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
118568242
label
JGR/Enrolled Bills - February 1984 (1 of 2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568242
contentType
document
title
JGR/Enrolled Bills - February 1984 (1 of 2)
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
118568242
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
bfe25ec73bcf6e19
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/Enrolled Bills - February 1984
(1 of 2)
Box: 21
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/
OF
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
Honorable
TO.BUDGET FOR CLEARANCE
Chairman
8
FEB 1984
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Washington, Dear Mr. Chairman: D.C. 20510 SENT CONGRESS
This letter presents the views of the Department of Justice
on the proposal to amend the District of Columbia Self-Government
and Governmental Reorganization Act (the "Act") set forth in a
letter to the Honorable Charles McC. Mathias, United States Senate,
from the Honorable Marion Barry, Jr., Mayor, District of Columbia
(November 17, 1983). For the reasons set forth below, the Depart-
ment of Justice opposes enactment of this proposal.
The proposal submitted by the District of Columbia would pro-
vide as follows:
"Sec. 1. Any law which was passed by the Council of the
District of Columbia prior to the date of the enactment of this
Act is hereby deemed valid, in accordance with the provisions
thereof.
Sec. 2. Part F of title VII of such Act is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new section:
Severability
Sec. 762. If any particular provisions of this Act, including any
provisions of this Act with respect to adoption of resolutions by
one or both Houses of Congress disapproving acts of the Council,
or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held
invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of such
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby."
As stated in the Mayor's letter of November 17, 1983, the
proposal is directed toward enabling the District of Columbia to
issue municipal bonds. As a result of the Supreme Court's deci-
sion in Immigration and Naturalization Service V. Chadha, 103 S.Ct.
2764 (1983), which declared the so-called "legislative veto" device
unconstitutional, questions have been raised over the ability of
the District of Columbia to obtain revenues through the bond market,
since the Act contains several legislative vetoes. 1/ We take no
position as to whether the proposal would in fact resolve those
questions. Rather, our objections to the proposal evolve from
other legal consequences which may ensue from its enactment.
Section 1 of the proposal, by affirming all previous actions
of the D.C. Council, does not take into account those actions of
the D.C. Council which never became effective, or which were
invalidated after becoming effective, whether because they were
subject to Congressional action, court challenge or otherwise.
While we do not object to the general intent underlying section 1
-- to dispel any cloud Chadha may have cast over laws that pre-
viously took effect following passage by the D.C. Council -- we
believe that this intent would be better served by a provision
that affirmed only those laws which in fact came into effect and
are currently valid. Section 1 does not account for laws which
passed the D.C. Council but have been repealed, modified or amended,
were temporary in nature or subject to a sunset provision and have
lapsed, or have been judicially determined invalid.
1/ The Act contains four provisions which may be characterized as
legislative vetoes. These are:
(1) Section 303 (b) provides that "an amendment to the charter
shall take effect only if
both Houses of Congress adopt
a concurrent resolution
...
approving such amendment.'
(2) Section 602 (c) (1) provides that with respect to acts ef-
fective immediately due to emergency circumstances and acts pro-
posing amendments to Title IV of this Act "no such act shall take
effect until the end of the 30-day period
and then only if
during such 30-day period both Houses of Congress do not adopt a
concurrent resolution disapproving such act.
(3) Section 602 (c) (2) provides that any Act affecting Titles
22, 23, or 24 of the District of Columbia Code "shall take effect
only if
one House of Congress does not adopt a resolu-
tion disapproving such act. "
(4) Section 740 (a) provides that either the House or the
Senate may adopt a resolution terminating emergency presidential
authority over the Metropolitan Police Department."
- 2 -
Section 2 of the proposal, if enacted, could have an impact
extending far beyond merely inserting a severability provision
into the text of the Act. If a court were to rely on section 2
to hold that the legislative veto provisions of the Act are sever-
able, 2/ the result will be to sustain, with one exception, 3/
the actions of the D.C. Council in all matters subsequent to the
passage of this proposal without the need to secure an enactment
of a law by the Congress. In practical terms, the intent of the
proposal runs contrary to our position on H.R. 3932, another bill
to amend the Act upon which we have previously reported. See Let-
ter to Honorable William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, from Robert A. McConnell,
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs (November
15, 1983). In that report, we expressed general support for H.R.
3932, which would correct the constitutionally invalid portions
of the Act by requiring D.C. Council actions to be subject to
disapproval by enactment of a joint resolution.
In the narrow area of criminal law, criminal procedure and
prisoners, however, we urged that actions of the D.C. Council
should take effect only upon enactment of a joint resolution of
approval by the Congress. Section 2, by declaring that a provi-
sion of the Act is severable in the event it is determined invalid,
would allow the remaining provisions to stand alone. If, for
example, the invalid congressional review provisions were found
to be severable from the remaining provisions of the Act, D.C.
Council actions would become law without any subsequent Congres-
sional examination. For the reasons set forth in our letter of
November 15, 1983, we do not believe this to be an appropriate
post-Chadha compromise, particularly in the area of criminal law,
2/ We note that the severability of a particular provision from
a statute does not necessarily turn on the presence or absence
within that statute of a severability clause. See United States
V. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 585 n.27 (1968). While this letter
is not intended to reflect on the severability of the legislative
veto devices in the Act, we would expect a court to rest its ulti-
mate inquiry into the question of severability on whether Congress
would have enacted the remainder of the statute without the uncon-
stitutional provision. See Consumer Energy Council of America V.
FERC, 673 F.2d 425, 442 (D.C. Cir. 1982) aff'd mem., 103 S.Ct.
3556 (1983). We therefore would not expect the mere presence or
absence of a severability clause passed subsequent to the Act to
be determinative of the severability question.
3/ The Act precludes the D.C. Council from amending Title 11 of
the D.C. Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the
District of Columbia courts). See Section 602 (a) (4) of the Act.
- 3 -
criminal procedure, and prisoners. Instead, we believe that the
proper balance of lawmaking authority would be maintained if a
joint resolution of approval were required in order for D.C. Coun-
cil amendments to Titles 22, 23 and 24 of the D.C. Code to take
effect.
In summary, we oppose the enactment of the recent proposal
submitted by the District of Columbia. It does not take into
account actions of the D.C. Council which did not become effec-
tive, are no longer effective, or have been held invalid. It
also ignores the undesirable consequences that would likely re-
sult from simply inserting a severability clause into the text
of the Act.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised this Depart-
ment that there is no objection to the submission of this report
from the standpoint of the Administration's position.
Sincerely,
ROBERT A. McCONNELL
Assistant Attorney General
- 4 -
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 9, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 2727 -- Codification of
Recent Laws Concerning Money, Finance, and
Transportation
Richard Darman asked for our views on the above-referenced
enrolled bill by 5:00 p.m. Friday, February 10. H.R. 2727
is part of the ongoing project to enact the titles of the
United States Code as positive law. It would make certain
conforming amendments to parts of 31 and 49 U.S.C. enacted
as positive law, to reflect changes made by statutes that
did not specifically refer to the codified versions. The
bill passed both Houses by voice vote. OMB recommends
approval, Transportation and Treasury have objection, and
Justice has no comment. As with all bills that are part of
the codification project, H.R. 2727 contains language to the
effect that its passage effects no substantive change in the
law, and that any offense committed under the uncodified
version of the law is deemed to have been committed under
the appropriate section of the codification.
I have reviewed the memorandum for the President prepared by
OMB Assistant Director for Legislative Reference James M.
Frey, and the bill itself, and have no objections. I have
alerted the Executive Clerk to a technical error in the
enrolled bill -- "appeal" in S 6 (a) should be "repeal" --
but this does not affect the President's action.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 9, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
VJOHN G. ROBERTS
JSR
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 2727 -- Codification of
Recent Laws Concerning Money, Finance, and
Transportation
Richard Darman asked for our views on the above-referenced
enrolled bill by 5:00 p.m. Friday, February 10. H.R. 2727
is part of the ongoing project to enact the titles of the
United States Code as positive law. It would make certain
conforming amendments to parts of 31 and 49 U.S.C. enacted
as positive law, to reflect changes made by statutes that
did not specifically refer to the codified versions. The
bill passed both Houses by voice vote. OMB recommends
approval, Transportation and Treasury have objection, and
?
Justice has no comment. As with all bills that are part of
the codification project, H.R. 2727 contains language to the
effect that its passage effects no substantive change in the
law, and that any offense committed under the uncodified
version of the law is deemed to have been committed under
the appropriate section of the codification.
I have reviewed the memorandum for the President prepared by
OMB Assistant Director for Legislative Reference James M.
Frey, and the bill itself, and have no objections. I have
alerted the Executive Clerk to a technical error in the
enrolled bill -- "appeal" in § 6 (a) should be "repeal" -
but this does not affect the President's action.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 9, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 2727 -- Codification of
Recent Laws Concerning Money, Finance, and
Transportation
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
We have alerted the Executive Clerk to a technical error in
the enrolled bill -- "appeal" in § 6 (a) should be "repeal"
-- and the Clerk has notified the appropriate Congressional
officials. This does not affect the President's action.
FFF: JGR:aea 2/9/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 9, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 2727 -- Codification of
Recent Laws Concerning Money, Finance, and
Transportation
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
We have alerted the Executive Clerk' to a technical error in
the enrolled bill -- "appeal" in § 6 (a) should be "repeal"
-- and the Clerk has notified the appropriate Congressional
officials. This does not affect the President's action.
FFF:JGR:aea 2/9/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID #. 187104
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 . OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Richard G. DARMAN
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 2725 - Codification 2
Recent Laws concerning Money Finance
and Transportation
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CULTOCL
ORIGINATOR 84,02,08
/ /
Referral Note:
WATIB
&
84,02,08
$ 87,02110
Referral Note:
5:00p
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
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
Document No.
187104SS
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
2/8/84
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 5:00 p.m. 2/10/84
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 2727 - Codification of Recent Laws
Concerning Money, Finance, and
Transportation
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
McFARLANE
MEESE
McMANUS
BAKER
MURPHY
DEAVER
OGLESBY
STOCKMAN
ROGERS
DARMAN
P
SS
SPEAKES
FELDSTEIN
SVAHN
FIELDING
VERSTANDIG
FULLER
WHITTLESEY
HERRINGTON
HICKEY
JENKINS
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments/recommendations to my
office by 5:00 p.m. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1984.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
1984 FEB -8 PM 1: 59
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
FEB 8 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 2727 - Codification of Recent Laws
Concerning Money, Finance, and Transportation
Sponsor - Rep. Rodino (D) New Jersey
Last Day for Action
February 15, 1984 - Wednesday
Purpose
To codify without substantive change certain recent laws
concerning money, finance, and transportation.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
Department of Transportation
No objection
Department of the Treasury
No objection(
11y
Department of Justice
No comment
117)
Discussion
Public Law 97-258 restated, without substantive change, certain
general and permanent laws related to money and finance and
enacted those laws as title 31 of the United States Code. Public
Law 97-449 did the same thing with respect to certain laws
concerning transportation and enacted them as part of title 49 of
the United States Code. Both of these public laws were part of
the on-going program of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of
the House of Representatives to prepare all titles of the United
States Code for enactment as positive law.
H.R. 2727, which passed both Houses by voice vote, further amends
titles 31 and 49 of the United States Code to reflect changes
made by laws that did not specifically amend those titles. The
enrolled bill restates certain sections to reflect current law
more accurately. It also makes technical conforming amendments
to a number of other sections of the Code.
2
Interested Executive branch agencies are satisfied that H.R 2727
does 4 not change existing law in any substantive way.
(Signed) James M. Frey
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Enclosures
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 14, 1984
The President has today signed the following legislation:
H.R. 2727 which codifies without substantive change certain recent
laws concerning money, finance, and transportation; and
H.R. 3969 which allows the limited use of proxies by members of
the Supervisory Board of the Panama Canal Commission.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 14, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
SBA Proposed Report on S. 2084
OMB has asked for our views on the above-referenced proposed
report by the Small Business Administration (SBA) on
S. 2084. This bill would substantially repeal an SBA
regulation, the "opinion molder rule," which precludes the
SBA from granting assistance to any applicant engaged in
expressing or propogating ideas. 13 C.F.R. $ 120.2 (d) (4).
The rule antedates this Administration, and was designed to
avoid the First Amendment concerns raised by Government
decisions to fund or terminate the funding of those engaged
in the business of expressing ideas. S. 2084 would prohibit
the SBA from denying loan guarantee assistance to organi-
zations on this ground unless the aid would be used to (1)
advance or inhibit religion, (2) threaten the unlawful
overthrow of organized Government, or (3) engage in any
illegal activity or the dissemination of obscene materials.
In the second paragraph on page 1, the SBA report states
that the opinion molder rule is based on the fear that
"censorship could result" from the SBA determining to
support some ideas but not others. This strikes me as
dangerously imprecise use of loaded terminology. The
decision to fund or not to fund the expression of certain
ideas may violate the First Amendment, but it is not
censorship. The offensive ideas may be freely expressed
without government assistance. I suggest deleting the last
three sentences in the paragraph -- they are surplusage in
any event -- and substituting "The SBA promulgated the
opinion molder rule to avoid the potential First Amendment
difficulties attendant upon government financial assistance
to those engaged in the business of expressing ideas,' or
something similar.
The SBA draft report concedes that the opinion molder rule
has been difficult to administer, and welcomes Congressional
guidance. It makes several suggestions for revisions in
S. 2084. Two of these raise concerns from the perspective
of preserving legal flexibility for the SBA. In the fourth
paragraph on page 2, the report objects to the provision
permitting denial of assistance to organizations promoting
the unlawful overthrow of organized government, in part
because "this exception would require SBA to look to the
- 2 -
content of various publications or communications, which is
constitutionally proscribed." I do not think this assertion
of a constitutional proscription is necessarily accurate,
and in any event SBA should not brand as unconstitutional
something it may want to do in the future.
The carryover paragraph between pages 2 and 3 objects to the
provision permitting denial of assistance to organizations
publishing obscene materials, in part on the ground that
this "would place SBA in the untenable role of censor." As
noted above, SBA should not argue that denial of government
assistance is tantamount to censorship.
A memorandum for OMB is attached.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 14, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM A. MAXWELL
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Orig. signed by FFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
SBA Proposed Report on S. 2084
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
report. While we express no view on the policy question of
whether to support repeal of the opinion molder rule, we do
object to several instances in the report in which SBA's
legal analysis is either imprecise or unnecessarily
definitive.
The last three sentences in the second paragraph on page one
suggest that the denial of Federal financial assistance
because of the expression of certain ideas could constitute
"censorship." While such a practice may, under certain
circumstances, violate the First Amendment, it is not
censorship. The offensive ideas may still be expressed,
only without government funding. We suggest deleting the
last three sentences -- their point is more accurately
stated in the first sentence of the paragraph in any event
-- and substituting "The SBA promulgated the opinion molder
rule to avoid the potential First Amendment difficulties
attendant upon government financial assistance to those
engaged in the business of expressing ideas," or something
similar.
In the fourth paragraph on page 2, the report objects to the
provision permitting denial of assistance to organizations
promoting the unlawful overthrow of organized government, in
part because "this exception would require SBA to look to
the content of various publications or communications, which
is constitutionally proscribed." This legal conclusion is
debatable. We recommend changing "is constitutionally
proscribed" to "would raise serious First Amendment con-
cerns."
The first full sentence on page 3 repeats the imprecise use
of the term "censor" discussed above. We recommend changing
"would place SBA in the untenable role of censor and, in
addition to possible constitutional problems" to "would
raise possible constitutional problems, and."
FFF:JGR:aea 2/14/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 14, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR WILLIAM A. MAXWELL
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
SBA Proposed Report on S. 2084
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
report. While we express no view on the policy question of
whether to support repeal of the opinion molder rule, we do
object to several instances in the report in which SBA's
legal analysis is either imprecise or unnecessarily
definitive.
The last three sentences in the second paragraph on page one
suggest that the denial of Federal financial assistance
because of the expression of certain ideas could constitute
"censorship." While such a practice may, under certain
circumstances, violate the First Amendment, it is not
censorship. The offensive ideas may still be expressed,
only without government funding. We suggest deleting the
last three sentences -- their point is more accurately
stated in the first sentence of the paragraph in any event
-- and substituting "The SBA promulgated the opinion molder
rule to avoid the potential First Amendment difficulties
attendant upon government financial assistance to those
engaged in the business of expressing ideas," or something
similar.
In the fourth paragraph on page 2, the report objects to the
provision permitting denial of assistance to organizations
promoting the unlawful overthrow of organized government, in
part because "this exception would require SBA to look to
the content of various publications or communications, which
is constitutionally proscribed." This legal conclusion is
debatable. We recommend changing "is constitutionally
proscribed" to "would raise serious First Amendment con-
cerns."
The first full sentence on page 3 repeats the imprecise use
of the term "censor" discussed above. We recommend changing
"would place SBA in the untenable role of censor and, in
addition to possible constitutional problems" to "would
raise possible constitutional problems, and."
FFF:JGR:aea 2/14/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID #.
202234
CU
JV
WHITE HOUSE
FI005-09
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
O - OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
I. - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: James C. MURR
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: SBA proposed report on S. 2084 / Restricts
SBA's authority to deny financial assistance to small
business concerns because the primary business 8
such concerns relates to the communication of ideas
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Action
Completion
Office/Agency
Date
(Staff Name)
of
Date
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
WHOLL
ORIGINA TOB 84,02,06
/ /
WAT 18
Referral Note:
soo 84,02,06
5 $ 84,02,13
Referral Note:
/ /
-
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
-
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
C Comment/Recommendation
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
R Direct Reply w/Copy
C Completed
D Draft Response
B Non-Special Referral
S For Signature
S Suspended
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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
THE EXECUTTVE STRICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SPECIAL
February 2, 1984
202234 Ca
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Legislative Liaison Officer
Department of Justice
Department of Commerce
SUBJECT: SBA proposed report on S. 2084/Restricts SBA's authority
to deny financial assistance to small business concerns
because the primary business of such concerns relates to
the communication of ideas
The Office of Management and Budget requests the views of your
agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship
to the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular
A-19.
Please provide us with your views no later than
COB TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1984. ORAL COMMENTS ACCEPTABLE.
Direct your questions to William A. Maxwell (395-3890), the
legislative analyst in this office.
James USM C. Murr for
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Enclosures
CC: T. Elzey
J. Cooney
F. Fielding
SMALL
BUSINESS
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
THOM
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20416
1953
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Lowell Weicker
Chairman
Committee on Small Business
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your request for the views of the Small
Business Administration (SBA) on S. 2084, a bill to amend sec-
tion 4(d) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 633(d), to
restrict SBA's authority to deny financial assistance in the
form of loan guarantees to small business concerns solely
because the primary business operations of such concerns relate
to the communication of ideas. This bill would substantially
alter SBA's so-called "opinion molder rule," which, with numerous
exceptions, precludes SBA from granting financial assistance to
an "opinion molder," any applicant which "is engaged in the
creation, origination, expression, dissemination, propagation,
or distribution of ideas, values, thoughts, opinions or similar
intellectual property, regardless of medium, form, or content."
(13 CFR § 120.2(d)(4)).
The purposes of the opinion molder policy are (1) to avoid any
possible accusation that the Government is attempting to control
editorial freedom by subsidizing media or communications for
political or propaganda purposes, and (2) to insure that consti-
tutionally protected rights of freedom of speech and press are
not compromised either by the fear of Government reprisal or by
the expectation of Government financial assistance. As an Agency
of the Federal Government, SBA may not censor ideas published or
communicated by any applicant business. This censorship, however,
could result from the Agency's setting standards to determine
which ideas are deserving of financial assistance and which are
not. To avoid such real or apparent censorship, SBA promulgated
the opinion molder rule precluding it from granting financial
assistance of any type of opinion molder.
Honorable Lowell Weicker
2
Under the bill, SBA would be prohibited from denying loan guar-
antee assistance to any business solely because the primary
operations of such business are the communication of ideas. The
bill would authorize SBA to deny such assistance to an opinion
molder if the aid would be used primarily to (1) advance or
inhibit religion; (2) threaten the overthrow of organized
Government by unlawful means; or (3) engage in any illegal
activity or the dissemination of obscene materials which may be
unlawful in any jurisdiction in which the small business concern
may operate. The bill would allow an applicant a hearing in
which to challenge its denial.
While SBA disagrees with certain portions of S. 2084 as it is
currently drafted, SBA supports a congressional review of the
opinion molder policy. The present rule, though necessary,
has not been easy to administer. SBA has created numerous
regulatory exceptions to the rule in order to reconcile its
restrictions with the Agency's statutory purpose of fostering
the growth and participation of small businesses in an environ-
ment of free competition (15 U.S.C. § 631(a)). Therefore, SBA
welcomes congressional guidance in this area.
Nevertheless, SBA would like to suggest the following changes
in S. 2084, as currently drafted. First, a major policy change
such as is contemplated by this bill should apply to all loan
assistance, not only to guarantee assistance. Therefore, the
Agency would add "direct loans or" in front of the words
"guarantees under this Act," in proposed section 4 (d) (1).
Second, SBA would delete the exception found in proposed sec-
tion 4 (d) (2) (B) which would permit SBA to deny guarantee
assistance to opinion molders where such assistance will be
"used primarily to threaten the overthrow of organized govern-
ment by unlawful means." SBA objects to this exception on two
grounds. First, this exception would require SBA to look to
N.
the content of various publications or communications, which
is constitutionally proscribed. Secondly, the exception is
overly broad in that, for example, it would include publishers
of even theoretical works advocating the overthrow of other
nation's governments. Therefore, SBA would delete exception
4 (d) (2) (B) in its entirety.
Third, in proposed section 4 (d) (2) (C), SBA would delete the
reference to "the dissemination of obscene materials which may
be unlawful in any jurisdiction in which the small business
concern may operate." As presently worded, the bill would
Honorable Lowell Weicker
3
require SBA to determine whether certain communications are
obscene in a given jurisdiction without benefit of such a
determination officially by the local authorities. This
would place SBA in the untenable role of censor and, in addi-
tion to possible constitutional problems, would be far more
difficult to administer than the present opinion molder rule.
In addition, the prohibition against assistance to illegal
businesses contained in the bill is sufficient to thwart
assistance to businesses already adjudged to violate local
obscenity laws.
Fourth, SBA opposes the bill's inclusion of a hearing require-
ment for any applicant who has been denied financial assistance
under the proposed exceptions. Such a requirement would be
time-consuming and burdensome to administer and would, therefore,
vastly increase the cost of administering the business loan
program. Moreover, it would significantly delay an applicant's
ultimate recourse to judicial review. Therefore, SBA would
delete the phrase "after an opportunity for hearing" from
proposed section 4 (d) (2).
Similarly, SBA suggests deleting proposed section 4 (d) (3) which
provides for "review" of the Agency's determination. The right
to judicial review of a denial of financial assistance is
afforded any applicant under current law and does not require
an explicit statutory reiteration.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 2084. We welcome
congressional guidance in what has shown to be an administratively
difficult area.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ROUTE SLIP
John Roberts
Take necessary action
TO
Approval or signature
Comment
Prepare reply
Discuss with me
For your information
See remarks below
FROM
Gug
Greg Jones 2/16/84
DATE
REMARKS
OMB is on the hook to give the Committee
a letter for its hearing next week on
Presidential libraries.
Could you look this over and see if
you think it's OK?
Please call me or Jim Murr (x3856)
.
on Friday if you can and give us the
word.
Thanks a million.
2/17 9:30 no distin 866
OMB FORM 4
Rev Aug 70
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
Honorable Jack Brooks
Chairman
DRAFT
Committee on Government Operations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter presents the views of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on legislation currently pending before your
Committee concerning Presidential libraries. These bills would
generally change the ways in which the libraries of former
Presidents are funded and operated. In particular:
o H.R. 2446 would prohibit the establishment of any new
Federally-supported library for any former President after
January 20, 1985. Instead, the bill envisions the construction
of a single, central Presidential library for the use of all
future former Presidents.
0 H.R. 3138 would prohibit the General Services Administration
(GSA) from accepting a Presidential library on behalf of the
United States unless there are sufficient privately-donated
funds in the National Archives Trust Fund to maintain the
library. (Under current procedure, maintenance costs are
covered out of appropriated funds.)
o H.R. 4017 would prohibit GSA from accepting any future
Presidential libraries on behalf of the United States.
As you are certainly aware, this Administration is strongly
committed to bringing the growth in unnecessary Federal spending
under control, with a view toward elimination of all but
absolutely essential expenditures.
1/ H.R. 2446 also concerns staff and services provided to former
Presidents, as well as Secret Service protection afforded former
Presidents, their families, and former Vice Presidents. In this
connection, the Department of Justice has advised that section
303 of H.R. 2446, which would require the Secretary of the
Treasury to obtain the approval of an advisory committee before
extending Secret Service protection to particular individuals,
would be an unconstitutional abrogation of the doctrine of
separation of powers. The Justice Department has also advised
that section 103 of H.R. 2446 -- concerning the President's
authority to dispose of Presidential records -- must be
interpreted to recognize the principle that the President, and
not the Archivist of the United States, is the ultimate authority
in determing the disposal of Presidential records. I understand
that the Justice Department intends to communicate directly with
the Committee with respect to these matters.
To the extent that the legislation pending before the Committee
has as its goal a reduction in questionable spending, we are
certainly sympathetic to its goals. As a general rule, however,
the Administration is opposed to the imposition of additional
legislative restrictions on the privileges and prerogatives of
former Presidents. In our view, the existing statutory scheme
with respect to former Presidents -- including their libraries --
is adequate and should not be changed in any major respect at
this time. It is for this reason that the Administration opposes
each of the bills that your Committee is considering.
We believe that the major changes affecting the libraries of
former Presidents that this legislation envisions are neither
necessary nor desirable. Libraries of former Presidents are
national resources that are invaluable to scholars, students, and
others engaged in historical research. The papers and other
Presidential materials that they house belong to the United
States and should be maintained and cared for by the Federal
Government. This is, we think, an entirely appropriate Federal
responsibility.
In its reports to the Committee, GSA has outlined many of the
objections that we have to the specific bills under
consideration, and I will not reiterate them here. I would,
however, particularly direct your attention to the administrative
reforms that GSA has undertaken to hold down the costs of
operating and maintaining the libraries of former Presidents.
GSA's guidelines establishing space requirements for Presidential
libraries, for example, as well as the requirement that a new
Presidential library must be fully equipped before GSA will
accept it, have promise for helping to keep Federal costs under
control. In addition, as GSA noted in its testimony before the
Committee, Presidential libraries -- which, it should be
recalled, are constructed with private funds -- are partially
supported through additional private donations. These donations
can reasonably be expected to increase as campaigns now underway
at several libraries begin to bear fruit.
The Administration is certainly willing to work with the
Committee to explore alternatives to the present system under
which libraries of former Presidents are operated. We believe,
however, that the bills pending before the Committee are too
drastic in their approaches and do not recognize the obligation
that the United States Government has for the protection and
preservation of the records of former Presidents.
Sincerely,
David A. Stockman
Director
file
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF management AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SPECIAL
February 16, 1984
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Legislative Liaison Officer
General Services Administration
Department of the Treasury
SUBJECT: Justice views on H.R. 2446, a bill entitled the
"Former Presidents Facilities and Services Reform Act
of 1983. "
The Office of Management and Budget requests the views of your
agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship
to the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular
A-19.
Please provide us with your views no later than
COB WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1984.
Direct your questions to Gregory Jones (395-3856), of this office.
James C. Murr for
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Enclosures
CC: J. Roberts
S. Smith
M. Chaffee
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
Honorable Jack Brooks
Chairman
Committee on Government Operations
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter presents the views of the Department of Justice
on H.R. 2446, a bill entitled the "Former Presidents Facilities
and Services Reform Act of 1983." Our comments are confined to
the constitutional issues raised by H.R. 2446. We understand that
the Department of the Treasury, the General Services Administra-
tion and the Office of Management and Budget will also convey
their views on this legislation.
The Department of Justice opposes enactment of this legisla-
tion.
Title III - Section 303
Section 303 of H.R. 2446 authorizes the Secretary of the Trea-
sury to provide for the extension or reinstatement of protection
to a former President, his spouse or children beyond the period
provided for in section 302(b) of H.R. 2446. Section 303 (a) per-
mits the Secretary of the Treasury to authorize protection for a
period of one year in the case of a former President and six
months in the case of a former President's spouse or minor child
upon a finding that "a serious threat warranting such protection
exists." However, protection can be extended beyond these initial
periods only upon:
the written request of the individual desiring
such protection and upon the approval of the
advisory committee established by the first
section of the joint resolution entitled "A
joint resolution to authorize the United
States Secret Service to furnish protection
to major Presidential or Vice Presidential
candidates" approved June 6, 1968 (82 Stat.
170; 18 U.S.C. 3056 note). (Emphasis added)
The advisory committee referred to in the quoted language of
section 303 (a) (2) consists of the Speaker of the House, the
minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority
leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate and one
additional member selected by other members of the advisory com-
mittee. The evident intent of this provision is that the advisory
committee should play an active and possibly determining role in
providing for extensions of Secret Service protection to former
Presidents and their families.
It is fundamental that officers who perform Executive duties
must be appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause of the Con-
stitution. Art. II, section 2, cl. 2, Buckley V. Valeo, 424 U.S.
1 (1976). Those who are vested with authority that amounts to "the
performance of a significant governmental duty exercised pursuant
to a public law," Buckley V. Valeo, supra at 141, must be appointed
in a manner consistent with that clause. In brief, such individuals
must be appointed by the President by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, or if authorized by Congress, by the Presi-
dent alone, the courts or the heads of departments. Buckley V.
Valeo, supra. at 124-41.
The Secret Service, as part of the Department of the Treasury,
is an Executive Branch agency. It carries out basic law enforce-
ment activities assigned to it by federal law. To the extent that
the advisory committee, which consists of members of the Legisla-
tive Branch, will exercise effective control over decisions about
Secret Service activities and thus will perform significant Execu-
tive functions, section 303 of H.R. 2446 is constitutionally
objectionable. This is the case because the advisory committee
members are not appointed in a manner consistent with the Appoint-
ments Clause.
We would add that 303 (c) (1) establishes an "Advisory Panel
on Secret Service Protection," the nine members of which are ap-
pointed by the Comptroller General. The role of the Advisory
Panel appears to be limited to making recommendations, and not
exercising "significant Executive functions." To the degree that
the Advisory Panel's functions are so limited, the objections
raised to the advisory committee are not pertinent to the panel.
Title I - Section 103
Section 103 of H.R. 2446 would amend present law, 44 U.S.C.
2203 (c), to read as follows:
"(c) During his term of office, the President
shall substantially complete the disposal of
his Presidential records which no longer have
administrative, historical, informational, or
evidentiary value. Prior to disposing of any
such records, the President shall obtain the
- 2 -
written views of the Archivist concerning the
proposed disposal of such Presidential records
and may not dispose of any records with respect
to which the Archivist notifies the President
that he intends to take action under subsection
(e)
Present 44 U.S.C. 2203(c) is similar to section 102 and provides:
(c) During his term of office, the President
may dispose of those of his Presidential re-
cords that no longer have administrative,
historical, informational, or evidentiary
value if -
(1) the President obtains the views, in
writing, of the Archivist concerning the
proposed disposal or such Presidential
records; and
(2) the Archivist states that he does
not intend to take any action under sub-
section (e) of this section.
Section 103, like present law, appears to place in the Archivist
the authority to make decisions concerning disposal of Presidential
records. We believe that both the present and proposed provision
must assume that the Archivist, in performing this function, is
guided by the President and subject to this authority.
The Archivist is an appointee of the Administrator of the
General Services Administration. See 44 U.S.C. 2102. The Admini-
strator is himself a Presidential appointee who occupies a posi-
tion within the Executive Branch and serves at the pleasure of
the President, see 40 U.S.C. 751(b), as do other heads of Execu-
tive departments and agencies. As is true in general regarding
such officials, they are ultimately responsible to the President
and the President may instruct them in the performance of their
duties in a manner consistent with applicable law.
Officials, such as the Archivist, who perform Executive func-
tions must report ultimately to the heads of their respective
departments and agencies, who, in turn, must report to the Presi-
dent. In order to fulfill his constitutional duty to take care
that the laws are faithfully executed, the President must be able
to supervise the execution of the laws within the Executive Branch.
This follows from the principle, embodied in Article II of the
Constitution, that the Executive power is vested in the President.
See Myers V. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 163-64 (1926). In order
to be consistent with the Constitution, section 103 must be inter-
preted to recognize the principle that the President is the ulti-
mate authority in determining the disposal of records.
- 3 -
Title I in General
Finally, as now written, Title I of the bill would authorize
the Administrator of GSA to submit to Congress a prospectus for
the establishment of a central Presidential library, to provide
for the temporary storage of the Presidential records of former
Presidents, and to take certain steps "in administering the cen-
tral Presidential library." The bill does not, however, expli-
citly give the Administrator the authority to establish a central
Presidential library, and only implicitly authorizes administra-
tion of such library. Although we believe the intent of the bill
is to give the Administrator such authority, we cannot read its
terms as now written to provide such authority. We therefore
must object to the bill unless revised to state explicitly the
Administrator's authority to establish and administer a central
Presidential library.
SUMMARY
For the above reasons, the Department of Justice strongly op-
poses enactment of H.R. 2446.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised this Depart-
ment that there is no objection to this report from the standpoint
of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
ROBERT A. McCONNELL
Assistant Attorney General
- 4 -
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
H.R. 2898 -- Utah Paiute Trust Lands
and Economic Development Act
Richard Darman has asked for comments by close of business
today on the above-referenced enrolled bill. This bill
would transfer 4, 770 acres of Federal land to the Utah
Paiute Tribe, and establish a $2.5 million fund for the
economic development of the Tribe. Public Law 96-227,
enacted in April of 1980, authorized the transfer of 15,000
acres to the Tribe. Problems have arisen with that contem-
plated transfer, and this bill authorizes an alternative
acceptable to all interested parties. The bill specifies
that the 4,770 acres and $2.5 million "shall be in complete
fulfillment of the provisions of Public Law 96-227."
Of the miscellaneous provisions in the bill the only one
raising legal issues is section 3 (a), designed to preserve
rights of the Paiute to use the land in question for reli-
gious purposes. The provision precludes the Secretary of
Agriculture from denying the Paiutes the right to use the
land on a nonexclusive basis for religious ceremonies, and
on an exclusive basis for such purposes during four speci-
fied weeks. Under the Supreme Court's misguided and
confused Establishment Clause jurisprudence, I can see
someone articulating a credible challenge to this provision.
For four weeks each year Federal law would deny to others
possible use of the national forest land, for the explicit
purpose of permitting religious rites to take place. I do
not think such a challenge should succeed, in light of the
special status of Indian trust lands, and in any event
section 3 (a) is probably severable from the remainder of the
Act.
The bill passed both Houses by voice vote. OMB, Interior,
and Agriculture recommend approval, Treasury has no objec-
tion, and Justice defers to Interior. I have reviewed the
memorandum for the President prepared by OMB Assistant
Director for Legislative Reference James Frey, and the bill
itself, and have no objection to the President approving the
bill.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
H.R. 2898 -- Utah Paiute Trust Lands
and Economic Development Act
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
:
FFF:JGR:aea 2/16/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
H.R. 2898 -- Utah Paiute Trust Lands
and Economic Development Act
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 2/16/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o - OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Richard Darman
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: HR. 2898 - UTAH PAIUTE TRUST
Lands and Economic Development Act
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 84,02,15
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT18
D 84,02,15
$ 84,02,16
Referral Note:
C.O.B.
/ /
11
-
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
Document No. 187150SS
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 2/15/84
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: c.o.b. TOMORROW, 2/16
SUBJECT: H.R. 2898 - UTAH PAIUTE TRUST LANDS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
McFARLANE
MEESE
McMANUS
BAKER
MURPHY
DEAVER
OGLESBY
STOCKMAN
ROGERS
DARMAN
P
SS
SPEAKES
FELDSTEIN
SVAHN
FIELDING
VERSTANDIG
FULLER
WHITTLESEY
HERRINGTON
HICKEY
JENKINS
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/recommendations by c.o.b. tomorrow,
February 16th.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Richard G. Darman
1984 FEB 15 PM 1: 48
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
cann.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SENIE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
FEB 15 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 2898 - Utah Paiute Trust Lands and
Economic Development Fund
Sponsor - Rep. Marriott (R) Utah
Last Day for Action
February 21, 1984 - Tuesday
Purpose
(1) Provides that approximately 4,770 acres of public land in the
State of Utah be held in trust for the Utah Paiute Tribe and
(2) establishes a $2.5 million trust fund for the Tribe.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
Department of the Interior
Approval
Department of Agriculture
Approval (Informally)
Department of the Treasury
No objectioni
i)
Department of Justice
Defers to Interior
Discussion
In April of 1980 the Utah Paiute Tribe was restored to
federally-recognized status by the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah
Restoration Act, P.L. 96-227. The Act also authorized the
transfer of up to 15,000 acres of land to the Utah Paiute Tribe
to be held in trust by the United States. Following extensive
tribal consultation with Federal, State and local officials, it
was apparent that obtaining the 15,000 acres called for in
P.L. 96-227 would be problematical.
H.R. 2898 represents a compromise, supported by the Executive
branch, Congress, the Paiutes, the State of Utah, and interested
local citizens, that would (1) transfer 4,770 acres of Bureau of
Land Management land to the Tribe, (2) ensure that the Paiutes
have access to their religious sites in the National Forest at
Fish Lake on a non-exclusive basis year-round, and on an exclu-
sive basis for two, two week periods a year, and (3) establish a
$2.5 million Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Economic Development and
Tribal Government Fund for economic development and tribal
government purposes. H.R. 2898 prohibits any distribution of
(1) trust fund principal to the Tribe or its members and
(2) accrued interest for per capita payments. In addition not
2
more than five percent of such funds may be used by the Tribe for
the payment of legal counsel. The trust fund was included in
H.R. 2898 in lieu of the additional lands that were authorized by
P.L. 96-227, but unavailable for transfer to the Tribe.
The enrolled bill clearly stipulates that the land transfer,
coupled with the establishment of the trust fund, fully meets the
requirements of P.L. 96-227 regarding enlargement of the Paiutes'
reservation. Consistent with most Indian reservation enlarge-
ment legislation, H.R. 2898 stipulates a number of technical
terms and conditions regarding how the Secretary of the Interior
will administer the Act.
Finally, the enrolled bill would approve two plans for judgment
distributions awarded by the U.S. Court of Claims to the Creek
Nation and the Sisseston-Wahpeton Sioux. However, as Interior
notes in its enrolled bill views letter, this authority is no
longer needed because these plans were approved administratively,
under the Judgment Fund Distribution Act, in January.
As enrolled, H.R. 2898 incorporates the Administration's
recommended amendments. H.R. 2898 passed both Houses of the
Congress by voice vote.
(Signed) James M. Frey
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Enclosures