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
118568304
label
JGR/Enrolled Bills - (12/25/1985-01/31/1986)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568304
contentType
document
title
JGR/Enrolled Bills - (12/25/1985-01/31/1986)
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
118568304
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
b1e187c644c4840d
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 -
(12/25/1985-01/31/1986)
Box: 22
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 26, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS JoR
SUBJECT:
S. 1918 -- Report Transmittal
for Project Economic Justice
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o - OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Dave Chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
S.1918 - Report Transmittal Date for
Project Economic Justice
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 85/12/26
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT18
R 85112126
5851126 S 85,12 126
Referral Note:
5PM 5
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I Into 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.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 12/26/85
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 5:00 P.M. TODAY
SUBJECT: S. 1918 -- REPORT TRANSMITTAL DATE FOR PROJECT ECONOMIC JUSTICE
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
McFARLANE
REGAN
OGLESBY
MILLER
RYAN
BUCHANAN
SPEAKES
CHAVEZ
SPRINKEL
CHEW
P
55 SVAHN
DANIELS
THOMAS
FIELDING
TUTTLE
HENKEL
HICKS
KINGON
LACY
REMARKS: Please provide any comments/recommendations by 5:00 p.m.
today. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
OFFICE THE PRESIDENT SEALS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
DEC 24 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill S. 1918 - Report Transmittal Date for
Project Economic Justice
Sponsor - Senator Lugar (R) Indiana
Last Day for Action
January 1, 1986 - Wednesday
Purpose
Changes from December 31, 1985, to October 1, 1986, the date
that the Presidential Task Force on Project Economic Justice
shall prepare and transmit a report to the President and the
Congress.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
National Security Council
Approval
Department of State
No objection
(Informally)
Department of Labor
No objection
(Informally)
Agency for International
Development
No objection
(Informally)
Discussion
Section 713 of the International Security and Development
Cooperation Act of 1985 (1) established a Presidential Task Force on
Project Economic Justice and (2) directed the Task Force to prepare
and transmit a report to the President and the Congress by December
31, 1985, on the expanded use of employee stock ownership plans in
United States development efforts in Central America and the
Caribbean. The December 31st deadline was too short to allow the
Task Force to complete the mandated report because only about half
of its members have been appointed.
S. 1918 extends the deadline for submission of the report from
December 31, 1985, to October 1, 1986. The enrolled bill passed
both Houses of Congress by voice vote.
Jemp James C. Miller III
Director
Enclosures
-2-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 26, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL M THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
H.R. 3608 -- Small Business
Investment Act Amendment
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H * INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Dave Chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
H.R. 3608- Small Business Investment
Act amendment
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency (Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUITOLL
ORIGINATOR 85,12,26
/ /
Referral Note:
CUATI8
B
85,12,26
585,12,26
Referral Note:
4pm
/ /
/ /
-
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.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 12/26/85
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 4:00 P.M. TODAY
SUBJECT: H.R. 3608 -- SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT AMENDMENT
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
McFARLANE
REGAN
OGLESBY
MILLER
RYAN
BUCHANAN
SPEAKES
CHAVEZ
SPRINKEL
CHEW
P
SS SVAHN
DANIELS
THOMAS
FIELDING
TUTTLE
HENKEL
HICKS
KINGON
LACY
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/recommendations by 4:00 p.m.
today. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
OFFICE STE PRESIDENT STATES UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
DEC 24 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 3608 - Small Business Investment
Act Amendment
Sponsor - Rep. Mitchell (D) Maryland
Last Day for Action
December 31, 1985 - Tuesday
Purpose
To clarify the authority of the Small Business
Administration to determine the maximum allowable interest rates
that may be charged on certain loans to small businesses.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
Small Business Administration
Approval
Department of the Treasury
No objection
cally)
Discussion
-- Background
The Small Business Administration (SBA) currently licenses
and regulates privately operated Small Business Investment
Companies (SBIC's) and Minority Enterprise Small Business
Investment Companies (MESBIC's). These companies provide equity
capital and long-term loans to small businesses, with MESBIC's
specializing in loans to small business concerns owned by
socially and economically disadvantaged persons. To help finance
the companies, SBA guarantees loans made to the companies by the
Federal Financing Bank at the Treasury rate plus 1/8 percent.
The companies, in turn, make loans to small businesses at a
maximum of 6-7 percent over Treasury rates.
The actual interest rate which the companies charge for
small business loans is currently determined by the lower of
three options set forth in the Small Business Investment Act:
(1) the maximum rate prescribed by SBA regulation; (2) the
maximum rate authorized by an applicable State law or
constitutional provision; or (3) the higher of the Federal
Reserve Rate or the maximum rate authorized by State law or
constitutional provision. Options 2 and 3 are applicable,
however, only if States have taken actions to reaffirm State laws
that set a different interest rate for the companies.
-- Provisions of H.R. 3608
H.R. 3608 will codify the prevalent practice used to
establish the maximum interest rates that the companies may
charge small business borrowers. Thus, H.R. 3608 amends the
Small Business Investment Act to delete options two and three
discussed previously, and instead, specifies that the maximum
rate will be that prescribed through regulations promulgated by
SBA (i.e., option one). This will provide SBA with the
flexibility of prescribing market interest rates for the program.
As SBA advises in its enrolled bill views letter, there is
nothing in H.R. 3608, however, which would impede the ability of
any State to override SBA's interest rate ceiling, if it so
desires. Finally, the bill specifies that this change is
retroactive to April 1, 1980, the date on which the interest rate
limitations became effective.
Although the 1987 Budget will propose terminating the SBIC
program, we see no reason to oppose this legislation as it would,
if signed, improve administration of the program for the
remainder of its existence.
H.R. 3608 passed both Houses by voice vote.
C.
MA
James C. Miller III
Director
Enclosures
-2-
H.R. 3608
Ninety-ninth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and eighty-five
An Art
WHITE
To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Section 308 of the Small Business Investment Act of
1958 is amended as follows:
(a) by striking all of paragraph (2) of subsection (i) after the
word "exceed" and by inserting in lieu thereof "the maximum
rate prescribed by regulation by the Administration for loans
made by any licensee (determined without regard to any State
rate incorporated by such regulation)."; and
(b) by striking from paragraph (3) of subsection (i) "paragraph
(2)(B)" and by inserting in lieu thereof "paragraph (2)".
SEC. 2. This Act shall apply to maximum interest rates prescribed
by the Administration on or after April 1, 1980.
my Pro of the Hugher Tempore House of Representatives.
Strom Thurmond
Vice President of the United States and
President the Senate. whemood
of
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 26, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL JJ THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
S. 1621 -- Indian Education Amendments
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 - OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
1. - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Dave crew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
S. 1621 Indian Education
Amendments
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency (Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUITOLL
ORIGINATOR 85 /12/26
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT18
R 85 112,26
≤ 85,12,26
Referral Note:
3PM
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
I
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 it Date of Outgoing
Comments:
303129CU
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.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 12/26/85
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 3:00 P.M. TODAY
SUBJECT: S. 1621 -- INDIAN EDUCATION AMENDMENTS
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
McFARLANE
REGAN
OGLESBY
MILLER
RYAN
BUCHANAN
SPEAKES
CHAVEZ
SPRINKEL
CHEW
P
SS SVAHN
DANIELS
THOMAS
FIELDING
TUTTLE
HENKEL
HICKS
KINGON
LACY
REMARKS: Please provide any comments/recommendations by 3:00 p.m.
today. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
HEALTH AM F OFFECE UNITED STATES
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
DEC 24 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 1621 - Indian Education Amendments
Sponsors -- Sen. Melcher (D) Montana and four others
Last Day for Action
December 30, 1985 - Monday
Purpose
Liberalizes the statutory definition of children eligible to
attend Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
Department of the Interior
No objection
Department of Justice
No objection (Informally)
Department of Education
Defers to Interior
(Informally)
Discussion
S. 1621, which passed both Houses by voice vote, eliminates
the statutory requirement that Indian children be at least
one-quarter Indian blood to be eligible for funding at Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) schools. It also repeals existing statutory
provisions which authorize tuition to be charged for non-Indian
children of BIA, Indian Health Service (IHS), and tribal
government employees who attend BIA schools.
Background
Eligibility for BIA education programs (including elementary
and secondary education, the Johnson-0'Malley supplementary
education assistance program, and college and graduate
scholarship programs) is currently governed by a 1918 law (25
United States Code 297) which prohibits the use of funds to
educate Indian children with less than one-quarter Indian blood
whose parents are U.S. citizens, and where there are adequate
free school facilities provided. Eligibility for all other BIA
programs is based on membership in a federally-recognized Indian
tribe.
Until recently, the Department of the Interior had not
strictly enforced the 1918 law with respect to elementary and
secondary school attendance, because BIA regulations did not
define "adequate" free school facilities. Also, before enactment
of the Indian Education Amendments of 1978, which require funding
for BIA and contract schools under an Indian. School Equalization
Program (ISEP) formula based on the number of students enrolled,
each school had been funded at the dollar level deemed necessary
for the school's operations, and the quarter-blood requirement
had not been significant from a funding standpoint.
BIA regulations also left implementation of tuition
collection to the case-by-case discretion of local education
authorities; the result was that about 300 non-Indian students
were attending BIA schools without paying tuition in the 1984-85
school year.
In May 1985, the BIA proposed regulations to (1) define
"adequate free school facilities," thereby limiting the
circumstances under which students attending BIA schools would be
considered eligible for funding, and (2) require all non-Indian
students in BIA schools to pay tuition. BIA also tightened
enforcement of the 1918 law by refusing to fund in the 1985-86
school year approximately 900 ineligible students who had been
attending BIA schools, including about 200 Indian students with
less than one-quarter Indian blood who had been counted for
funding purposes in the 1984-85 school year.
S. 1621 and its House companion bill H.R. 3273 were
introduced in response to these measures. Senator Melcher's
co-sponsors represent North and South Dakota and North Carolina.
(The greatest single effect of the BIA regulations reportedly
would be on the Cherokee School in North Carolina, which has 140
tribal member children with less than one-quarter Indian blood.
Senator Helms' office has shown particular interest in the
enrolled bill.)
Major Provisions of S. 1621
The enrolled bill would:
-- make eligible for ISEP formula funding any student who is
a member of, or at least one-quarter degree Indian blood
descendant of a member of, an Indian tribe eligible for
BIA programs and services, who resides on or near an
Indian reservation, or meets the criteria for attending a
BIA off-reservation boarding school;
-- permit non-Indian children of BIA, IHS, or tribal
government employees who live on or near the school site
to attend BIA schools tuition-free;
-- permit other non-Indian children to attend BIA schools if
they pay tuition not more than that charged by the
nearest public school district for out-of-district
students;
-2-
-- permit BIA contract schools to allow non-Indian children
to attend and to charge them tuition;
-- allow the schools to retain tuition collected, rather
than having it deposited in the Treasury, as under
current law; and
-- "grandfather" in, for the current academic year, those
children who attended BIA schools and were funded last
year, if they meet the eligibility criteria of the
enrolled bill.
Views and Recommendations
According to the report of the Senate Select Committee on
Indian Affairs, S. 1621 is intended to bring consistency to the
eligibility criteria used for BIA programs. The report states
that eligibility for all BIA programs other than education is
based on membership in a federally recognized tribe, and the
Committee believes tribal membership should be the determining
criterion for education programs as well.
The Committee report states that testimony presented at its
hearing on S. 1621 attested to the Indian community's "unanimous"
opposition to the one-quarter blood restriction, based on three
major objections: it discriminates on the basis of race; it is
inconsistent with eligibility criteria used for all other BIA
programs; and it interferes with the right of Indian tribes to
set their own membership criteria.
Finally, the Committee contends that if the BIA regulations
moved many children into the public schools, these children would
be eligible for other Federal assistance, such as Impact Aid, and
the cost to the Federal Government could be significantly higher
than it is now.
Interior, in testimony before the Senate Committee on
S. 1621, strongly opposed the bill on the grounds that it could
greatly expand the service populations of BIA schools, resulting
in a reduction in the available funds per student and, for some
schools, a dramatic impact on current funding levels. Interior
also expressed concern about the potential adverse impact of
additional students on facilities and staffing of the BIA
schools, and the possibility that the schools would have to
violate new student/staff ratios included in recently-issued
academic standards. Furthermore, the Department objected on the
ground that the bill is contrary to recent attempts to encourage
tribes to tighten tribal membership requirements and use the
quarter-blood requirement as a basis for membership. Interior
pointed out that the quarter-blood requirement had been
determined by a Federal District Court in a recent case to be
appropriate for the BIA scholarship program, and not arbitrary,
capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
-3-
In its views letter, Interior indicates that on further
investigation following its testimony before the Committee, it
has been unable to document its concern that S. 1621 would
considerably expand the BIA's education service population, and
it therefore does not believe that the fiscal impact of the bill
will be as severe as it had earlier feared. Interior also notes
that the bill was amended to tighten the provision regarding
tuition-free attendance so that it applies only to dependents of
certain employees, and believes this provision will be beneficial
for attracting and retaining staff. The Department concludes
that it has no objection to-your approval of S. 1621 when
Congress has "clearly mandated" that tribal membership serve as
the basis for eligibility for Indian programs.
Conclusion
We believe that, although S. 1621 is not sufficiently
objectionable to warrant a veto recommendation, the bill has more
serious implications than Interior cites. This bill will:
-- at a time of critical need to reduce Federal
expenditures, expand eligibility for a full range of
Indian programs that already serve 72,000 students at an
annual cost of $240 million.
-- by expanding eligibility, generate increased pressure for
more special Indian schools, a larger BIA bureaucracy,
and increased Federal funding.
-- by allowing BIA schools to retain tuition collections,
make it advantageous in some circumstances for BIA
schools to recruit non-Indian students from public school
districts, thereby reducing prospects for closing or
consolidating underutilized BIA schools.
-- by eliminating the quarter-blood requirement, add impetus
to the Tribes' natural incentive to continue in
membership, or recruit into membership, individuals with
multiple generations of non-Indian ancestors, in order to
expand their membership rolls and increase their formula
funding shares.
Decisions on BIA education funding are made through the
budget and appropriations processes. Accordingly, we will
monitor closely any future developments along these lines.
Jemes James C. Miller III
Director
Enclosures
-4-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 26, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL 876 THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
H.R. 2962 -- Office Space for
Former Speakers of the House
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled
bill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
D - OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
1 - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Dave Chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
H.R 2962 - Office Space for Former
Speakers of the House
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 85112124
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT18
R 85,12,24
585,121 26
12N
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
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. 330529
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 12/24/85
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: NOON on 12/26/85
SUBJECT: H.R. 2962 -- OFFICE SPACE FOR FORMER SPEAKERS OF THE HOUSE
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
McFARLANE
REGAN
OGLESBY
MILLER
RYAN
BUCHANAN
SPEAKES
CHAVEZ
SPRINKEL
CHEW
P
$5 SVAHN
DANIELS
THOMAS
FIELDING
TUTTLE
HENKEL
HICKS
KINGON
LACY
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/recommendations by NOON on
Thursday, December 26th. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
STATE STATE OFFICE OF
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Received
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
1595
DEC 24
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
DEC 24 1985
SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 2962 - Office Space for Former
Speakers of the United States House of Representatives
Sponsor - Rep. Gray (D) Illinois
Last Day for Action
December 31, 1985 - Tuesday
Purpose
To eliminate the restriction governing the location of
office space available for use by former Speakers of the House of
Representatives.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
General Services Administration
No objection Imformally)
Discussion
Under current law, each former Speaker of the House of
Representatives is entitled to use Federal office space located
in his congressional district. H.R. 2962 amends this law to
permit a former Speaker to select an office located anywhere in
the United States. (According to the House colloquy, the purpose
of this amendment is to allow Speaker O'Neill, who has announced
his intention to retire at the end of this Congress, to maintain
the use of his district office which, because of redistricting,
is now situated two blocks outside the boundary of his
congressional district.) The bill clarifies that the office
space is to be used to facilitate the administration and
conclusion of matters arising out of congressional service.
Finally, H.R. 2962 contains language, similar to current law,
which requires the Federal Government to furnish and maintain the
offices in a condition appropriate for their use.
H.R. 2962 passed both Houses by voice vote.
James Chiller III
Director
Enclosures
H. R. 2962
Rinety-ninth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday. the third day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and eighty-five
THE WHITE HOUSE
An Art
To remove certain restrictions on the availability of office space for former Speakers
of the House.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first
section of House Resolution 1238, Ninety-first Congress, agreed to
December 22, 1970 (as enacted into permanent law by chapter VIII
of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1971 and supplemented by
the Act entitled "An Act relating to former Speakers of the House of
Representatives" (88 Stat. 1723)) (2 U.S.C. 31b-1(a)), is amended by
striking out "the Federal office space" and all that follows through
the end of such section and inserting in lieu thereof "one office
selected by him in order to facilitate the administration, settlement,
and conclusion of matters pertaining to or arising out of his incum-
bency in office as a Representative in Congress and as Speaker of
the House of Representatives. Such office shall be located in the
United States and shall be furnished and maintained by the Govern-
ment in a condition appropriate for his use.".
Duy of the Tempore House Wright of Representatives.
Strom Thurmond
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate. ProJempore
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 22, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Department of Commerce Proposed Report
on S. 1849, a Bill to Protect Consumers
and Franchised Automobile Dealers from
Unfair Price Discrimination in the Sale
by the Manufacturer of New Motor Vehicles,
and for Other Purposes
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
report, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
ID #.
379296 CU
JV
WHITE HOUSE
BEOO315
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
. OUTGOING
JR.
H - INTERNAL
I * INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
James C. mun
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Dept at Commerce proposed report
on 51849 a but to protect consumers
d franchised automobile dealers from unfair
munufacturer of new ACTION motor vehicles, DISPOSITION and
price discrimination in the sale by the
ROUTE TO:
far other purposes,
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 86,01,11$
/
/
Referral Note:
creat 18
R 86,01,20.00s
S 586,01,31
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
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
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
B THAT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
January 16, 1986
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
379296 cu
Department of Justice
Department of Defense
Federal Trade Commission
Department of Transportation
General Services Administration
SUBJECT: Department of Commerce proposed report on S. 1849, a bill
to protect consumers and franchised automobile dealers
from unfair price discrimination in the sale by the
manufacturer of new motor vehicles, and for other purposes.
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 January 30, 1986.
(NOTE -- Agency testimony and reports on similar bills were cleared
last Congress. See for example S. 2770, H.R. 1415 and
H.R. 5305 -- 98th Congress.)
Direct your questions to Branden Blum (395-3454), the legislative
attorney in this office.
James C. Murr for
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Enclosure
CC: Karen Wilson Penny Jacobs Bob Howard
Fred Fielding
John Cooney
Nick Stoer
Lehmann Li
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
of STATES AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20230
Honorable Strom Thurmond
Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your request for the views of the
Department of Commerce concerning S. 1849, a bill--
"To protect consumers and franchised automobile dealers from
unfair price discrimination in the sale by the manufacturer
of new motor vehicles, and for other purposes."
S. 1849 would prohibit automobile and truck manufacturers, importers,
or sellers from selling or leasing any new vehicle, or offering
to sell or lease any new vehicle, to any person (including an
automobile dealer) at a price that is higher than the lowest
price for which any other new vehicle of the same model is sold
or offered during a particular sales period. In addition, the
bill requires a manufacturer, importer or seller to give a 14 day
advance notice to all customers of any sales incentive. The bill
would provide exceptions for sales to vehicle manufacturers,
employees of the manufacturer, agencies of the United States or
any state or local government, the American Red Cross, and sales
under regional sales incentive programs. The prohibitions in the
bill would be enforceable by private action.
The Department of Commerce opposes enactment of S. 1849. The
legislation would effectively prohibit marketing practices that
vehicle manufacturers and their fleet customers have found highly
efficient and mutually beneficial. By requiring that the the
"lowest price" be the only selling price for a vehicle, S. 1849
would, despite its avowed intention to protect consumers and
dealers against "unfair price competition," be anti-competitive.
S. 1849 would eliminate or reduce competition in the fleet sales
market by prohibiting large volume fleet purchase discounts.
Large volume fleet purchasers should be allowed to negotiate with
manufacturers for lower prices. Fleet sales are an important
factor in automobile and truck manufacturing. Companies can
offer discounts on direct volume sales because such sales help
-2-
reduce the per vehicle cost of manufacturing and thereby increase
overall profits without raising prices to dealers. Fleet sales
are often made in advance of initial vehicle production and
thereby encourage the marketing of new products.
We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that
there is no objection to the submission of this letter to the
Congress from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Riggs
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 0202
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
H.R. 2946 -- D.C. Jury System Act
As my office advised you orally yesterday, we will defer to
Justice's decision to change its position on the
above-referenced bill.
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o - OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Branden Blum
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: H.R. 2946 - D.C. Jury System 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 86,01,22
/ /
I
crat 14
Referral Note:
R 86,01,22
5 86,01,23
Referral Note:
3pm 3
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
I
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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ROUTE SLIP
Take necessary action
TO VFred Fielding
Approval or signature
John Cooney
Comment
Karen Wilson
Prepare reply
Discuss with me
Dianne Bongiorno
For your information
See remarks below
FROM
Branden Blum
DATE
1/22/86
REMARKS
H.R. 2946 - District of Columbia Jury
System Act
Last week (1/16/86) I curculated an amended version
of a Justice report to Judge Pryor (D.C. Court of
Appeals) which supported various improvements to
the jury selection process contained in H.R. 2946,
but opposed the bill because it also proposed the
creation of a separate jury selection system for
the District of Columbia. Justice, which is the
lead agency, has decided to reverse this position
and support the bill. (FYI, I have included a copy
of Judge Pryor's letter to Justice which is the
basis of the Department's change in position.)
DOJ has requested "expedited" clearance. Consequently,
please review the Department's revised report
supporting H.R. 2946 and provide me with any comments
by 3:00 p.m. Thursday, January 23, 1986.
OMB FORM 4
Rev Aug 70
DOJ - Revised
Honorable William C. Pryor
Chief Judge
D.C. Court of Appeals
District of Columbia Courts
Joint Committee on Judicial Administration
Washington, D.C. 20001
Dear Chief Judge Pryor:
This is in response to your letter of January 3, 1986, also
signed by Chief Judge H. Carl Moultrie I and Larry P. Polansky
encouraging this Department to support H.R. 2946, a bill that
would establish an independent jury selection system for the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
We appreciate your insight and expertise which enhanced our
consideration of the issues involved. Having carefully reviewed
your analysis of the Department's original position statement, we
have reconsidered our perspective on this bill. Your persuasive
comments have alleviated our main concerns.
This Department fully endorses the substance of H.R. 2946,
which presents an excellent opportunity for local experimentation
with judicial reform. Immediate ratification of these necessary
changes to the jury selection process can serve as a model or
first step to a broader application of this proposal encompassing
-2-
the federal system as we previously suggested.
We will transmit our views to the Congress and encourage
their expeditious review of this legislation.
We appreciate your cooperative approach in promoting positive
solutions to these problems in the judicial process and look for-
ward to working with you toward resolution of this issue.
Sincerely,
D. Lowell Jensen
Deputy Attorney General
THE
District of Columbia Courts
Joint Committee on Judirial Administration
Washington, B.C. 20001
January 3; 1986
Honorable D. Lowell Jensen
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, BC 20530
Dear Mr. Jensen:
As you may be aware; the Senate Committee on Governmental Efficiency
and the District of Columbia will be holding hearings in late January on the
District of Columbia Jury System Act (H.R. 2946) which was passed by the House
in October. This bill has the support of the U.S. District Court as well as
the District of Columbia Courts and is the whicle without which this juris-
diction will not be able to use the increasingly popular One Trial/one day
jury system. We will be testifying; along with a number of others; in support
of the passage of this bill by the Senate in early 1986.
The Congressional record of October 28; 1985; however; carries a copy
of Mr. Phillip D. Brady's letter indicating Justice Department concerns and
opposition to the bill. We believe that we can address those concerns and;
hopefully, gain your support for this bill.
First; let us say that we agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Brady's
statement that H.R. 2946 would improve the current jury selection system by
broadening the base of persons who can be surmoned for jury duty, by narrowing
the number of automatic exclusions from jury service, and by increasing the
penalties for certain fraudulent conduct in the jury selection process.
Considering the volume of caseload in the Superior Court; this aspect alone
would justify the suggested changes in the law since the base of jurors in the
District is rather small.
In order to illustrate the important aspects of the bill, which would
increase flexibility and efficiency, it is necessary to explain the existing
jury selection process for the District of Columbia. Currently jurors are
selected in a two-step process from a master jury list, The single master
jury list for both the D.C. Superior Court and the U.S. District Court is
developed in the D.C. Superior Court's Data Processing Division from a
combination of the D.C. voter registration list and the D.C. motor vehicle
driver's license list. From this master list our Data Processing Division
Honorable D. Lowell Jensen
January 3; 1986
Page'II
randomly selects potential jurces and sends out qualification questionnaires
for both Courts. Once these questionnaires are returned, the U.S. District
Court jury staff screen the questionnaires and make recomendations to the
U.S. District Court Jury Commission which then qualifies prospective jurors
for both courts.
These qualified jurors are then re-entered into the D.C. Superior
Court's computer and become the qualified list from which juror summons are
generated for the number of jurors needed for both Courts. The existing
system is inherently cumbersome and duplicitious. First of all; there is a
two-step questionnaire/selection process which results in additional costs for
forms and postage and in the time between qualifying jurors and the summonsing
process being far too long. This then leads to a low yield of actual jurors
because the qualified list is stale and laden with persons who have moved out
of the District. In addition; the Jury Commission adds a layer of bureaucracy
which alows the selection process and permits little flexibility in adjusting
juror needs to the ever increasing volume of jury trials in the Superior
Court.
The proposed Jury bill (H.R. 2946) would actually be more efficient at
the Superior Court level since the proposed system would eliminate much of the
duplication which currently exists. It is envisioned and promised that; under
the proposed system; the Superior Court's data processing system will continue
to develop the master juror wheel and provide automated support for the
qualification and summonsing process for both courts. The only operational
area that would be shifted to the Superior Court Clerk's staff would be the
screening for Superior Court "qualified" jurors. The Jury Commission review
of prospective jurors for the Superior Court would be eliminated and replaced
by a cne-step review by Superior Court Clerk staff. In addition, the proposed
bill would permit the Superior Court to implement a one-step selection process
whereby prospective jurors would be screened and surmoned at the same time,
thereby cutting in half the administrative costs of data processing, forms and
postage and increasing the yield of jurors from the process by reducing the
time between the process of qualification and the issuance of a summons. This
would have no effect on the U.S. District Court except that it would reduce,
by approximately 858; the number of prospective jurors that the U.S. Jury
Commission would have to review for qualification and since that Commission is
paid on a per diem basis, this should reduce Jury Commission costs
substantially.
There is also a shift in the staff cost of the process for the
qualifying review of jurors since each court will then do the initial
review of its am prospective jurors. Staff needs should decrease substan-
tially for the U.S. District Court and some additional staff would be needed
in the Superior Court. Costs for Superior Court forms and postage, now
totally funded by the U.S. District Court; would also shift to the Superior
Court. These costs for administration; supplies and postage will not increase
but will merely shift from one court to the other and in some cases a reduc-
tion in cost will be possible.
Honorable D. Lowell Jensen
January 3: 1986
Page III
In short; we firmly believe the proposed bill will result in greater
flexibility for the Courts of the District of Columbia with added efficiency
(without added cost) as well as improved citizen participation and satisfac-
tion. We encourage the support of the Department of Justice for this bill
and would welcome the opportunity to discuss any or all of these issues with
you.
Sincerely,
William
we c. Payon Pryor
Chief Judge
D.C. Court of Appeals
H. Carl Moultrie I
Chief Judge
Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
Lary Planchy
Larry P. Polansky
Executive Officer
D.C. Courts
8
Mr. Phillip D. Brady