Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118567676",
    "label": "JGR/Cabinet Council on Legal Policy (2 of 3)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567676"
}

{
    "id": "118567676",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567676",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "JGR/Cabinet Council on Legal Policy (2 of 3)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567676",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-006-021-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-006-021-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-006-021-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567676",
    "naId": 118567676,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-006-021-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "9eda47841ead493f",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: JGR/Cabinet Council on\nLegal Policy (2 of 3)\nBox: 6\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 16, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS osa\nSUBJECT:\nCabinet Council on Legal Policy: Status of\nthe Administration's Immigration Reform\nLegislation\nThe status of the Administration's immigration reform\nlegislation has been placed on the agenda of the Cabinet\nCouncil on Legal Policy meeting scheduled for 2:00 p.m.\ntoday. The Deputy Attorney General has prepared a\nmemorandum for the members of the Cabinet Council, reviewing\nthe background and current status of the Simpson-Mazzoli\nbill, and outlining the major unresolved differences between\nthe Senate and House versions. The legislation has passed\nthe Senate, and the House version has been favorably\nreported out of the House Judiciary Committee. Three other\nHouse committees have reviewed the bill and recommended\nsubstantive amendments. The House Rules Committee must now\nestablish a procedure for floor consideration. Speaker\nO'Neill, in a volte-face, has promised to bring the bill to\nthe floor in early 1984.\nThe two principal differences between the Senate and House\nversions are money and timing of legalization. The Senate\nbill would establish a block grant program to aid the States\nin meeting the welfare costs of legalized aliens. The\nAdministration has committed to fund this program at $1.4\nbillion for five years. The House bill authorizes full\nFederal reimbursement to the States of the cost of\nlegalization, at an OMB-estimated cost of $11.2 billion for\nfive years.\nWith respect to the related issue of timing of legalization,\nthe Senate bill provides permanent resident status for\nillegal aliens who continually resided in the United States\nsince before 1977, and temporary resident status for aliens\nwho arrived before 1980. Ineligibility for federal benefits\nwould extend for three years after permanent resident\nstatus, six years after temporary resident status. The\nHouse bill would provide permanent resident status to any\nalien who arrived in the United States before 1982.\nSchmults's memorandum reviews the other, less significant\ndifferences between the Senate and House bills, primarily\nin the details of the temporary worker program and the\nadministration of employer sanctions. The memorandum\n- 2 -\nconcludes on an optimistic note, contending that the\nstrength of the Senate vote on the Administration-favored\nversion (76-18) augurs well for resolving many of the\ndifferences between the Senate and House bills in the\nAdministration's favor in conference.\nDavid Stockman has sumbitted a memorandum of his own,\nraising serious budgetary and policy concerns about both the\nSenate and House bills. His main concern is the\nmulti-billion dollar cost of either version. Stockman\nargues that the conference outcome is likely to be an\n\"unacceptable\" $11.7 billion for 1984-89, and that unless\nthe Administration acts forcefully before the bill is\nscheduled for House action, it will be \"too expensive.\"\nStockman's language strikes me as irresponsibly loose, in\nlight of the circumstances surrounding the fate of the\nSimpson-Mazzoli bill. Speaker O'Neill torpedoed the bill\nlast year because of an alleged plan by the President to\nveto it, and only agreed to floor consideration this year\nafter assurances that his fears were absurd. Now Stockman\ncirculates a memorandum on the bill laced with words such as\n\"unacceptable\" and \"too expensive.\" Perhaps it would be\nwise to admonish the Cabinet Council participants to be\nparticularly circumspect concerning the confidentiality of\nthe memorandum, if that will do any good. Obviously the\nAdministration should work to eliminate the expensive House\namendments, but the President is committed, as a practical\nmatter, to signing anything that reaches his desk and looks\nremotely like Simpson-Mazzoli.\nAttachment\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\n0 . OUTGOING\nH - INTERNAL\nI . INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nEdward C. Schmults\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nCabinet. Council on Legal Policy\nStatus f the administration's Immigration\nReform Legislation\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nWHOLL\nORIGINATOR 84,01,13\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nWAT 18\nr 84,01,13\n584,01,16\nReferral Note:\n10:00am\n/\n/\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\nI\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC - Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nCABINET AFFAIRS STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDate: 1/13/84\nNumber: 168885CA\nDue By:\nSubject: Cabinet Council on Legal Policy - Monday, January 16, 1984\n2:00 P.M. - Roosevelt Room\nAction\nFYI\nAction\nFYI\nALL CABINET MEMBERS\nCEA\nCEQ\nVice President\nOSTP\nState\nACUS\nTreasury\nDefense\nAttorney General\nInterior\nAgriculture\nBaker\nCommerce\nDeaver\nLabor\nDarman (For WH Staffing)\nHHS\nJenkins\nHUD\nMc Farlane\nTransportation\nSvahn\nEnergy\nFielding\nEducation\nCounsellor\nOMB\nCIA\nUN\nUSTR\nCCCT/Gunn\nCCEA/Porter\nGSA\nCCFA/\nEPA\nCCHR/Simmons\nOPM\nCCLP/Uhlmann\nVA\nCCMA/Bledsoe\nSBA\nCCNRE/\nREMARKS: The Cabinet Council on Legal Policy will meet on Monday, January\n16, 1984 at 2:00 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room.\nThe agenda will include the following items:\n- Legal Equity for Women - BAR\n- Immigration Policy - JGR\n- Bankruptcy Judges sime\n- Crime Legislation\nThe briefing papers are attached.\nRETURN TO:\nCraig L. Fuller\nKatherine Anderson\nDon Clarey\nAssistant to the President\nTom Gibson\nLarry Herbolsheimer\nfor Cabinet Affairs\nAssociate Director\n456-2823\nOffice of Cabinet Affairs\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nCABINET AFFAIRS STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDate: 1/13/84\nNumber: 168885CA\nDue By:\nSubject:\nCabinet Council on Legal Policy - Monday, January 16, 1984\n2:00 p.m. - Roosevelt Room\nAction\nFYI\nAction\nFYI\nALL CABINET MEMBERS\nCEA\nCEQ\nVice President\nOSTP\nState\nACUS\nTreasury\nDefense\nAttorney General\nInterior\nAgriculture\nBaker\nCommerce\nDeaver\nLabor\nClark\nHHS\nDarman (For WH Staffing)\nHUD\nJenkins\nTransportation\nSvahn\nEnergy\nFielding\nEducation\nCounsellor\nOMB\nCIA\nUN\nUSTR\nCCCT/Gunn\nCCEA/Porter\nGSA\nCCFA/\nEPA\nCCHR/Simmons\nOPM\nCCLP/Uhlmann\nVA\nCCMA/Bledsoe\nSBA\nCCNRE/\nREMARKS:\nAttached is an additional paper for the CCLP meeting which is\nscheduled for Monday, January 16, 1984.\nThe agenda was sent to you earlier today with the background\npapers.\nRETURN TO:\nCraig L. Fuller\nKatherine Anderson\nDon Clarey\nAssistant to the President\nTom Gibson\nLarry Herbolsheimer\nfor Cabinet Affairs\nAssociate Director\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF management AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nJAN 13 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCABINET COUNCIL ON LEGAL POLICY\nFROM:\nDAVID A. STOCKMAN\nPAS\nSUBJECT:\nOMB's Concerns with the Immigration\nLegislation\nThe purpose of this memorandum is to express OMB's budgetary and\npolicy concerns with the immigration legislation and to urge the\nAdministration to determine the budget magnitude and policy\ncompromises it is willing to support in preparation for devising\na legislative strategy to effect passage of a bill the\nAdministration can accept.\nBudget Concerns\nO\nBoth the House and Senate bills have serious budget\nimplications for 1984-89: $13.3 billion in H.R. 1510 and\n$10.1 billion in S. 529.\nDespite repeated expressions of Administration concern,\nthe budgetary impact of the legislation has not been\naddressed, especially in the House bill.\n-- The Senate ignored the Administration's request to limit\nthe block grant to $1.4 billion over four years. The\nblock grant remains uncapped.\n- The House Judiciary Committee defeated amendments to\ncontrol costs by limiting Federal reimbursements as well\nas the population of legalized aliens.\n- Representative Lungren, intended block grant sponsor on\nthe House Floor, has indicated the lack of support\nfor a block grant. He is considering more expensive\namendments.\n-- Given the costs of the current House and Senate bills, the\nconference outcome (if it splits the difference) is likely\nto be an unacceptable $11.7 billion for 1984-89 without\nforceful intervention by the Administration.\nPolicy Concerns\nO Both bills create a large new entitlement group of legalized\naliens contrary to Administration efforts to control\nentitlement spending.\n2\nReimbursement authority in the House bill has no cost control.\nStates determine costs and the Federal Government pays. For\nexample, the Federal Government would pay the full cost of\neducating legalized aliens.\nO The uncapped block grant in the Senate still creates serious\nbudget exposure. States will argue that immigration is a\nFederal problem and press for the Federal Government to pay\nall costs.\nO The House bill also significantly weakens enforcement:\n-- Verification of employment eligibility is voluntary\nuntil the first violation, thereby giving employers an\naffirmative defense against sanctions.\n-- Employers of casual labor (i.e., agriculture and\nconstruction) are not required to check worker ID for 24\nhours. This provision eliminates any fear of penalty and\neffectively exempts day labor from employer sanctions.\n-- There would be no penalty assessed for an employer's first\nviolation.\n-- Employers of illegals would be exempted from employer\nsanctions for three years by participating in the\ntransition worker program.\nUnless the Administration reasserts its budget and policy\nconcerns before the bill is scheduled for House action, the\nAdministration will be faced with a conference bill that is too\nexpensive and contains significant enforcement loopholes.\nSenator Simpson's offer to take the post-conference bill to the\nPresident for concurrence puts pressure on the President to take\nresponsibility for the outcome of the bill. Given these factors,\nthe Administration needs to determine the dollar magnitude and\npolicy compromises it is willing to accept and to follow that\ndetermination with an appropriate legislative strategy.\nU.S. Department\nOffice of the Deputy Attorney General\nThe Deputy Attorney General\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nJanuary 13, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMembers of the Cabinet Council\non Legal Policy\nFROM:\nEdward C. Schmults\nDeputy Attorney General DD\nSUBJECT:\nStatus of the Administration's\nImmigration Reform Legislation\nThis memorandum sets forth the current status of immigration\nreform legislation in the 98th Congress.\nI. Historical Overview\nFollowing receipt of the Final Report of the Select\nCommission on Immigration and Refugee Policy in March of 1981,\nthe President established a Cabinet Task Force, chaired by the\nAttorney General, to study the Commission's recommendations for\ncomprehensive immigration reform. Based on that review the\nAdministration submitted a legislative package of immigration\nreform proposals to the Congress in October of 1981 which\nembodied the most important recommendations of the Select\nCommission.\nThe principal provisions of the Administration bill were\n(1) penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens,\n(2) legal status for illegal aliens who were in the U.S. before\nJanuary 1, 1980, (3) an expanded temporary foreign worker program\nwhere domestic workers are unavailable, (4) reform of our pro-\ncedures to return persons who enter the U.S. illegally, (5)\nexpanded legal.authorities to deal with mass arrivals of undocu-\nmented aliens, and (6) increased legal immigrant admissions for\nCanada and Mexico.\nAfter extensive hearings on the Administration bill, Senator\nSimpson and Congressman Mazzoli, the Chairmen of the Senate and\nHouse Immigration Subcommittees, respectively, in March of 1982\nintroduced their own immigration reform legislation which\nincorporated most of the Administration's proposals. The most\nsignificant exception to that incorporation was the deletion of\nthe Administration's mass immigration emergency plan. At the\nCabinet Council meeting on April 16, 1982, it was decided that\nthe Simpson-Mazzoli bill would become the Administration's\nvehicle for immigration reform.\n- 2 -\nThereafter, on August 17, 1982, the U.S. Senate passed a\nsubstantially unchanged Simpson-Mazzoli bill on an over-\nwhelming, bipartisan vote of 80-19. The following month the\nHouse Committee on the Judiciary reported its amended version of\nthe legislation to the House floor where it became stalled during\nthe post-election \"lame duck\" session.\nII. Current Status\nOn February 17, 1983, Senator Simpson introduced the\nImmigration Reform and Control Act of 1983, S. 529, an identical\nbill to the legislation which passed the Senate in the 97th\nCongress. On the same date Congressman Mazzoli introduced H.R.\n1510, identical in all major respects to the reform legislation\npreviously reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary.\nExpedited hearing and mark-up schedules were established by\nthe relevant Senate and House Committees. During the week of\nApril 4, 1983, both the Senate and House Immigration Subcommittees\ncompleted mark-up on their respective bills. The Senate bill was\nreported to full Committee unanimously, and House Subcommittee\npassage was by a 7-1 vote.\nThereafter, on April 19th, the Senate Committee on the\nJudiciary reported S. 529 to the full Senate on a 13-4 vote and\non May 18th that body passed the legislation on a gratifying\n76-18 vote.\nObtaining House action on its version of the legislation,\nH.R. 1510, has been significantly more complex. On May 5th the\nHouse Judiciary Committee favorably reported the bill on\na 20-9 vote. However, four other House Committees then requested\nsequential referral to consider those portions of the legislation\nunder their jurisdiction. The referral period expired June 27th,\nat which time three of the Committees -- Agriculture, Education\nand Labor, and Energy and Commerce -- reported out fairly sub-\nstantive amendments. The Ways and Means Committee elected not to\ninvoke its referral jurisdiction.\nCurrently we are awaiting House Rules Committee action on\nestablishing a procedure for floor consideration of H.R. 1510.\nAlthough Rules. Committee Chairman Pepper has yet to schedule the\nmatter, an effort will be made to ensure that his Committee acts\nbefore the Lincoln/Washington Congressional recess from February\n10th to February 21st. This would be consistent with Speaker\nO'Neill's recent press statements that the immigration reform\nbill would be brought to the floor of the House early in 1984.\nIII. Significant Remaining Issues\nThe immigration reform issues which remain problematic\nprincipally reflect the differences between the Senate and House\n- 3 -\nbills, and between the House Judiciary Committee bill (on which\nthe Administration has focused) and the amendments proposed by\nthe sequential referral committees. The committees' proposals\nare discussed below to the extent they are relevant.\n1. One of the most significant of the issues separating the\nSenate and House bills is the appropriate mechanism for assisting\nstate and local governments with the costs which arise as the\nnewly legalized residents gain access to welfare programs. The\nSenate bill takes the strongly preferred approach of establishing\na block grant/impact aid program which the Administration has\ncommitted to fund at $1.4 billion for five years. The House bill\nauthorizes the Federal government to reimburse 100% of all state\nand local welfare programs for legalized aliens, including educa-\ntional expenses. OMB has estimated that the five-year cost of\nthis approach would be $8.2 billion for welfare expenditures and\n$3 billion for educational program support.\n2. A corollary issue is whether to advance the legalization\neligibility date to adjust the status of a larger portion of the\nillegal alien population and in light of the fact the immigration\nreform effort is one year older. The Senate bill maintains last\nyear's Administration-supported \"Grassley compromise,\" which\nprovides permanent resident status for eligible aliens who\ncontinuously resided in the United States since before January 1,\n1977, and temporary resident status for such aliens who arrived\nhere before 1980 with adjustment to permanent status after three\nyears. Ineligibility for federal benefits would extend for three\nyears from the time permanent resident status was obtained. The\nHouse bill utilizes a \"one tier\" approach, providing permanent\nresident status to eligible aliens who have resided in the U.S.\nsince before January 1, 1982.\nTo date we have consistently opposed advancing the eligi-\nbility date both on equity grounds and from the point of view of\nlimiting federal outlays. Our argument has been that legaliza-\ntion is not intended to give legal status to all illegal aliens,\nbut only to those who have demonstrated a commitment to this\ncountry by long-term, continuous residence as contributing,\nself-sufficient members of their communities. Any other standard\nwould be unfair to our legal residents and to legal immigrants\nwaiting patiently in line, often for years, to obtain immigrant\nvisas. Every effort will be made to obtain ultimately the\nlegalization program outlined in the Senate bill.\n3. Another contentious issue is the appropriate mechanism\nfor assisting agricultural employers who have become dependent on\nan illegal migratory workforce. Both the Senate and House bills\nprovide for a statutory and streamlined \"H-2\" (non-immigrant,\ntemporary worker! program for agricultural workers similar to a\nregulatory program already in existence. Both bills also contain\na supplementary program permitting agricultural employers to hire\n\"undocumented\" workers, subject to numerical limitations estab-\nlished by the Attorney General, for a three-year \"transition\"\n- 4 -\nperiod. The Administration position has been to support the\nstreamlined H-2 program pursuant to an April 16, 1982, Cabinet\nCouncil meeting and to support the transition worker program.\nThis latter decision was ratified at a May 10, 1983, White House\nmeeting on the status of the immigration reform effort.\n4. More recently, agricultural interests have initiated a\nstrong lobbying campaign to obtain Administration support for yet\nanother program to mitigate the effects of employer sanctions.\nSpecifically, they urge that we support the Panetta amendment\nproposed by the Agriculture Committee to establish a \"guest\nworker\" program for growers of perishable commodities. The\npremise is that a more flexible program than H-2 is necessary\nbecause of the uncertainty of harvest schedules for certain\nfragile crops. The question arises, however, whether such an\nadditional program would \"unbalance\" the reform legislation in\nagriculture's favor.\n5. The Education and Labor Committee has proposed a sub-\nstantive amendment to H.R. 1510, also relating to the ongoing\ntension between Labor and Agricultural interests on the appro-\npriate criteria for the admission of temporary workers to the\nU.S. The Miller amendment adopted by the Committee would, in\ngeneral terms, eliminate some of the \"streamlining\" in the\nproposed statutory H-2 program while at the same time estab-\nlishing a \"commission\" tc. resolve some of the most divisive\nissues separating Labor and Agriculture. The Committee also\nadopted a Hawkins amendment modifying employer sanctions by\ncreating a special counsel within the U.S. Immigration Board to\nbring actions against employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens\n(instead of INS District Directors bringing those actions) and\nagainst employers who discriminate against legal residents under\nthe guise of complying with employer sanctions. This last\nprovision is in response to the assertion by some Hispanic groups\nthat employer sanctions will be discriminatory because employers\nwill avoid hiring those with certain linguistic or physical\ncharacteristics. The Administration has taken the position that\nincreased discrimination is not anticipated (indeed there may be\nless discrimination when employers are no longer permitted to\nhire \"malleable\" illegal workers in preference to legal\nresidents) and that the legislation contains extensive reporting\nrequirements to ensure that increased discrimination does not\nresult. It is also notable that the legislation mandates a\nuniform employment eligibility verification procedure for all new\nhires specifically designed to eliminate any incentive for an\nemployer to discriminate. Finally, a legal remedy is already\navailable for discriminatory employment practices under Title VII\nof the Civil Rights Act of 1964.\n6. Two other important, though less problematic, differences\nbetween the Senate and House bills should be mentioned. The\nfirst is the changes in our current system for legal immigration\ncontained in the Senate bill, principally the \"overall cap\" of\n425,000 on legal immigration including immediate relatives. The\nHouse bill, at the insistence of Chairman Rodino, specifically\nrejects changes in our current preference system. The Adminis-\ntration has likewise argued that changes in our legal immigration\nsystem should be deferred until after we have addressed the more\nurgent problem of uncontrolled illegal migration. Indications\nare that our view will prevail in conference and significant\nother portions of the Senate bill may well be obtained in\nexchange.\n7. The second \"second tier\" issue concerns the Senate and\nHouse treatment of our current overburdened adjudication and\nasylum system. The Senate bill provides for more streamlined\nprocedures which promise some finality in judgments while the\nHouse procedures are in several particulars even more cumber-\nsome than current law. Attempts will be made to narrow the gap\nby amending the House bill and to have our preference for the\nSenate procedures prevail in conference.\nIV. Prospects\nDespite the apparent multitude of issues remaining to be\nresolved, prospects for final enactment of immigration reform\nlegislation are good. As previously indicated, Speaker O'Neill\nhas publicly stated his intention to bring the House bill to the\nfloor and, significantly, he predicts it will pass. National\neditorial support for immigration reform continues to be over-\nwhelming, and the public opinion polls, without exception, indi-\ncate strong support for each of the major elements of the\nlegislation. As to the final Congressional product, the 76-18\nvote on the Senate bill, which reflects the Administration's\nposition, augurs well for our success in the conference committee\nwhich will resolve the differences between the House and Senate\nversions.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 13, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS 236\nSUBJECT:\nCabinet Council on Legal Policy With\nThe President: (1) Task Force on Legal\nEquity for Women (2) Victims of Crime\nLegislation (3) Interim Report by the\nTask Force on Family Violence\nWe have received the briefing papers for tomorrow's meeting\nof the Cabinet Council on Legal Policy (CCLP). Three topics\nare on the agenda: (1) a report concerning the activities\nof the Task Force on Legal Equity for Women, (2) a decision\non whether to support Justice's proposed victims of crime\nlegislation, and (3) an interim report from the Attorney\nGeneral's Task Force on Family Violence.\n1. Task Force on Legal Equity for Women. The Attorney\nGeneral has submitted a memorandum for the President on this\ntopic, reviewing the formation of the Task Force in 1981 and\nthe various reports it has submitted through the CCLP since\nthat time. The memorandum notes that the Fourth Quarterly\nReport was submitted last December, containing reports from\n26 agencies concerning reviews of sex bias in regulations,\npolicies, and practices. The Fifth Quarterly Report,\ncurrently in utero, will contain such progress reports from\n15 agencies.\nThe Attorney General recommends three steps be taken to\nexpedite and promote the work of the Task Force. First, he\nurges that the Administration move actively to obtain\npassage of S. 501, the bill designed to correct the gender\nspecific language in the U.S. Code identified in previous\nquarterly reports filed by the Task Force. Second, he\nrecommends that the President direct agencies to complete\ntheir internal review of sex bias by April 1, to expedite\npreparation of the next quarterly report. Third, the\nAttorney General asks the President to direct the Task Force\nto take an active role in correcting sex bias identified by\nthe agencies as soon as possible.\nI have no objection to any of these recommendations. The\nAdministration is already on record as supporting S. 501,\nand the other recommendations simply promote the work of the\nTask Force.\n- 2 -\n2. Victims of Crime Legislation. A memorandum from\nJohn Svahn to the members of the CCLP outlines the dispute\nbetween Justice and OMB on proposed legislation to aid\nvictims of crime. Justice's bill, awaiting OMB clearance,\nwould create a Crime Victim's Assistance Fund. Money would\nflow into the fund from: (1) new fees assessed against\nevery federal convict ($25 for misdemeanant, $50 for felon),\n(2) all criminal fines from federal convicts, (3) a\npercentage of the salaries paid to federal inmates, (4) a\npercentage of any payments to parolees, (5) all proceeds\nfrom literary rights sold by a criminal arising from his\ncriminal act, (6) public contributions, (7) funds from other\nFederal agencies. Of money available in the Fund, 50\npercent would go to reimburse states that reimburse victims,\n30 percent to states for nonfinancial assistance to victims,\nand 20 percent for federal nonfinancial assistance to\nvictims.\nJustice argues that the bill is consistent with the\nAdministration commitment to help victims of crime. It is\nfiscally responsible, since no new appropriation is re-\nquested, and funds would only be disbursed to the extent\navailable. Reimbursing the states avoids excessive federal\nintrusion into a matter primarily of state concern. Most\nstates that have victim relief provisions do not distinguish\nbetween victims of state and federal crime, so some federal\nsupport for such programs is appropriate.\nOMB objects to the bill largely on the ground that, in the\nhands of Congress, it will become an item of ever-increasing\nappropriations. The Justice scheme will fund compensation\nonly for a minute percentage of victims, resulting in\npressure for appropriated funds to supplement the Fund.\nI do not have strong feelings either way. There is merit to\nthe Justice contention that some federal reimbursement is\nappropriate, since current state victim relief systems\nbenefit victims of federal as well as state crime. The\napproach of a \"users' fee\" on federal criminals also has a\ncertain appeal, although the small, flat fee for felons is a\nlittle disconcerting (Murder? That'll be $50).\n3. Interim Report of the Task Force on Family\nViolence. Lois Herrington will deliver an interim report on\nthe work of this task force, established by the Attorney\nGeneral on September 19, 1983. The Task Force, chaired by\nDetroit Chief of Police William Hart, has had several\nmeetings. There are no briefing papers on this topic.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nCABINET AFFAIRS STAFFING MEMORANDUM\n2/13/84\nNumber:\n168909CA\nDate:\nDue By:\nubject:\nCabinet Council on Legal Policy with the President\nTuesday, February 14, 1984 - 2:00 p.m.\nAction\nFYI\nAction\nFYI\nALL CABINET MEMBERS\nCEA\nVice President\nCEQ\nOSTP\nState\nACUS\nTreasury\nDefense\nAttorney General\nInterior\nAgriculture\nBaker\nCommerce\nDeaver\nLabor\nHHS\nDarman (For WH Staffing)\nHUD\nJenkins\nTransportation\nMc Farlane\nEnergy\nSvahn\nEducation\nFielding\nCounsellor\nOMB\nCIA\nUN\nUSTR\nCCCT/Gunn\nGSA\nCCEA/Porter\nEPA\nCCFA/\nOPM\nCCHR/Simmons\nVA\nCCLP/Uhlmann\nSBA\nCCMA/Bledsoe\nCCNRE/\nREMARKS: The Cabinet Council on Legal Policy will meet with the President\non Tuesday, February 14, 1984 at 2:00 p.m. in the Cabinet Room.\nThe agenda items are:\n1) Task Force on Legal Equity for Women\n2) Victims of Crime Legislation\n3) Interim Report by the Task Force on Family Violence\nPapers are attached for items 1 and 2. There will be no paper\non Family Violence.\nRETURN TO:\nCraig L. Fuller\nKatherine Anderson\nAssistant to the President\nDon Clarey\nTom Gibson\nfor Cabinet Affairs\nLarry Herbolsheimer\nAssociate Director\n456-2823\nOF SIGNITURE\nOffice of the Attorney General\nTHE\nWashington, D. C. 20530\nPOLICY\nJUSTITIA\nFebruary 10, 1984\nDECISION MEMORANDUM FOR:\nThe President\nFROM:\nWilliam French Smith\nWAS\nAttorney General\nSUBJECT:\nCCLP Meeting -- Task Force\non Legal Equity for Women\nExecutive Order 12336 put in place a mechanism for\nidentifying and eliminating federal laws and practices\ndiscriminating against women. After reviewing the substantial\nprogress that has been made to this end, the Cabinet Council on\nLegal Policy has concluded that the initiatives under this\nexecutive order should be further expedited, and makes three\nspecific recommendations to accomplish this.\nI.\nExecutive Order 12336\nExecutive Order 12336 of December 21, 1981, established the\nTask Force on Legal Equity for Women \"to provide for the\nsystematic elimination of regulatory and procedural barriers\nwhich have unfairly precluded women from receiving equal treat-\nment from Federal activities.\" (See Tab 1.) Section One of the\nOrder provides that the President shall appoint the Task Force\nmembers from among nominees of the heads of 21 specified execu-\ntive agencies, each of which is to have one representative on the\nTask Force.\nSection Two of the Order provides that each Task Force\nmember is responsible for coordinating and facilitating in his or\nher respective agency, under the direction of the head of the\nagency, the implementation of changes ordered by the President in\nsex-discriminatory federal regulations, policies, and practices.\nThe Task Force is charged with making \"periodic reports\" to the\nPresident on the progress made in implementing the President's\ndirectives.\nIn addition, Section Two of the Order directs the Attorney\nGeneral to complete a review of federal laws, regulations,\npolicies, and practices which contain language that unjustifiably\ndifferentiates, or effectively discriminates, on the basis of\nsex. The Attorney General is directed to report his findings to\n- 2 -\nthe President on a quarterly basis through the Cabinet Council on\nHuman Resources (this function was subsequently transferred to\nthe CCLP).\nII. Attorney General Quarterly Reports\nI assigned to the Department's Civil Rights Division the\ntask of coordinating the review of sex-discriminatory laws and\nregulations mandated by Executive Order 12336 and preparing\nprogress reports for transmittal to the White House via the CCLP.\nThe review effort was designed to proceed essentially in two\nphases: first, the Justice Department was to conduct a review of\nsex bias in federal statutes, and, second, individual agencies\nwere to undertake a review of sex bias in regulations, policies,\nand practices under their respective jurisdictions. The first\nphase is essentially completed and the results embodied in\npending legislation; the second phase is proceeding as scheduled\nand due to be completed this spring.\nThe Justice Department transmitted the First Quarterly\nReport to the CCLP on June 28, 1982. This report contained:\n(1) a list of federal statutes reflecting sex bias (based upon a\n1976 computer search performed by President Carter's Task Force\non Sex Discrimination) ; (2) a discussion of selected women's\nissues; and (3) a summary of efforts made by federal agencies to\ncorrect discrimination in laws and regulations.\nThe Second Quarterly Report, transmitted on December 3,\n1982, announced that the Department had authorized an updated\ncomputer-assisted search of the U.S. Code and Code of Federal\nRegulations and was in the process of coordinating new agency\nreview efforts. These tasks were reported to be \"well underway.\"\nThe Third Quarterly Report was transmitted to the CCLP in\nJuly 1983. This was the final report on federal statutes\ncontaining distinctions based on sex, and was the product of the\nmost comprehensive computer-assisted review of the U.S. Code ever\nundertaken to identify gender-based distinctions. The report\nalso summarized the initial progress made by several agencies in\nreviewing their regulations and policies for sex-based dis-\ntinctions.\nThe Fourth Quarterly Report was transmitted to the White\nHouse in December 1983. This report was a lengthy compilation of\nreports from 26 agencies summarizing their surveys of\nregulations, policies, practices, field instruments, and publica-\ntions under their respective jurisdictions. The introduction to\nthe Fourth Quarterly Report, and brief summaries of the\nindividual agency reports (prepared by the Justice Department),\nare attached at Tab 2. Several agencies reported that they had\ntaken steps to implement their findings through elimination of\nsex-discriminatory language in agency documents, and several\nreported adoption of policy statements to ensure that documents\ndrafted in the future will be sex-neutral.\n- 3 -\nThe Justice Department is in the process of preparing the\nFifth Quarterly Report, which will contain progress reports on 15\nagencies. Of particular interest are the reports from the\nInternal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human\nServices, which identify sex bias in actuarial tables used by\nthese agencies to compute tax liability and qualification for\ncertain welfare programs, respectively. The reports also\ndescribe steps being taken to convert to gender-neutral tables.\nAs of the Fifth Quarterly Report, 27 of the 42 agencies\ninvolved in the review process will have completed their reviews.\nThe Civil Rights Division has asked the remaining 15 agencies to\ncomplete their reviews by mid-April, and currently projects that\nthe review procedure mandated by Section Two of Executive Order\n12336 will be completed with the issuance of a final Quarterly\nReport by mid-May.\nIII. Recommendations\nA. Legislative Initiative\nPart of the work produced by the Department's review process\nhas been embodied in Senator Dole's S. 501, a bill to amend the\nlaws of the United States to eliminate gender-based distinctions.\nThe initial version of S. 501 addressed many of the gender-based\ndistinctions identified by the First Quarterly Report, and, in\nSeptember 1983, the Administration proposed substantial amendments\nto S. 501 to amend several dozen additional sex-biased statutes\nidentified by the Third Quarterly Report. The Senate Judiciary\nCommittee voted unanimously on November 10, 1983, to report\nS. 501 to the Senate floor, and anticipates filing the Committee\nReport late this month. No action has taken place on any comparable\nbill before the House.\nThe Administration should move actively to obtain passage of\nS. 501 when Congress returns and to initiate action on parallel\nlegislation in the House.\nApprove\nDisapprove\nB. The Department's Review Process\nAs indicated above, the review of sex-discriminatory agency\nregulations and practices mandated by Executive Order 12336 is\ncurrently scheduled to be completed by mid-May. We believe,\nhowever, that this process can and should be completed more\nquickly. Thus, the CCLP recommends that the President instruct\nthe agencies participating in the review process to complete\ntheir reviews by April 1, so that the Justice Department can\nissue its final Quarterly Report by mid-April.\nApprove\nDisapprove\n- 4 -\nC. Task Force Activity\nWhen the Justice Department's review of the U.S. Code\nwas completed (with the issuance of the Third Quarterly Report),\nthe CCLP and the Justice Department appropriately took the lead\nin incorporating the results of the review into S. 501. Now the\nsecond part of the review effort -- the survey of agency regula-\ntions and practices -- is well on its way to completion. Thus,\nthe CCLP recommends that you instruct the Task Force to take an\nactive role to correct the sex-discriminatory provisions identi-\nfied as soon as possible.\nApprove\nDisapprove\nAttachments\n104\n62239\nfuderal Register\nPresidential Documents\njob 4a. No. 240\nWednesday. December 23. 1981\nExecutive Order 12336 of December 21, 1981\nTitle\nThe President\nThe Task Force on Legal Equity for Women\nBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution of the United\nStates of America. and in order to provide for the systematic elimination of\nregulatory and procedural barriers which have unfairly precluded women\nfrom receiving equal treatment from Federal activities, it is hereby ordered as\nfollows:\nSection 1. Establishment (a) There is established the Task Force on Legal\nEquity for Women\n(b) The Task Force members shall be appointed by the President from among\nnominees by the heads of the following Executive agencies. each of which\nshall have one representative on the Task Force.\n(1) Department of State.\n(2) Department of The Treasury.\n(3) Department of Defense.\n(4) Department of Justice.\n(5) Department of The Interior.\n(6) Department of Agriculture.\n(7) Department of Commerce.\n(8) Department of Labor.\n(9) Department of Health and Human Services.\n(10) Department of Housing and Urban Development.\n(11) Department of Transportation.\n(12) Department of Energy.\n(13) Department of Education.\n(14) Agency for International Development.\n(15) Veterans Administration.\n(16) Office of Management and Budget\n(17) International Communication Agency.\n(18) Office of Personnel Management\n(19) Environmental Protection Agency.\n(20) ACTION.\n(21) Small Business Administration.\n(c) The President shall designate one of the members to chair the Task Force.\nOther agencies may be invited to participate in the functions of the Task\nForce.\nSec. 2 Functions. (a) The members of the Task Force shall be responsible for\ncoordinating and facilitating in their respective agencies, under the direction\nof the heud of their agency, the implementation of changes ordered by the\nPresident in sex-discriminatory Federal regulations. policies. and practices.\n(b) The Task Force shall periodically report to the President on the progress\nmade throughout the Government in implementing the President's directives.\n62240 Federal Register / Vul. 40. No. 246 / Wednesday. December 23. 1981 / Presidential Documents\n(c) The Attorney General shall complete the review of Federal laws. regula-\ntions, policies. and practices which contain language that unjustifiably differ-\nentiutes, or which effectively discriminates. on the busis of sex. The Attorney\nGeneral or his designee shall, on a quarterly basis, report his findings to the\nPresident through the Cabinet Council on Human Resources.\nSec. 3. Administration. (a) The head of each Executive agency shall. to the\nextent permitted by law, provide the Task Force with such information and\nadvice as the Task Force may identify as being useful to fulfill its functions.\n(b) The agency with its representative chairing the Task Force shall. to the\nextent permitted by law. provide the Task Force with such administrative\nsupport as may be necessary for the effective performance of its functions.\n(c) The head of each agency represented on the Task Force shall. to the extent\npermitted by law. furnish its representative such administrative support as is\nnecessary and appropriate.\nSec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Section 1-101(h) of Executive Order No. 12258,\nas amended. is revoked.\n(b) Executive Order No. 12135 is revoked.\n(c) Section 6 of Executive Order No. 12050. as amended, is revoked.\nRonald Reagan\nTHE WHITE HOUSE.\nDecember 21. 1981.\nEditorial Note: The President's remarks of Dec. 21. 1631. on signing Executive Order 12330 are\nprinted in the Wookly Compilation of Presidential Documents (voL 17. no. 52).\nFR Doc. 81-36758\nFiled 12-21-81: 2:43 pm|\nBilling code 3193-01-M\nli\nThe Fourth Quarterly\nReport of the Attorney General\nto the President and the Cabinet\nCouncil on Legal Policy as Required\nby Executive Order No. 12336\nPrepared by the\nCivil Rights Division\nU.S. Department of Justice\nINTRODUCTION AND HIGHLIGHTS\nThis is the Fourth Quarterly Report of the Attorney General\nto the President and the Cabinet Council on Legal Policy as\nrequired by Executive Order No. 12336. It contains reports from\n26 agencies on their reviews of Federal laws, regulations, policies,\npractices, field instruments, and publications for sex discrimina-\ntion. Eight of these reports are updates from reports contained\nin the Third Quarterly Report. Eighteen are the agency's first and\nin several instances the agency's final report. Preceeding each\nreport is a status summary that concisely sets forth the sex\ndiscrimination issues, if any, that the agency is addressing and\nthe degree of completion of the agency review.\nSex Discrimination Agency Reports and Summaries\nTable of Contents\nAgriculture, Department of\nAgency for International Development\n*Civil Aeronautics Board\nCommerce, Department of\n*Education, Department of\nEnergy, Department of\nFarm Credit Administration\n*Federal Emergency Management Agency\nGeneral Services Administration\n*Health and Human Services, Department of\nInterior, Department of\nInterstate Commerce Commission\nJustice, Department of\n*National Aeronautics and Space Administration\nNational Endowment for the Arts\nNational Endowment for the Humanities\nNuclear Regulatory Commission\nOverseas Private Investment Corporation\nRailroad Retirement Board\n*\nReports by these agencies are second and/or third submissions.\nSome agencies have submitted two reports.\n*Small Business Administration\nState, Department of\nTennessee Valley Authority\n*Transportation, Department of\nTreasury, Department of\nUnited States Information Agency\n*Veterans Administration\n*\nReports by these agencies are second and/or third submissions.\nSome agencies have submitted two reports.\nDepartment of Agriculture\nThe Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers a wide\nvariety of programs under the authority of numerous Acts of\nCongress. Programs relate to the growth and cultivation of crops,\nthe raising and slaughtering of livestock and the grading and\nmarketing of certain food products; loans of several kinds,\ninsurance, housing, and assistance for the benefit of those\nengaged in agricultural activities or who reside in rural areas;\nenergy and utility delivery and environmental protection; and\nresearch into these many areas.\nUSDA has submitted individual agency reports for inclusion\nin the Fourth Quarterly Report. The thoroughness of the reviews\nvary. Most of the agencies will be asked for additional informa-\ntion or to conduct more comprehensive reviews aimed at identifying\nsubstantive sex bias.\nThe Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reports that it has\nreviewed its statutes and regulations and that none contain\nsubstantive or terminological references. FNS has been asked to\nreconsider its review because one statute listed as gender free\ncontains substantive distinctions on the basis of sex. The\nstatute, 42 U.S.C. $1773 is listed in the Third Quarterly Report:\nSection One.\nThe Rural Electrification Administration (REA) report only\nresponds to references in the 1978 Interim Report to the President.\nREA reports that in 1981 one publication was revised to remove\ndiscriminatory photographs. No mention is made of changes to\nother publications or efforts to remove sex discriminatory\nlanguage from publications. REA has not reported that it has\nreviewed its statutes, regulations, policies, practices, and\nfield instruments. The agency will be asked to do SO.\nThe Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) submitted a two\nparagraph report that states that the agency completed the\ncomprehensive rewrite of regulations and forms it had agreed to\nin 1979. Because of the extensive substantive sex bias in earlier\nFmHA regulations, internal issuances, and forms, it is important\nthat FmHA take the time necessary to list each document, the\nreviewer, the review completion date, and the product of the\nreview. This is necessary to ensure that all documents are free\nof sex bias. FmHA to our knowledge has never reviewed its state\nsupplements which in earlier reports by Justice were noted to\ncontain substantive sex bias. Because these supplements are the\nworking guidelines used by FmHA to process loans it is particularly\nimportant that they be reviewed and corrected as necessary.\nThe National Agriculture Library (NAL) report lists two\ndocuments that are not gender free. It appears that NAL probably\nhas reviewed the few documents it has but the report does not\nindicate what, if any, statutes, regulations, publications, or\nother agency issuances it has and if they were reviewed.\nThe Food Safety and Inspection Service (the Service) has\nhad a policy since 1977 that prohibits the use of sex discriminatory\nlanguage in publications. This policy presumably covers all\nService directives. All directives have been reissued since 1977\nand the Service reports they are gender free. The Service's\nreport does not indicate if it has any regulations or publications\nand if they need to be reviewed.\nThe Forest Service (the Service) report sets forth corrective\naction taken by the agency to ensure that agency programs are\nconducted free of sex discrimination. The Service does not report\non its review of statutes, regulations, issuances, and publications\nfor sex discrimination.\nThe Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) reports that\nall FCIC regulations have been reviewed in the last five years\nfor the purpose of correcting sex biased language. FCIC does not\nstate if it has reviewed statutes, internal issuances, and\npublications for sex discrimination.\nThe Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)\nreports that all regulations, internal operation guidelines,\ninternal administrative directives have been reviewed and\nrevised as necessary. APHIS has agreed to forward a copy of the\nindex of administrative directives which is necessary to ensure\nthat APHIS has completed its review.\nThe Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization\nsubmitted a one sentence report. This agency will be asked for\nspecific additional information.\nThe Office of Personnel report indicates that no review\nhas been conducted since 1978. This office will be asked to\nconduct a review of its regulations, issuances, directives, and\npublications issued since 1978.\nThe Office of Finance and Management (OFM) reports that it\nhas reviewed \"various documents and issuances.\" The attached\nform does not list what documents the agency reviewed. The\nOFM will be asked to provide this information.\nThe Office of Administrative Law Judges reports that it\n\"does not issue any regulations, guidelines, programs or policies\ninternally or externally which result or could result in unequal\ntreatment based on sex.\" It is unclear if this conclusion is\nbased on an actual review or is simply speculation. The agency\nwill be asked to conduct a review if it has not done SO.\nThe Soil Conservation Service (SCS) report does not indicate\nif regulations, programs, policies, and field instruments were\nreviewed. In its report SCS only refers to issues raised in the\n1978 Report, a general statement regarding efforts to improve\nstereotyping in publications, and the issuance of a Sexual\nHarassment Guideline.\nThe Economic Management Staff report is on behalf of six\neconomic agencies in Agriculture. The report states that no\nreview was conducted of statutes, regulations, or other field\ninstruments. Coordination and Review staff will meet with the\nagencies to determine what documents, if any, should be reviewed.\nThe report does indicate a heightened awareness of sex\ndiscrimination issues and specific actions taken by Agriculture\nincluding the revision of a writing guide called Author to Reader\nthat will include a section on how to write without gender based\ndistinctions.\nThe Office of Transportation (OT) reports that it issues\nonly publications and reports all of which are technical in\nnature. OT writers are instructed to draft documents in sex\nneutral terminology. A review of the index of publications and\nreports indicates that OT has completed its review.\nThe Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service\n(ASCS) states that its national directives, handbooks, forms, and\nregulations have been reviewed and corrected as necessary. The\nASCS review appears to be completed although specific information\non corrections will be requested.\nThe Foreign Agricultural Service reports in a chart format\nthat all chapters of title three of the Code of Federal Regulations\nhave been reviewed. However, there is no information on the\nreview findings and the report does not indicate what other\ndocuments need to be reviewed.\nThe Packers and Stockyards Administration (PSA) reports in\nchart format that all regulations were reviewed and have been\ncorrected as necessary. PSA will be asked to report in more\ndetail on its regulatory review and to report on other documents\nthat should be reviewed.\nThe Office of Budget and Program Analysis submitted a\n\"negative\" report. Coordination and Review staff will meet with\nthis agency to discuss the review. Similarly the Office of Rural\nDevelopment Policy states that it does not have any programs and\ntherefore nothing to review. This agency will be contacted by\nCoordination and Review staff.\nThe Office of Governmental and Public Affairs reports that\nit has reviewed its regulations and when it republishes this Fall\nall gender specific terminology will be corrected.\nThe Agriculture Cooperative Service (ACS) reports that it\nhas reviewed 100 publications for gender specific words and when\nreprinted, publications will be revised. ACS will be asked if it\nhas reviewed regulations, programs, and policies for substantive\nsex bias.\nAgency for International Development\nThe Agency for International Development (AID) administers\nassistance programs designed to help people in developing countries\nto develop their human and economic resources, to increase\nproductive capacities, and to improve the quality of human life\nas well as promote economic and political stability in friendly\ncountries.\nAID has completed its review of statutes, regulations,\ninternal policies, guidelines, and procedures. The only sex bias\nidentified relates to personnel and is contained in agency\nhandbooks. AID is presently revising the handbooks and will\ncorrect the offending language.\nTwo Federal statutes administered by AID were listed in\nthe Third Quarterly Report as statutes that contain substantive\nsex bias. AID has discussed these two statutes, 22 U.S.C.\nSS2151 (k) and 2225, in its report. Both statutes were enacted by\nCongress to ensure that the concerns and needs of women in the\ncountries served were recognized and factored into the respective\nprograms. Based on AID's report and the legislative intent in\nenacting both statutes, neither appear to be the type of statute\nthat the Executive Order contemplates for repeal. Both appear to\n\"justifiably differentiate on the basis of sex.\"\nAID has completed its review and no further reports have\nbeen requested.\nThe Civil Aeronautics Board\nThe Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) promotes and regulates\nthe civil air transport industry within the United States and\nbetween the United States and other nations. The Board grants\nlicenses to provide air transporation services and opposes or\ndisapproves proposed agreements and corporate relationships\ninvolving air carriers.\nAlthough CAB reported in the Third Quarterly Report that\nthe Rules and Legislation Division of the Office of General\nCounsel issued a notice to all Bureaus and Offices to draft gender\nneutral regulations, the notice was not issued because now the\nOffice of General Counsel drafts all CAB regulations.\nThe CAB has completed its review.\nDepartment of Commerce\nThe Department of Commerce (Commerce) encourages, serves\nand promotes the Nation's economic development and technological\nadvancement. TO accomplish this purpose and to promote the\nnational interest by encouraging the competitive free enterprise\nsystem, the Department provides a wide variety of programs.\nCommerce conducted a comprehensive review of its statutes,\nregulations, internal issuances, and publications in 1976.\nCommerce has submitted two reports for inclusion in this report.\nThe first submission points out that two statutes listed as\n\"Uncorrected\" and attributed to Commerce in the First Quarterly\nReport are administered by the Departments of Treasury and\nTransportation (46 U.S.C. SS331, 601). We noted this correction\nand the change was made in the Third Quarterly Report. Commerce\nalso reports that the Maritime Administration has been transferred\nto the Department of Transportation (DOT). Therefore, earlier\nconcerns relating to the Merchant Marine Academy should be directed\nto DOT.\nThe second submission includes the results of Commerce's\nreview of its statutes and regulations since 1976 for substantive\nsex bias. The submission does not list 15 U.S.C. $1052, a statute\nthat contains substantive sex bias although Commerce lists this\nprovision in a memo directing components to conduct the Task\nForce review. The report in chart form sets forth each category\nreviewed, the title of the document, the name of the reviewer,\nthe sex bias identified (to include substantive and\nterminological), and the recommended action for correcting the\nchange. The report does not indicate if Commerce has conducted\nan updated review of policies, practices, and publications issued\nsince 1976.\nCommerce reported that it had \"abolished\" maternity leave.\nIts present policy is consistent with that of other government\nagencies which permit a combination of annual leave, sick leave,\nand leave without pay to be used for childbirth and child care.\nDepartment of Education\nThe Department of Education (ED) has completed its review\nof statutes, regulations, and issuances for sex bias. ED\nidentified one statute and its implementing regulation as con-\ntaining substantive sex bias, a provision of the Military Selective\nService Act (Pub. L. No. 97252) (1983) which makes male students\nwho fail to register ineligible. to receive title IV student\nfinancial assistance. Proposed regulations to implement that\nstatute were published January 27, 1983 to be codified at 34\nC.F.R. $$668.23-668.27. This statute is not listed in the Third\nQuarterly Report as a statute containing sex bias because it\ncontains no facially discriminatory language. ED is correct,\nhowever, that because the Selective Service law requires only\nmales to register, this amendment then applies only to men.\nThe regulations reviewed are published at 34 C.F.R. Parts\n1-797 and 41 C.F.R. $34. The specific policies, sub-regulatory\nissuances and publications reviewed are not listed in the report\nbecause of space but are available in supporting memoranda.\nThe remainder of the report addresses specific agency\nprograms and projects aimed to assist women.\nDepartment of Energy\nThe Department of Energy (DOE) coordinates and administers\nthe energy functions of the Federal government. The Department\nis responsible for long-term, high-risk research and development\nof energy technology; the marketing of Federal power; energy\nconservation; the nuclear weapons program; energy regulatory\nprograms; and a central energy data collection and analysis\nprogram.\nDOE has completed a thorough review of its statutes, rules,\nregulations, policies, publications, and acquisition letters. No\nsubstantive discrimination on the basis of sex was found although\ngender specific terminology was identified. The Office of the\nGeneral Counsel plans to review all future bills, regulations and\norders to eliminate gender specific terminology and assure that\nthere is no disproportionate impact on gender.\nFarm Credit Administration\nThe Farm Credit Administration (FCA) is an independent\nagency that charters, examines and supervises Federal land banks,\nFederal land bank associations, Federal intermediate credit banks,\nproduction credit associations and banks for cooperatives. The\nAdministration has reviewed its enabling statute, regulations,\npolicies, guidelines and practices. The agency identified several\ninstances of gender specific terminology and some substantive\nsex bias in agency references to wives of board members and bank\npresidents. Most of the gender specific terminology was found in\nmaterials that have not been revised since the adoption of a 1978\npolicy statement encouraging the use of sex neutral language and\nbalanced visual examples.\nFederal Emergency Management Agency\nThe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created\nto provide a single point of accountability for all Federal\nemergency preparedness. The agency is chartered to enhance the\nmultiple use of emergency preparedness and response resources at\nthe Federal, State, and local levels of government in preparing\nfor and responding to emergencies and to integrate into a\ncomprehensive framework, activities concerned with hazard\nmitigation, preparedness planning relief operations, and recovery\nassistance.\nThe FEMA previously reported that it has examined the\nbasic laws and regulations it administers and found no \"significant\nsubstantial sex discriminatory provisions.\" Its final report\ndirects that the word 'significant' be deleted because the only\npossible sex discriminatory provisions are in terminology. It\nfurther reports that in addition to section 311 of the Disaster\nRelief Act (42 U.S.C. 5151) there are four regulatory provisions\nprohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. They are:\n1. 44 C.F.R. 62.4(b) states that no person shall be excluded\nfrom participation in, denied the benefits of, or\nsubjected to discrimination under the National Flood\nInsurance Program on the basis of sex.\n2.\n44 C.F.R. 82.10 states that no person shall be excluded\nfrom participation in, denied the benefits of, or be\nsubjected to discrimination under the Federal Crime\nInsurance Program on the basis of sex.\n3.\n44 C.F.R. 205.16(b) states that all personnel, carrying\nout Federal major disaster or emergency assistance\nfunctions, shall perform their work in an equitable\nand impartial manner without discrimination on the\ngrounds of sex.\n4.\n44 C.F.R. 309.12 states that with respect to federally-\nassisted construction under the civil defense program,\neach contractor shall be required to have an affirmative\naction plan which declares that it does not discriminate\non the basis of sex and which specifies goals and\ntarget dates to assure implementation of that plan.\nThe FEMA report is so brief that we have provided a summary,\nin the proceeding paragraphs in lieu of the report itself.\nGeneral Services Administration\nThe General Services Administration (GSA) establishes\npolicy and provides for the Federal government an economical and\nefficient system for the management of its property and records,\nincluding construction and operation of buildings; procurement\nand distribution of supplies; utilization and disposal of property,\ntransportation, traffic, and communication management; stockpiling\nof strategic materials; and the management of the government-wide\nautomatic data processing resources program.\nGSA has concluded its review of regulations, guidelines,\npolicies, and procedures.\nGSA reports that its review \"included 1,950 regulations,\nguidelines, policies, and procedures, of these, 110 were found to\nrequire some type of revision due to unnecessary gender specific\nterminology. Of the 110 identified 40 have been revised, 25 are\nin final draft, the remaining 45 have target dates during the\nfirst and second quarter of FY 1984. National Personnel Records\nCenter Publications are routinely reviewed every six months and,\nas these reviews take place, documents will be reviewed for sex\nbiased language. In addition, compliance with the Executive\nOrder will be kept in mind in the writing of correspondence and\nfuture regulations, guidelines, policies, and procedures.\"\nReview reports from various components are attached.\nDepartment of Health and Human Services\nThe Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers\nthe Social Security System and other health and welfare services.\nThe HHS report is a complete and comprehensive review of\nits statutes. Many of the statutes listed in the First Quarterly\nReport, as containing sex bias, have been corrected by the Social\nSecurity Amendments of 1983, Pub. L. No. 98-21. The HHS report\nincludes a chart that sets forth each statutory provision contained\nin the First Quarterly Report, comments explaining the sex bias,\nand the status of each provision (repealed or corrected by legisla-\ntive action, invalidated by court action, no change, or prospective\nlegislative action).\nFuture HHS reports will comment on the status of the\nagency's review of regulations, programs, policies, field\ninstruments, and publications.\nDepartment of Interior\nThe Department of Interior (DOI) has responsibility for\nmost of the nationally owned public lands and natural resources\nand American Indian reservation communities and for people who\nlive in Island Territories under United States administration.\nThe DOI has reviewed its statutes and provided comments\nand recommendations concerning those that make distinctions on\nthe basis of sex. The Department has been requested to complete\nits review of regulations, policies, and procedures and report\nits findings for future Quarterly Reports.\nNational Aeronautics and Space Administration\nThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)\nconducts research for solutions to problems of flight within and\noutside the Earth's atmosphere and develops, constructs, tests\nand operates aeronautical and space vehicles; conducts activities\nrequired for the exploration of space; arranges for the most\neffective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources\nof the United States with other nations engaged in aeronautical\nand space activities for peaceful purposes; and provides for the\nwidest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information\nconcerning NASA's activities and their results.\nNASA has completed its review of approximately 200 directives\nand issuances and revised for sex bias as necessary. NASA\nidentified no statute that contains substantive sex bias.\nThe NASA report is so brief that we have provided a summary,\nin the proceeding paragraphs, in lieu of one report itself.\nNational Endowment for the Arts\nThe National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) encourages and\nsupports progress in the arts. NEA awards grants to individuals,\nstate and regional arts agencies, and non-profit organizations\nrepresenting the highest quality in the various fields of the arts.\nNEA has reviewed its statutes, regulations, program\nguidelines, administrative directives, handbooks, and a few\nadditional issuances. No substantive sex bias was identified.\nNEA has included in its report a list of sex based terminological\nprovisions.\nNational Endowment for the Humanities\nThe National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), created\nby an act of Congress in 1965, was established to carry out two\nfundamental objectives:\n1. to aid in the investigation of the key questions in\nthe humanities and in the dissemination of the results\nof this effort through more effective teaching and\npublication; and\n2.\nto foster throughout the Nation an awareness of the\nimportance and value of the humanities for contemporary\nAmerican life.\nNEH's report does not indicate that its statutes were\nreviewed. The report states that it has received the Justice\ncomputer printout of its regulations that contain sex specific\nlanguage. The agency states it will correct laws, regulations,\netc. as republished. It is unclear if NEH has reviewed the\nprintout and what corrective action is recommended. The remainder\nof the report addresses NEH programs, including composition of\nNEH panels and civil rights enforcement efforts.\nNuclear Regulatory Commission\nThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses and\nregulates the possession and use of nuclear facilities and\nmaterials to protect the public health and safety and the\nenvironment. It does this by licensing persons and companies to\nbuild and operate nuclear reactors and to own and use nuclear\nmaterials. NRC makes rules and sets standards for these types of\nlicenses. It also inspects the activities of the persons and\ncompanies licensed to ensure that they do not violate the safety\nrules of the Commission.\nNRC completed in 1978 a comprehensive review of its\nstatutes, regulations, programs, and policies for sex bias. A\nreview of statutes enacted since 1978 will be included in NRC's\nreport for the Fifth Quarterly Report. NRC's report references\none regulation being revised, 10 C.F.R. Part 20. This regulation\nis being revised to reflect recommendations of the National\nCouncil on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the\nInternational Commission on Radiological Protection. The draft\nprovisions are intended to provide a practical means of controlling\nradiation exposure to an embryo with minimal impact on the\nemployability of women.\nNRC has completed its review of statutes, regulations,\nprograms, and policies for sex bias.\nOverseas Private Investment Corporation\nThe Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) provides\npolitical risk insurance and financial services to encourage\nUnited States private investment in certain developing nations.\nOPIC insurance protects investors against the political risks of\nexpropriation; inability to convert local currency into dollars;\nand damage from war, revolution, insurrection, and certain types\nof civil strife. All OPIC related projects must contribute to\nthe economic and social development of the host country and must\nbe consistent with the economic interests of the United States.\nOPIC financial services are designed to assist U.S. lenders and\nbusiness enterprises in finding and supporting worthwhile projects\nthrough investment guaranties, direct loans, and preinvestment\nsurveys.\nOPIC has completed its review of statutes, regulations,\nprogram brochures, and procurement guides and identified no\nsubstantive sex discrimination. A few terminological problems\nwere identified and will be addressed as documents are revised.\nRailroad Retirement Board\nThe Railroad Retirement Board (the Board) provides a\ngovernmentally authorized and administered program of retirement\nand survivors and disability benefits payable to railroad employees\nand their families.\nThe Board has reviewed its statutes and regulations for\nsex based distinctions. One statute making a substantive\ndistinction and several gender specific terminological provisions\nwere identified. The Board has drafted proposed language to cure\nthe substantive sex discrimination.\nSmall Business Administration\nFor the Third Quarterly Report the Small Business\nAdministration (SBA) reported on its programs and initiatives for\nwomen. This report contains the SBA's analysis of the application\nof Sections 8a and 8d of the Small Business Act to women.\nA systematic review of the SBA's laws, regulations,\npolicies, and procedures has been requested for future quarterly\nreports.\nDepartment of State\nThe Department of State (State) advises the President in\nthe formulation and execution of foreign policy. As Chief Executive,\nthe President has overall responsibility for the foreign policy\nof the United States. State's primary objective in the conduct\nof foreign relations is to promote the long-range security and\nwell-being of the United States. The Department determines and\nanalyzes the facts relating to American overseas interests, makes\nrecommendations on policy and future action, and takes the\nnecessary steps to carry out established policy. In so doing,\nthe Department engages in continuous consultations with the\nAmerican public, the Congress, other U.S. departments and agencies,\nand foreign governments; negotiates treaties and agreements with\nforeign nations; speaks for the United States in the United\nNations and in more than 50 major international organizations in\nwhich the United States participates; and represents the United\nStates at more than 800 international conferences annually.\nState has submitted an update of its February 1983\nsubmission. Additional reports are anticipated.\nState has reviewed its statutes and is considering amending\n22 U.S.C. $214 and 22 U.S.C. $1281 to remove the sex bias.\nHowever, it does not recommend corrective legislation for 8 U.S.C.\nSS1153, 1182, and 1253 because it takes the position that these\nstatutes are primarily the concern of the Department of Justice.\nFurther, State recommends against amending the definition of\n\"refugee\" in 8 U.S.C. $1101 $1101(a)(42) because it would expand this\ncountry's international obligations under the Convention and\nProtocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. This statute was\nalready omitted in the Third Quarterly Report.\nState has listed the regulations it has reviewed and the\nresults of its review. A summary of its to-date review of the\nForeign Affairs Manual is also included.\n(\nDepartment of Transportation\nThe Department of Transportation (DOT) has completed its\nreview of statutes and regulations. It has drafted legislation\nto eliminate sex based distinctions in several Coast Guard\nadministered statutes that were identified in the First Quarterly\nReport.\nVarious policies, practices, and procedures have also been\nreviewed.\nDepartment of the Treasury\nThe Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has completed\nits review of statutes, regulations, and various policies.\nTreasury identified several regulations that discriminate on the\nbasis of sex as well as the statutes identified in the First\nQuarterly Report.\nThe Internal Revenue Service reported separately and\nidentified various statutes and regulations that discriminate on\nthe basis of sex.\n(\nUnited States Information Agency\nThe United States Information Agency (USIA) promotes\nawareness and knowledge of United States policies, culture, and\nvalues abroad.\nUSIA has reviewed its programming materials and taken\nsteps to eliminate sex stereotyping and gender bias. It reports\non the employment picture for women and describes increased\nopportunities for them. It is not clear from the report whether\na systematic review of statutes and regulations was completed.\nVeterans Administration\nThe Veterans Administration (VA) has submitted two reports\nfor the Fourth Quarterly Report. VA's review has been thorough\nand systematic with the agency components reviewing the laws,\nrules, regulations, and policies as well as responding to specific\nissues.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 13, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET COUNCIL ON LEGAL POLICY\nJOHN A. SVAHN\nJAS\nFROM:\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT\nSUBJECT:\nVictims' Compensation Proposal\nThe Department of Justice (DOJ) presented a proposal to the CCLP\nin the Fall of 1983, for a new Crime Victims' Assistance Fund.\nThe President asked DOJ to refine the proposal and bring it up at\na future meeting. In the meantime, DOJ has submitted a bill for\nclearance to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which\nwould create such a program. OMB opposes the bill, and Tuesday's\nCCLP meeting has been scheduled to resolve the issue.\nBackground\nThe DOJ bill would create a Crime Victim's Assistance Fund to\nprovide Federal financial assistance to State victim compensation\nprograms and to improve the nonfinancial assistance offered to\ncrime victims by every level of Government and the private\nsector.\nThe bill identifies seven sources of funding for the program:\n1. A new penalty assessment fee to be collected from every\nconvicted Federal defendant ($25 for misdemeanant, $50 for\nfelon), (generating about $1.6 million annually);\n2. All criminal fines collected from convicted Federal\ndefendants, including criminal anti-trust fines, interest and\npenalty payments, and forfeited appearance bonds, (generating\nbetween $50-60 million annually);\n3. Up to 25% of all money paid to working Federal inmates (less\nany restitution paid by the inmate), (generating about\n$3 million annually);\n4. 10% of all money paid to Federal parolees and probationers\n(unless they are making restitution or have previously\ncontributed to the Fund while working in prison), (no revenue\nestimate given by DOJ);\n5. All proceeds of any contract entered into by any defendant\nfor the sale of literary or other rights arising from his\ncriminal act;\n6. Contributions from the public; and\n7. Funds transferred by other Federal agencies (no revenue\nestimates given for sources 5, 6, or 7.)\nOur best projections estimate that the Fund will total\napproximately $5-75 million its first year. This amount of\nFederal assistance would have a significant impact on victims'\ncompensation and assistance efforts across the nation. Total\nState victim compensation expenditures nationally are\napproximately $50 million. Victim assistance providers are\nchronically short of funds. The Federal contribution to these\nefforts would, therefore, be neither a token contribution nor an\nexcessive one. There is a potential for Congress to add an\nappropriation to this bill. Justice does not believe the threat\nis great. Of the five bills already introduced on this subject\nby Republicans (Heinz/Grassley, Specter, Fish) and Democrats\n(Rodino, Russo) only one (Specter) seeks an appropriation. The\ntwo liberal Democrats' funding approaches have intentionally been\ndesigned to avoid appropriations.\nMonies from the Fund would be disbursed in the following manner:\n0 Fifty percent of the Fund would go to States with victim\ncompensation programs for the purpose of reimbursing them for\ntheir payouts under those programs. Certain minimal\neligibility requirements would have to be met by each partici-\npating State.\n0 Thirty percent of the Fund would go to the States to help them\nimprove the nonfinancial assistance provided to victims by\nState and local Governments, and by nonprofit organizations.\nAgain, certain eligibility requirements would apply.\n0 Twenty percent of the Fund would go to Federal law enforcement\nagencies to improve the nonfinancial victim assistance offered\nby the Federal Government. The monies could be used for a\nvariety of purposes.\nThe Department of Justice Position.\nDOJ believes there are several self-imposed, tight limits on\nexpenditure in the bill that will keep Federal financial exposure\nlow. The government's expenditures can never exceed the amount\nthat comes into the Fund. No State would have any entitlement to\nany money above its share of the amount actually in the Fund at\nthe end of the fiscal year. The bill does not, therefore, create\nan open-ended matching fund. No more money can ever be disbursed\nfrom the Fund than is in it. Neither the Federal Government nor\nthe States would have any obligation to any victim after\navailable existing funds run out.\nDOJ feels that this proposal is totally consistent with\nAdministration policy. A goal of the legislation would be to\nprovide limited Federal assistance to the States without unduly\ninterjecting the Federal government. into the working\nrelationships now existing between the States, victims service\norganizations, and victims. State applications for funding are\ndesigned to be concise and there are virtually no Federal\n\"strings\" imposed on recipients. The States are free to set\ntheir own compensation policies and administer their own programs\nwith minimal Federal intrusion.\nCurrently, States which have compensation programs make no\ndistinction between victims of Federal and State crimes.\nHowever, if their compensation programs continue to experience\nbudgetary shortfall, States soon may have no choice but to stop\ncompensating victims of Federal crimes. ithout Federal\nfinancial assistance to State compensation programs, therefore,\nFederal crime victims may receive no compensation in some States,\nor receive compensation in others only when the State elects to\nprosecute a crime over which there is joint Federal and State\njurisdiction. Justice believes that this approach is the least\nintrusive Federal remedy to the problems now facing victims of\ncrime.\nThe Act would terminate in 1988 without further Congressional\naction. No money could be deposited in the Fund or disbursed\nfrom it after September 30, 1988.\nThe Office of Management and Budget position.\nOMB's objections to the bill are based largely on the premise\nthat even if an Administration-sponsored bill could be designed\nto adequately address the concerns about potential budget\nexposure, once the bill were introduced on the Hill it would be\nsubjected to SO many modifications and \"Christmas tree\" additions\nthat the bill which ultimately emerged from Congress would be\ntotally unrecognizable and unacceptable to the Administration.\nTherefore, even though DOJ is requesting no appropriation for the\nFund, OMB is convinced that Congress would provide money anyway.\nSpecific OMB objections fall into three categories: Policy,\nFunding, and Administrative.\nPolicy Objections\nOMB does not believe the Federal Government has a responsibility\nto compensate the victims of State crime. If the Federal\nGovernment starts aiding State programs simply because they are\nrunning low on money, there will be no end to the growth of the\nFederal budget. This is an area where the States have taken the\nlead in program development. Federal intervention is not\nwarranted.\nFurther, once the Federal Government begins compensating people\nwho are victimized through a criminal act, the logic for denying\ncompensation for other types of victimization disappears.\nFunding Objections\nOMB maintains that the cost to the Federal Government, rather\nthan being negligible, could potentially be enormous. Based on\nthe present size of State programs, the DOJ bill would create the\nneed for a Federal Fund of $100 million. The problem is,\nhowever, that only a very small fraction of crime victims are\npresently being compensated.\nOMB estimates that if all violent crime victims were compensated,\nthe cost to the Federal Government in direct compensation\npayments would be almost $9.5 billion, based on current rates of\ncompensation.\nThis program could easily mushroom into a huge new entitlement\nprogram. It would be very attractive politically for Congress to\nexpand the program to cover other types of victimization, such as\nfraud and other non-violent crime.\nMost of the criminal fines which DOJ would use for the Fund are\nalready being deposited into the Treasury. Diverting them to\nthe Fund will increase the deficit by $25 to $62 million.\nBased on the States' experience, it is very unlikely that the\nsystem of fines and levies proposed by DOJ would generate enough\nrevenue to offset the cost of the program.\nOMB points out, finally, that many programs start out small, but\nonce unleashed, grow into huge drains on the Treasury. For\nexample, in 1966, when medicare was initiated, outlays for Health\nInsurance were projected to be $27 billion by 1990, but are now\nprojected to be $117 billion; a 366 percent cost overrun.\nSupplemental Medical Insurance outlays were initially projected\nto reach $6 billion by 1988, but are now projected to hit $37\nbillion, a 548 percent cost overrun.\nAdministrative Costs\nNo new Federal bureaucracy--replete with guidelines,\ninvestigations, and hearing board is need to administer the\nprogram. The Department of Justice's realistic estimate is that\nonly five additional positions are needed to administer the bill.\nWith training, existing personnel could perform virtually all the\nnew functions required by the bill. Any new burdens placed on\nthe Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts would result\nfrom already pending legislation and a current GAO study aimed at\nimproving fine collection.\nOMB strongly disagrees with DOJ's position that no new\nbureaucracy would be required to administer the program. The\nAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) has stated that\njust to collect the 10% levy on the income of probationers and\nparolees income would require a substantial increase in the\nworkload of the Federal Probation System and could prove to be an\nadministrative nightmare.\nOPTIONS\n(1) Transmit legislation as proposed.\n(2) Do not transmit legislation.\n(3) Transmit legislation as modified.\n(4) No decision at this time."
}