conducted
an updated review of policies, practices, and publications issued
since 1976.
Commerce reported that it had "abolished" maternity leave.
Its present policy is consistent with that of other government
agencies which permit a combination of annual leave, sick leave,
and leave without pay to be used for childbirth and child care.
Department of Education
The Department of Education (ED) has completed its review
of statutes, regulations, and issuances for sex bias. ED
identified one statute and its implementing regulation as con-
taining substantive sex bias, a provision of the Military Selective
Service Act (Pub. L. No. 97252) (1983) which makes male students
who fail to register ineligible. to receive title IV student
financial assistance. Proposed regulations to implement that
statute were published January 27, 1983 to be codified at 34
C.F.R. $$668.23-668.27. This statute is not listed in the Third
Quarterly Report as a statute containing sex bias because it
contains no facially discriminatory language. ED is correct,
however, that because the Selective Service law requires only
males to register, this amendment then applies only to men.
The regulations reviewed are published at 34 C.F.R. Parts
1-797 and 41 C.F.R. $34. The specific policies, sub-regulatory
issuances and publications reviewed are not listed in the report
because of space but are available in supporting memoranda.
The remainder of the report addresses specific agency
programs and projects aimed to assist women.
Department of Energy
The Department of Energy (DOE) coordinates and administers
the energy functions of the Federal government. The Department
is responsible for long-term, high-risk research and development
of energy technology; the marketing of Federal power; energy
conservation; the nuclear weapons program; energy regulatory
programs; and a central energy data collection and analysis
program.
DOE has completed a thorough review of its statutes, rules,
regulations, policies, publications, and acquisition letters. No
substantive discrimination on the basis of sex was found although
gender specific terminology was identified. The Office of the
General Counsel plans to review all future bills, regulations and
orders to eliminate gender specific terminology and assure that
there is no disproportionate impact on gender.
Farm Credit Administration
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) is an independent
agency that charters, examines and supervises Federal land banks,
Federal land bank associations, Federal intermediate credit banks,
production credit associations and banks for cooperatives. The
Administration has reviewed its enabling statute, regulations,
policies, guidelines and practices. The agency identified several
instances of gender specific terminology and some substantive
sex bias in agency references to wives of board members and bank
presidents. Most of the gender specific terminology was found in
materials that have not been revised since the adoption of a 1978
policy statement encouraging the use of sex neutral language and
balanced visual examples.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created
to provide a single point of accountability for all Federal
emergency preparedness. The agency is chartered to enhance the
multiple use of emergency preparedness and response resources at
the Federal, State, and local levels of government in preparing
for and responding to emergencies and to integrate into a
comprehensive framework, activities concerned with hazard
mitigation, preparedness planning relief operations, and recovery
assistance.
The FEMA previously reported that it has examined the
basic laws and regulations it administers and found no "significant
substantial sex discriminatory provisions." Its final report
directs that the word 'significant' be deleted because the only
possible sex discriminatory provisions are in terminology. It
further reports that in addition to section 311 of the Disaster
Relief Act (42 U.S.C. 5151) there are four regulatory provisions
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. They are:
1. 44 C.F.R. 62.4(b) states that no person shall be excluded
from participation in, denied the benefits of, or
subjected to discrimination under the National Flood
Insurance Program on the basis of sex.
2.
44 C.F.R. 82.10 states that no person shall be excluded
from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under the Federal Crime
Insurance Program on the basis of sex.
3.
44 C.F.R. 205.16(b) states that all personnel, carrying
out Federal major disaster or emergency assistance
functions, shall perform their work in an equitable
and impartial manner without discrimination on the
grounds of sex.
4.
44 C.F.R. 309.12 states that with respect to federally-
assisted construction under the civil defense program,
each contractor shall be required to have an affirmative
action plan which declares that it does not discriminate
on the basis of sex and which specifies goals and
target dates to assure implementation of that plan.
The FEMA report is so brief that we have provided a summary,
in the proceeding paragraphs in lieu of the report itself.
General Services Administration
The General Services Administration (GSA) establishes
policy and provides for the Federal government an economical and
efficient system for the management of its property and records,
including construction and operation of buildings; procurement
and distribution of supplies; utilization and disposal of property,
transportation, traffic, and communication management; stockpiling
of strategic materials; and the management of the government-wide
automatic data processing resources program.
GSA has concluded its review of regulations, guidelines,
policies, and procedures.
GSA reports that its review "included 1,950 regulations,
guidelines, policies, and procedures, of these, 110 were found to
require some type of revision due to unnecessary gender specific
terminology. Of the 110 identified 40 have been revised, 25 are
in final draft, the remaining 45 have target dates during the
first and second quarter of FY 1984. National Personnel Records
Center Publications are routinely reviewed every six months and,
as these reviews take place, documents will be reviewed for sex
biased language. In addition, compliance with the Executive
Order will be kept in mind in the writing of correspondence and
future regulations, guidelines, policies, and procedures."
Review reports from various components are attached.
Department of Health and Human Services
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers
the Social Security System and other health and welfare services.
The HHS report is a complete and comprehensive review of
its statutes. Many of the statutes listed in the First Quarterly
Report, as containing sex bias, have been corrected by the Social
Security Amendments of 1983, Pub. L. No. 98-21. The HHS report
includes a chart that sets forth each statutory provision contained
in the First Quarterly Report, comments explaining the sex bias,
and the status of each provision (repealed or corrected by legisla-
tive action, invalidated by court action, no change, or prospective
legislative action).
Future HHS reports will comment on the status of the
agency's review of regulations, programs, policies, field
instruments, and publications.
Department of Interior
The Department of Interior (DOI) has responsibility for
most of the nationally owned public lands and natural resources
and American Indian reservation communities and for people who
live in Island Territories under United States administration.
The DOI has reviewed its statutes and provided comments
and recommendations concerning those that make distinctions on
the basis of sex. The Department has been requested to complete
its review of regulations, policies, and procedures and report
its findings for future Quarterly Reports.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
conducts research for solutions to problems of flight within and
outside the Earth's atmosphere and develops, constructs, tests
and operates aeronautical and space vehicles; conducts activities
required for the exploration of space; arranges for the most
effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources
of the United States with other nations engaged in aeronautical
and space activities for peaceful purposes; and provides for the
widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information
concerning NASA's activities and their results.
NASA has completed its review of approximately 200 directives
and issuances and revised for sex bias as necessary. NASA
identified no statute that contains substantive sex bias.
The NASA report is so brief that we have provided a summary,
in the proceeding paragraphs, in lieu of one report itself.
National Endowment for the Arts
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) encourages and
supports progress in the arts. NEA awards grants to individuals,
state and regional arts agencies, and non-profit organizations
representing the highest quality in the various fields of the arts.
NEA has reviewed its statutes, regulations, program
guidelines, administrative directives, handbooks, and a few
additional issuances. No substantive sex bias was identified.
NEA has included in its report a list of sex based terminological
provisions.
National Endowment for the Humanities
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), created
by an act of Congress in 1965, was established to carry out two
fundamental objectives:
1. to aid in the investigation of the key questions in
the humanities and in the dissemination of the results
of this effort through more effective teaching and
publication; and
2.
to foster throughout the Nation an awareness of the
importance and value of the humanities for contemporary
American life.
NEH's report does not indicate that its statutes were
reviewed. The report states that it has received the Justice
computer printout of its regulations that contain sex specific
language. The agency states it will correct laws, regulations,
etc. as republished. It is unclear if NEH has reviewed the
printout and what corrective action is recommended. The remainder
of the report addresses NEH programs, including composition of
NEH panels and civil rights enforcement efforts.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses and
regulates the possession and use of nuclear facilities and
materials to protect the public health and safety and the
environment. It does this by licensing persons and companies to
build and operate nuclear reactors and to own and use nuclear
materials. NRC makes rules and sets standards for these types of
licenses. It also inspects the activities of the persons and
companies licensed to ensure that they do not violate the safety
rules of the Commission.
NRC completed in 1978 a comprehensive review of its
statutes, regulations, programs, and policies for sex bias. A
review of statutes enacted since 1978 will be included in NRC's
report for the Fifth Quarterly Report. NRC's report references
one regulation being revised, 10 C.F.R. Part 20. This regulation
is being revised to reflect recommendations of the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the
International Commission on Radiological Protection. The draft
provisions are intended to provide a practical means of controlling
radiation exposure to an embryo with minimal impact on the
employability of women.
NRC has completed its review of statutes, regulations,
programs, and policies for sex bias.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) provides
political risk insurance and financial services to encourage
United States private investment in certain developing nations.
OPIC insurance protects investors against the political risks of
expropriation; inability to convert local currency into dollars;
and damage from war, revolution, insurrection, and certain types
of civil strife. All OPIC related projects must contribute to
the economic and social development of the host country and must
be consistent with the economic interests of the United States.
OPIC financial services are designed to assist U.S. lenders and
business enterprises in finding and supporting worthwhile projects
through investment guaranties, direct loans, and preinvestment
surveys.
OPIC has completed its review of statutes, regulations,
program brochures, and procurement guides and identified no
substantive sex discrimination. A few terminological problems
were identified and will be addressed as documents are revised.
Railroad Retirement Board
The Railroad Retirement Board (the Board) provides a
governmentally authorized and administered program of retirement
and survivors and disability benefits payable to railroad employees
and their families.
The Board has reviewed its statutes and regulations for
sex based distinctions. One statute making a substantive
distinction and several gender specific terminological provisions
were identified. The Board has drafted proposed language to cure
the substantive sex discrimination.
Small Business Administration
For the Third Quarterly Report the Small Business
Administration (SBA) reported on its programs and initiatives for
women. This report contains the SBA's analysis of the application
of Sections 8a and 8d of the Small Business Act to women.
A systematic review of the SBA's laws, regulations,
policies, and procedures has been requested for future quarterly
reports.
Department of State
The Department of State (State) advises the President in
the formulation and execution of foreign policy. As Chief Executive,
the President has overall responsibility for the foreign policy
of the United States. State's primary objective in the conduct
of foreign relations is to promote the long-range security and
well-being of the United States. The Department determines and
analyzes the facts relating to American overseas interests, makes
recommendations on policy and future action, and takes the
necessary steps to carry out established policy. In so doing,
the Department engages in continuous consultations with the
American public, the Congress, other U.S. departments and agencies,
and foreign governments; negotiates treaties and agreements with
foreign nations; speaks for the United States in the United
Nations and in more than 50 major international organizations in
which the United States participates; and represents the United
States at more than 800 international conferences annually.
State has submitted an update of its February 1983
submission. Additional reports are anticipated.
State has reviewed its statutes and is considering amending
22 U.S.C. $214 and 22 U.S.C. $1281 to remove the sex bias.
However, it does not recommend corrective legislation for 8 U.S.C.
SS1153, 1182, and 1253 because it takes the position that these
statutes are primarily the concern of the Department of Justice.
Further, State recommends against amending the definition of
"refugee" in 8 U.S.C. $1101 $1101(a)(42) because it would expand this
country's international obligations under the Convention and
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. This statute was
already omitted in the Third Quarterly Report.
State has listed the regulations it has reviewed and the
results of its review. A summary of its to-date review of the
Foreign Affairs Manual is also included.
(
Department of Transportation
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has completed its
review of statutes and regulations. It has drafted legislation
to eliminate sex based distinctions in several Coast Guard
administered statutes that were identified in the First Quarterly
Report.
Various policies, practices, and procedures have also been
reviewed.
Department of the Treasury
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has completed
its review of statutes, regulations, and various policies.
Treasury identified several regulations that discriminate on the
basis of sex as well as the statutes identified in the First
Quarterly Report.
The Internal Revenue Service reported separately and
identified various statutes and regulations that discriminate on
the basis of sex.
(
United States Information Agency
The United States Information Agency (USIA) promotes
awareness and knowledge of United States policies, culture, and
values abroad.
USIA has reviewed its programming materials and taken
steps to eliminate sex stereotyping and gender bias. It reports
on the employment picture for women and describes increased
opportunities for them. It is not clear from the report whether
a systematic review of statutes and regulations was completed.
Veterans Administration
The Veterans Administration (VA) has submitted two reports
for the Fourth Quarterly Report. VA's review has been thorough
and systematic with the agency components reviewing the laws,
rules, regulations, and policies as well as responding to specific
issues.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 13, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET COUNCIL ON LEGAL POLICY
JOHN A. SVAHN
JAS
FROM:
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT:
Victims' Compensation Proposal
The Department of Justice (DOJ) presented a proposal to the CCLP
in the Fall of 1983, for a new Crime Victims' Assistance Fund.
The President asked DOJ to refine the proposal and bring it up at
a future meeting. In the meantime, DOJ has submitted a bill for
clearance to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which
would create such a program. OMB opposes the bill, and Tuesday's
CCLP meeting has been scheduled to resolve the issue.
Background
The DOJ bill would create a Crime Victim's Assistance Fund to
provide Federal financial assistance to State victim compensation
programs and to improve the nonfinancial assistance offered to
crime victims by every level of Government and the private
sector.
The bill identifies seven sources of funding for the program:
1. A new penalty assessment fee to be collected from every
convicted Federal defendant ($25 for misdemeanant, $50 for
felon), (generating about $1.6 million annually);
2. All criminal fines collected from convicted Federal
defendants, including criminal anti-trust fines, interest and
penalty payments, and forfeited appearance bonds, (generating
between $50-60 million annually);
3. Up to 25% of all money paid to working Federal inmates (less
any restitution paid by the inmate), (generating about
$3 million annually);
4. 10% of all money paid to Federal parolees and probationers
(unless they are making restitution or have previously
contributed to the Fund while working in prison), (no revenue
estimate given by DOJ);
5. All proceeds of any contract entered into by any defendant
for the sale of literary or other rights arising from his
criminal act;
6. Contributions from the public; and
7. Funds transferred by other Federal agencies (no revenue
estimates given for sources 5, 6, or 7.)
Our best projections estimate that the Fund will total
approximately $5-75 million its first year. This amount of
Federal assistance would have a significant impact on victims'
compensation and assistance efforts across the nation. Total
State victim compensation expenditures nationally are
approximately $50 million. Victim assistance providers are
chronically short of funds. The Federal contribution to these
efforts would, therefore, be neither a token contribution nor an
excessive one. There is a potential for Congress to add an
appropriation to this bill. Justice does not believe the threat
is great. Of the five bills already introduced on this subject
by Republicans (Heinz/Grassley, Specter, Fish) and Democrats
(Rodino, Russo) only one (Specter) seeks an appropriation. The
two liberal Democrats' funding approaches have intentionally been
designed to avoid appropriations.
Monies from the Fund would be disbursed in the following manner:
0 Fifty percent of the Fund would go to States with victim
compensation programs for the purpose of reimbursing them for
their payouts under those programs. Certain minimal
eligibility requirements would have to be met by each partici-
pating State.
0 Thirty percent of the Fund would go to the States to help them
improve the nonfinancial assistance provided to victims by
State and local Governments, and by nonprofit organizations.
Again, certain eligibility requirements would apply.
0 Twenty percent of the Fund would go to Federal law enforcement
agencies to improve the nonfinancial victim assistance offered
by the Federal Government. The monies could be used for a
variety of purposes.
The Department of Justice Position.
DOJ believes there are several self-imposed, tight limits on
expenditure in the bill that will keep Federal financial exposure
low. The government's expenditures can never exceed the amount
that comes into the Fund. No State would have any entitlement to
any money above its share of the amount actually in the Fund at
the end of the fiscal year. The bill does not, therefore, create
an open-ended matching fund. No more money can ever be disbursed
from the Fund than is in it. Neither the Federal Government nor
the States would have any obligation to any victim after
available existing funds run out.
DOJ feels that this proposal is totally consistent with
Administration policy. A goal of the legislation would be to
provide limited Federal assistance to the States without unduly
interjecting the Federal government. into the working
relationships now existing between the States, victims service
organizations, and victims. State applications for funding are
designed to be concise and there are virtually no Federal
"strings" imposed on recipients. The States are free to set
their own compensation policies and administer their own programs
with minimal Federal intrusion.
Currently, States which have compensation programs make no
distinction between victims of Federal and State crimes.
However, if their compensation programs continue to experience
budgetary shortfall, States soon may have no choice but to stop
compensating victims of Federal crimes. ithout Federal
financial assistance to State compensation programs, therefore,
Federal crime victims may receive no compensation in some States,
or receive compensation in others only when the State elects to
prosecute a crime over which there is joint Federal and State
jurisdiction. Justice believes that this approach is the least
intrusive Federal remedy to the problems now facing victims of
crime.
The Act would terminate in 1988 without further Congressional
action. No money could be deposited in the Fund or disbursed
from it after September 30, 1988.
The Office of Management and Budget position.
OMB's objections to the bill are based largely on the premise
that even if an Administration-sponsored bill could be designed
to adequately address the concerns about potential budget
exposure, once the bill were introduced on the Hill it would be
subjected to SO many modifications and "Christmas tree" additions
that the bill which ultimately emerged from Congress would be
totally unrecognizable and unacceptable to the Administration.
Therefore, even though DOJ is requesting no appropriation for the
Fund, OMB is convinced that Congress would provide money anyway.
Specific OMB objections fall into three categories: Policy,
Funding, and Administrative.
Policy Objections
OMB does not believe the Federal Government has a responsibility
to compensate the victims of State crime. If the Federal
Government starts aiding State programs simply because they are
running low on money, there will be no end to the growth of the
Federal budget. This is an area where the States have taken the
lead in program development. Federal intervention is not
warranted.
Further, once the Federal Government begins compensating people
who are victimized through a criminal act, the logic for denying
compensation for other types of victimization disappears.
Funding Objections
OMB maintains that the cost to the Federal Government, rather
than being negligible, could potentially be enormous. Based on
the present size of State programs, the DOJ bill would create the
need for a Federal Fund of $100 million. The problem is,
however, that only a very small fraction of crime victims are
presently being compensated.
OMB estimates that if all violent crime victims were compensated,
the cost to the Federal Government in direct compensation
payments would be almost $9.5 billion, based on current rates of
compensation.
This program could easily mushroom into a huge new entitlement
program. It would be very attractive politically for Congress to
expand the program to cover other types of victimization, such as
fraud and other non-violent crime.
Most of the criminal fines which DOJ would use for the Fund are
already being deposited into the Treasury. Diverting them to
the Fund will increase the deficit by $25 to $62 million.
Based on the States' experience, it is very unlikely that the
system of fines and levies proposed by DOJ would generate enough
revenue to offset the cost of the program.
OMB points out, finally, that many programs start out small, but
once unleashed, grow into huge drains on the Treasury. For
example, in 1966, when medicare was initiated, outlays for Health
Insurance were projected to be $27 billion by 1990, but are now
projected to be $117 billion; a 366 percent cost overrun.
Supplemental Medical Insurance outlays were initially projected
to reach $6 billion by 1988, but are now projected to hit $37
billion, a 548 percent cost overrun.
Administrative Costs
No new Federal bureaucracy--replete with guidelines,
investigations, and hearing board is need to administer the
program. The Department of Justice's realistic estimate is that
only five additional positions are needed to administer the bill.
With training, existing personnel could perform virtually all the
new functions required by the bill. Any new burdens placed on
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts would result
from already pending legislation and a current GAO study aimed at
improving fine collection.
OMB strongly disagrees with DOJ's position that no new
bureaucracy would be required to administer the program. The
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) has stated that
just to collect the 10% levy on the income of probationers and
parolees income would require a substantial increase in the
workload of the Federal Probation System and could prove to be an
administrative nightmare.
OPTIONS
(1) Transmit legislation as proposed.
(2) Do not transmit legislation.
(3) Transmit legislation as modified.
(4) No decision at this time.