Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118568304",
    "label": "JGR/Enrolled Bills - (12/25/1985-01/31/1986)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568304"
}

{
    "id": "118568304",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568304",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "JGR/Enrolled Bills - (12/25/1985-01/31/1986)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568304",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-022-012-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-022-012-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-022-012-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568304",
    "naId": 118568304,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-022-012-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "b1e187c644c4840d",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: JGR/Enrolled Bills -\n(12/25/1985-01/31/1986)\nBox: 22\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 26, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nFROM:\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL THE PRESIDENT\nJOHN G. ROBERTS JoR\nSUBJECT:\nS. 1918 -- Report Transmittal\nfor Project Economic Justice\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled\nbill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.\nID #\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no - OUTGOING\nH - INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nDave Chew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nS.1918 - Report Transmittal Date for\nProject Economic Justice\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR 85/12/26\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nCUAT18\nR 85112126\n5851126 S 85,12 126\nReferral Note:\n5PM 5\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI Into Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE: 12/26/85\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 5:00 P.M. TODAY\nSUBJECT: S. 1918 -- REPORT TRANSMITTAL DATE FOR PROJECT ECONOMIC JUSTICE\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nMcFARLANE\nREGAN\nOGLESBY\nMILLER\nRYAN\nBUCHANAN\nSPEAKES\nCHAVEZ\nSPRINKEL\nCHEW\nP\n55 SVAHN\nDANIELS\nTHOMAS\nFIELDING\nTUTTLE\nHENKEL\nHICKS\nKINGON\nLACY\nREMARKS: Please provide any comments/recommendations by 5:00 p.m.\ntoday. Thank you.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\nExt. 2702\nOFFICE THE PRESIDENT SEALS UNITED\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nDEC 24 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Enrolled Bill S. 1918 - Report Transmittal Date for\nProject Economic Justice\nSponsor - Senator Lugar (R) Indiana\nLast Day for Action\nJanuary 1, 1986 - Wednesday\nPurpose\nChanges from December 31, 1985, to October 1, 1986, the date\nthat the Presidential Task Force on Project Economic Justice\nshall prepare and transmit a report to the President and the\nCongress.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nApproval\nNational Security Council\nApproval\nDepartment of State\nNo objection\n(Informally)\nDepartment of Labor\nNo objection\n(Informally)\nAgency for International\nDevelopment\nNo objection\n(Informally)\nDiscussion\nSection 713 of the International Security and Development\nCooperation Act of 1985 (1) established a Presidential Task Force on\nProject Economic Justice and (2) directed the Task Force to prepare\nand transmit a report to the President and the Congress by December\n31, 1985, on the expanded use of employee stock ownership plans in\nUnited States development efforts in Central America and the\nCaribbean. The December 31st deadline was too short to allow the\nTask Force to complete the mandated report because only about half\nof its members have been appointed.\nS. 1918 extends the deadline for submission of the report from\nDecember 31, 1985, to October 1, 1986. The enrolled bill passed\nboth Houses of Congress by voice vote.\nJemp James C. Miller III\nDirector\nEnclosures\n-2-\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 26, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL M THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nH.R. 3608 -- Small Business\nInvestment Act Amendment\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled\nbill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.\nID #\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no OUTGOING\nH * INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nDave Chew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nH.R. 3608- Small Business Investment\nAct amendment\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency (Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUITOLL\nORIGINATOR 85,12,26\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nCUATI8\nB\n85,12,26\n585,12,26\nReferral Note:\n4pm\n/ /\n/ /\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/ /\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA * Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB . Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE: 12/26/85\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 4:00 P.M. TODAY\nSUBJECT: H.R. 3608 -- SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT AMENDMENT\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nMcFARLANE\nREGAN\nOGLESBY\nMILLER\nRYAN\nBUCHANAN\nSPEAKES\nCHAVEZ\nSPRINKEL\nCHEW\nP\nSS SVAHN\nDANIELS\nTHOMAS\nFIELDING\nTUTTLE\nHENKEL\nHICKS\nKINGON\nLACY\nREMARKS:\nPlease provide any comments/recommendations by 4:00 p.m.\ntoday. Thank you.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\nExt. 2702\nOFFICE STE PRESIDENT STATES UNITED\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nDEC 24 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 3608 - Small Business Investment\nAct Amendment\nSponsor - Rep. Mitchell (D) Maryland\nLast Day for Action\nDecember 31, 1985 - Tuesday\nPurpose\nTo clarify the authority of the Small Business\nAdministration to determine the maximum allowable interest rates\nthat may be charged on certain loans to small businesses.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nApproval\nSmall Business Administration\nApproval\nDepartment of the Treasury\nNo objection\ncally)\nDiscussion\n-- Background\nThe Small Business Administration (SBA) currently licenses\nand regulates privately operated Small Business Investment\nCompanies (SBIC's) and Minority Enterprise Small Business\nInvestment Companies (MESBIC's). These companies provide equity\ncapital and long-term loans to small businesses, with MESBIC's\nspecializing in loans to small business concerns owned by\nsocially and economically disadvantaged persons. To help finance\nthe companies, SBA guarantees loans made to the companies by the\nFederal Financing Bank at the Treasury rate plus 1/8 percent.\nThe companies, in turn, make loans to small businesses at a\nmaximum of 6-7 percent over Treasury rates.\nThe actual interest rate which the companies charge for\nsmall business loans is currently determined by the lower of\nthree options set forth in the Small Business Investment Act:\n(1) the maximum rate prescribed by SBA regulation; (2) the\nmaximum rate authorized by an applicable State law or\nconstitutional provision; or (3) the higher of the Federal\nReserve Rate or the maximum rate authorized by State law or\nconstitutional provision. Options 2 and 3 are applicable,\nhowever, only if States have taken actions to reaffirm State laws\nthat set a different interest rate for the companies.\n-- Provisions of H.R. 3608\nH.R. 3608 will codify the prevalent practice used to\nestablish the maximum interest rates that the companies may\ncharge small business borrowers. Thus, H.R. 3608 amends the\nSmall Business Investment Act to delete options two and three\ndiscussed previously, and instead, specifies that the maximum\nrate will be that prescribed through regulations promulgated by\nSBA (i.e., option one). This will provide SBA with the\nflexibility of prescribing market interest rates for the program.\nAs SBA advises in its enrolled bill views letter, there is\nnothing in H.R. 3608, however, which would impede the ability of\nany State to override SBA's interest rate ceiling, if it so\ndesires. Finally, the bill specifies that this change is\nretroactive to April 1, 1980, the date on which the interest rate\nlimitations became effective.\nAlthough the 1987 Budget will propose terminating the SBIC\nprogram, we see no reason to oppose this legislation as it would,\nif signed, improve administration of the program for the\nremainder of its existence.\nH.R. 3608 passed both Houses by voice vote.\nC.\nMA\nJames C. Miller III\nDirector\nEnclosures\n-2-\nH.R. 3608\nNinety-ninth Congress of the United States of America\nAT THE FIRST SESSION\nBegun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,\none thousand nine hundred and eighty-five\nAn Art\nWHITE\nTo amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the\nUnited States of America in Congress assembled,\nSECTION 1. Section 308 of the Small Business Investment Act of\n1958 is amended as follows:\n(a) by striking all of paragraph (2) of subsection (i) after the\nword \"exceed\" and by inserting in lieu thereof \"the maximum\nrate prescribed by regulation by the Administration for loans\nmade by any licensee (determined without regard to any State\nrate incorporated by such regulation).\"; and\n(b) by striking from paragraph (3) of subsection (i) \"paragraph\n(2)(B)\" and by inserting in lieu thereof \"paragraph (2)\".\nSEC. 2. This Act shall apply to maximum interest rates prescribed\nby the Administration on or after April 1, 1980.\nmy Pro of the Hugher Tempore House of Representatives.\nStrom Thurmond\nVice President of the United States and\nPresident the Senate. whemood\nof\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 26, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL JJ THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nS. 1621 -- Indian Education Amendments\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled\nbill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\n0 - OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\n1. - INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nDave crew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nS. 1621 Indian Education\nAmendments\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency (Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUITOLL\nORIGINATOR 85 /12/26\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nCUAT18\nR 85 112,26\n≤ 85,12,26\nReferral Note:\n3PM\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nI\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR. Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date it Date of Outgoing\nComments:\n303129CU\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE: 12/26/85\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 3:00 P.M. TODAY\nSUBJECT: S. 1621 -- INDIAN EDUCATION AMENDMENTS\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nMcFARLANE\nREGAN\nOGLESBY\nMILLER\nRYAN\nBUCHANAN\nSPEAKES\nCHAVEZ\nSPRINKEL\nCHEW\nP\nSS SVAHN\nDANIELS\nTHOMAS\nFIELDING\nTUTTLE\nHENKEL\nHICKS\nKINGON\nLACY\nREMARKS: Please provide any comments/recommendations by 3:00 p.m.\ntoday. Thank you.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\nExt. 2702\nHEALTH AM F OFFECE UNITED STATES\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nDEC 24 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT: Enrolled Bill S. 1621 - Indian Education Amendments\nSponsors -- Sen. Melcher (D) Montana and four others\nLast Day for Action\nDecember 30, 1985 - Monday\nPurpose\nLiberalizes the statutory definition of children eligible to\nattend Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nApproval\nDepartment of the Interior\nNo objection\nDepartment of Justice\nNo objection (Informally)\nDepartment of Education\nDefers to Interior\n(Informally)\nDiscussion\nS. 1621, which passed both Houses by voice vote, eliminates\nthe statutory requirement that Indian children be at least\none-quarter Indian blood to be eligible for funding at Bureau of\nIndian Affairs (BIA) schools. It also repeals existing statutory\nprovisions which authorize tuition to be charged for non-Indian\nchildren of BIA, Indian Health Service (IHS), and tribal\ngovernment employees who attend BIA schools.\nBackground\nEligibility for BIA education programs (including elementary\nand secondary education, the Johnson-0'Malley supplementary\neducation assistance program, and college and graduate\nscholarship programs) is currently governed by a 1918 law (25\nUnited States Code 297) which prohibits the use of funds to\neducate Indian children with less than one-quarter Indian blood\nwhose parents are U.S. citizens, and where there are adequate\nfree school facilities provided. Eligibility for all other BIA\nprograms is based on membership in a federally-recognized Indian\ntribe.\nUntil recently, the Department of the Interior had not\nstrictly enforced the 1918 law with respect to elementary and\nsecondary school attendance, because BIA regulations did not\ndefine \"adequate\" free school facilities. Also, before enactment\nof the Indian Education Amendments of 1978, which require funding\nfor BIA and contract schools under an Indian. School Equalization\nProgram (ISEP) formula based on the number of students enrolled,\neach school had been funded at the dollar level deemed necessary\nfor the school's operations, and the quarter-blood requirement\nhad not been significant from a funding standpoint.\nBIA regulations also left implementation of tuition\ncollection to the case-by-case discretion of local education\nauthorities; the result was that about 300 non-Indian students\nwere attending BIA schools without paying tuition in the 1984-85\nschool year.\nIn May 1985, the BIA proposed regulations to (1) define\n\"adequate free school facilities,\" thereby limiting the\ncircumstances under which students attending BIA schools would be\nconsidered eligible for funding, and (2) require all non-Indian\nstudents in BIA schools to pay tuition. BIA also tightened\nenforcement of the 1918 law by refusing to fund in the 1985-86\nschool year approximately 900 ineligible students who had been\nattending BIA schools, including about 200 Indian students with\nless than one-quarter Indian blood who had been counted for\nfunding purposes in the 1984-85 school year.\nS. 1621 and its House companion bill H.R. 3273 were\nintroduced in response to these measures. Senator Melcher's\nco-sponsors represent North and South Dakota and North Carolina.\n(The greatest single effect of the BIA regulations reportedly\nwould be on the Cherokee School in North Carolina, which has 140\ntribal member children with less than one-quarter Indian blood.\nSenator Helms' office has shown particular interest in the\nenrolled bill.)\nMajor Provisions of S. 1621\nThe enrolled bill would:\n-- make eligible for ISEP formula funding any student who is\na member of, or at least one-quarter degree Indian blood\ndescendant of a member of, an Indian tribe eligible for\nBIA programs and services, who resides on or near an\nIndian reservation, or meets the criteria for attending a\nBIA off-reservation boarding school;\n-- permit non-Indian children of BIA, IHS, or tribal\ngovernment employees who live on or near the school site\nto attend BIA schools tuition-free;\n-- permit other non-Indian children to attend BIA schools if\nthey pay tuition not more than that charged by the\nnearest public school district for out-of-district\nstudents;\n-2-\n-- permit BIA contract schools to allow non-Indian children\nto attend and to charge them tuition;\n-- allow the schools to retain tuition collected, rather\nthan having it deposited in the Treasury, as under\ncurrent law; and\n-- \"grandfather\" in, for the current academic year, those\nchildren who attended BIA schools and were funded last\nyear, if they meet the eligibility criteria of the\nenrolled bill.\nViews and Recommendations\nAccording to the report of the Senate Select Committee on\nIndian Affairs, S. 1621 is intended to bring consistency to the\neligibility criteria used for BIA programs. The report states\nthat eligibility for all BIA programs other than education is\nbased on membership in a federally recognized tribe, and the\nCommittee believes tribal membership should be the determining\ncriterion for education programs as well.\nThe Committee report states that testimony presented at its\nhearing on S. 1621 attested to the Indian community's \"unanimous\"\nopposition to the one-quarter blood restriction, based on three\nmajor objections: it discriminates on the basis of race; it is\ninconsistent with eligibility criteria used for all other BIA\nprograms; and it interferes with the right of Indian tribes to\nset their own membership criteria.\nFinally, the Committee contends that if the BIA regulations\nmoved many children into the public schools, these children would\nbe eligible for other Federal assistance, such as Impact Aid, and\nthe cost to the Federal Government could be significantly higher\nthan it is now.\nInterior, in testimony before the Senate Committee on\nS. 1621, strongly opposed the bill on the grounds that it could\ngreatly expand the service populations of BIA schools, resulting\nin a reduction in the available funds per student and, for some\nschools, a dramatic impact on current funding levels. Interior\nalso expressed concern about the potential adverse impact of\nadditional students on facilities and staffing of the BIA\nschools, and the possibility that the schools would have to\nviolate new student/staff ratios included in recently-issued\nacademic standards. Furthermore, the Department objected on the\nground that the bill is contrary to recent attempts to encourage\ntribes to tighten tribal membership requirements and use the\nquarter-blood requirement as a basis for membership. Interior\npointed out that the quarter-blood requirement had been\ndetermined by a Federal District Court in a recent case to be\nappropriate for the BIA scholarship program, and not arbitrary,\ncapricious, or an abuse of discretion.\n-3-\nIn its views letter, Interior indicates that on further\ninvestigation following its testimony before the Committee, it\nhas been unable to document its concern that S. 1621 would\nconsiderably expand the BIA's education service population, and\nit therefore does not believe that the fiscal impact of the bill\nwill be as severe as it had earlier feared. Interior also notes\nthat the bill was amended to tighten the provision regarding\ntuition-free attendance so that it applies only to dependents of\ncertain employees, and believes this provision will be beneficial\nfor attracting and retaining staff. The Department concludes\nthat it has no objection to-your approval of S. 1621 when\nCongress has \"clearly mandated\" that tribal membership serve as\nthe basis for eligibility for Indian programs.\nConclusion\nWe believe that, although S. 1621 is not sufficiently\nobjectionable to warrant a veto recommendation, the bill has more\nserious implications than Interior cites. This bill will:\n-- at a time of critical need to reduce Federal\nexpenditures, expand eligibility for a full range of\nIndian programs that already serve 72,000 students at an\nannual cost of $240 million.\n-- by expanding eligibility, generate increased pressure for\nmore special Indian schools, a larger BIA bureaucracy,\nand increased Federal funding.\n-- by allowing BIA schools to retain tuition collections,\nmake it advantageous in some circumstances for BIA\nschools to recruit non-Indian students from public school\ndistricts, thereby reducing prospects for closing or\nconsolidating underutilized BIA schools.\n-- by eliminating the quarter-blood requirement, add impetus\nto the Tribes' natural incentive to continue in\nmembership, or recruit into membership, individuals with\nmultiple generations of non-Indian ancestors, in order to\nexpand their membership rolls and increase their formula\nfunding shares.\nDecisions on BIA education funding are made through the\nbudget and appropriations processes. Accordingly, we will\nmonitor closely any future developments along these lines.\nJemes James C. Miller III\nDirector\nEnclosures\n-4-\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 26, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nFROM:\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL 876 THE PRESIDENT\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nH.R. 2962 -- Office Space for\nFormer Speakers of the House\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced enrolled\nbill, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nD - OUTGOING\nH - INTERNAL\n1 - INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nDave Chew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nH.R 2962 - Office Space for Former\nSpeakers of the House\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR 85112124\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nCUAT18\nR 85,12,24\n585,121 26\n12N\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA- Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC * Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD . Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No. 330529\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE: 12/24/85\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: NOON on 12/26/85\nSUBJECT: H.R. 2962 -- OFFICE SPACE FOR FORMER SPEAKERS OF THE HOUSE\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nMcFARLANE\nREGAN\nOGLESBY\nMILLER\nRYAN\nBUCHANAN\nSPEAKES\nCHAVEZ\nSPRINKEL\nCHEW\nP\n$5 SVAHN\nDANIELS\nTHOMAS\nFIELDING\nTUTTLE\nHENKEL\nHICKS\nKINGON\nLACY\nREMARKS:\nPlease provide any comments/recommendations by NOON on\nThursday, December 26th. Thank you.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\nExt. 2702\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nSTATE STATE OFFICE OF\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nReceived\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\n1595\nDEC 24\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nDEC 24 1985\nSUBJECT: Enrolled Bill H.R. 2962 - Office Space for Former\nSpeakers of the United States House of Representatives\nSponsor - Rep. Gray (D) Illinois\nLast Day for Action\nDecember 31, 1985 - Tuesday\nPurpose\nTo eliminate the restriction governing the location of\noffice space available for use by former Speakers of the House of\nRepresentatives.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nApproval\nGeneral Services Administration\nNo objection Imformally)\nDiscussion\nUnder current law, each former Speaker of the House of\nRepresentatives is entitled to use Federal office space located\nin his congressional district. H.R. 2962 amends this law to\npermit a former Speaker to select an office located anywhere in\nthe United States. (According to the House colloquy, the purpose\nof this amendment is to allow Speaker O'Neill, who has announced\nhis intention to retire at the end of this Congress, to maintain\nthe use of his district office which, because of redistricting,\nis now situated two blocks outside the boundary of his\ncongressional district.) The bill clarifies that the office\nspace is to be used to facilitate the administration and\nconclusion of matters arising out of congressional service.\nFinally, H.R. 2962 contains language, similar to current law,\nwhich requires the Federal Government to furnish and maintain the\noffices in a condition appropriate for their use.\nH.R. 2962 passed both Houses by voice vote.\nJames Chiller III\nDirector\nEnclosures\nH. R. 2962\nRinety-ninth Congress of the United States of America\nAT THE FIRST SESSION\nBegun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday. the third day of January,\none thousand nine hundred and eighty-five\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nAn Art\nTo remove certain restrictions on the availability of office space for former Speakers\nof the House.\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the\nUnited States of America in Congress assembled, That the first\nsection of House Resolution 1238, Ninety-first Congress, agreed to\nDecember 22, 1970 (as enacted into permanent law by chapter VIII\nof the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1971 and supplemented by\nthe Act entitled \"An Act relating to former Speakers of the House of\nRepresentatives\" (88 Stat. 1723)) (2 U.S.C. 31b-1(a)), is amended by\nstriking out \"the Federal office space\" and all that follows through\nthe end of such section and inserting in lieu thereof \"one office\nselected by him in order to facilitate the administration, settlement,\nand conclusion of matters pertaining to or arising out of his incum-\nbency in office as a Representative in Congress and as Speaker of\nthe House of Representatives. Such office shall be located in the\nUnited States and shall be furnished and maintained by the Govern-\nment in a condition appropriate for his use.\".\nDuy of the Tempore House Wright of Representatives.\nStrom Thurmond\nVice President of the United States and\nPresident of the Senate. ProJempore\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 22, 1986\nMEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDepartment of Commerce Proposed Report\non S. 1849, a Bill to Protect Consumers\nand Franchised Automobile Dealers from\nUnfair Price Discrimination in the Sale\nby the Manufacturer of New Motor Vehicles,\nand for Other Purposes\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed\nreport, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.\nID #.\n379296 CU\nJV\nWHITE HOUSE\nBEOO315\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\n. OUTGOING\nJR.\nH - INTERNAL\nI * INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nJames C. mun\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Dept at Commerce proposed report\non 51849 a but to protect consumers\nd franchised automobile dealers from unfair\nmunufacturer of new ACTION motor vehicles, DISPOSITION and\nprice discrimination in the sale by the\nROUTE TO:\nfar other purposes,\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR 86,01,11$\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\ncreat 18\nR 86,01,20.00s\nS 586,01,31\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode\n\"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nB THAT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nJanuary 16, 1986\nLEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM\nTO:\n379296 cu\nDepartment of Justice\nDepartment of Defense\nFederal Trade Commission\nDepartment of Transportation\nGeneral Services Administration\nSUBJECT: Department of Commerce proposed report on S. 1849, a bill\nto protect consumers and franchised automobile dealers\nfrom unfair price discrimination in the sale by the\nmanufacturer of new motor vehicles, and for other purposes.\nThe Office of Management and Budget requests the views of your\nagency on the above subject before advising on its relationship\nto the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular\nA-19.\nPlease provide us with your views no later than January 30, 1986.\n(NOTE -- Agency testimony and reports on similar bills were cleared\nlast Congress. See for example S. 2770, H.R. 1415 and\nH.R. 5305 -- 98th Congress.)\nDirect your questions to Branden Blum (395-3454), the legislative\nattorney in this office.\nJames C. Murr for\nAssistant Director for\nLegislative Reference\nEnclosure\nCC: Karen Wilson Penny Jacobs Bob Howard\nFred Fielding\nJohn Cooney\nNick Stoer\nLehmann Li\nGENERAL COUNSEL OF THE\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nof STATES AMERICA\nWashington, D.C. 20230\nHonorable Strom Thurmond\nChairman, Committee on the\nJudiciary\nUnited States Senate\nWashington, D.C. 20510\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nThis is in response to your request for the views of the\nDepartment of Commerce concerning S. 1849, a bill--\n\"To protect consumers and franchised automobile dealers from\nunfair price discrimination in the sale by the manufacturer\nof new motor vehicles, and for other purposes.\"\nS. 1849 would prohibit automobile and truck manufacturers, importers,\nor sellers from selling or leasing any new vehicle, or offering\nto sell or lease any new vehicle, to any person (including an\nautomobile dealer) at a price that is higher than the lowest\nprice for which any other new vehicle of the same model is sold\nor offered during a particular sales period. In addition, the\nbill requires a manufacturer, importer or seller to give a 14 day\nadvance notice to all customers of any sales incentive. The bill\nwould provide exceptions for sales to vehicle manufacturers,\nemployees of the manufacturer, agencies of the United States or\nany state or local government, the American Red Cross, and sales\nunder regional sales incentive programs. The prohibitions in the\nbill would be enforceable by private action.\nThe Department of Commerce opposes enactment of S. 1849. The\nlegislation would effectively prohibit marketing practices that\nvehicle manufacturers and their fleet customers have found highly\nefficient and mutually beneficial. By requiring that the the\n\"lowest price\" be the only selling price for a vehicle, S. 1849\nwould, despite its avowed intention to protect consumers and\ndealers against \"unfair price competition,\" be anti-competitive.\nS. 1849 would eliminate or reduce competition in the fleet sales\nmarket by prohibiting large volume fleet purchase discounts.\nLarge volume fleet purchasers should be allowed to negotiate with\nmanufacturers for lower prices. Fleet sales are an important\nfactor in automobile and truck manufacturing. Companies can\noffer discounts on direct volume sales because such sales help\n-2-\nreduce the per vehicle cost of manufacturing and thereby increase\noverall profits without raising prices to dealers. Fleet sales\nare often made in advance of initial vehicle production and\nthereby encourage the marketing of new products.\nWe have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that\nthere is no objection to the submission of this letter to the\nCongress from the standpoint of the Administration's program.\nSincerely,\nDouglas A. Riggs\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 24, 1986\nMEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS 0202\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nH.R. 2946 -- D.C. Jury System Act\nAs my office advised you orally yesterday, we will defer to\nJustice's decision to change its position on the\nabove-referenced bill.\nID #\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\no - OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nBranden Blum\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: H.R. 2946 - D.C. Jury System act\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR 86,01,22\n/ /\nI\ncrat 14\nReferral Note:\nR 86,01,22\n5 86,01,23\nReferral Note:\n3pm 3\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nI\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nROUTE SLIP\nTake necessary action\nTO VFred Fielding\nApproval or signature\nJohn Cooney\nComment\nKaren Wilson\nPrepare reply\nDiscuss with me\nDianne Bongiorno\nFor your information\nSee remarks below\nFROM\nBranden Blum\nDATE\n1/22/86\nREMARKS\nH.R. 2946 - District of Columbia Jury\nSystem Act\nLast week (1/16/86) I curculated an amended version\nof a Justice report to Judge Pryor (D.C. Court of\nAppeals) which supported various improvements to\nthe jury selection process contained in H.R. 2946,\nbut opposed the bill because it also proposed the\ncreation of a separate jury selection system for\nthe District of Columbia. Justice, which is the\nlead agency, has decided to reverse this position\nand support the bill. (FYI, I have included a copy\nof Judge Pryor's letter to Justice which is the\nbasis of the Department's change in position.)\nDOJ has requested \"expedited\" clearance. Consequently,\nplease review the Department's revised report\nsupporting H.R. 2946 and provide me with any comments\nby 3:00 p.m. Thursday, January 23, 1986.\nOMB FORM 4\nRev Aug 70\nDOJ - Revised\nHonorable William C. Pryor\nChief Judge\nD.C. Court of Appeals\nDistrict of Columbia Courts\nJoint Committee on Judicial Administration\nWashington, D.C. 20001\nDear Chief Judge Pryor:\nThis is in response to your letter of January 3, 1986, also\nsigned by Chief Judge H. Carl Moultrie I and Larry P. Polansky\nencouraging this Department to support H.R. 2946, a bill that\nwould establish an independent jury selection system for the\nSuperior Court of the District of Columbia.\nWe appreciate your insight and expertise which enhanced our\nconsideration of the issues involved. Having carefully reviewed\nyour analysis of the Department's original position statement, we\nhave reconsidered our perspective on this bill. Your persuasive\ncomments have alleviated our main concerns.\nThis Department fully endorses the substance of H.R. 2946,\nwhich presents an excellent opportunity for local experimentation\nwith judicial reform. Immediate ratification of these necessary\nchanges to the jury selection process can serve as a model or\nfirst step to a broader application of this proposal encompassing\n-2-\nthe federal system as we previously suggested.\nWe will transmit our views to the Congress and encourage\ntheir expeditious review of this legislation.\nWe appreciate your cooperative approach in promoting positive\nsolutions to these problems in the judicial process and look for-\nward to working with you toward resolution of this issue.\nSincerely,\nD. Lowell Jensen\nDeputy Attorney General\nTHE\nDistrict of Columbia Courts\nJoint Committee on Judirial Administration\nWashington, B.C. 20001\nJanuary 3; 1986\nHonorable D. Lowell Jensen\nDeputy Attorney General\nU.S. Department of Justice\nWashington, BC 20530\nDear Mr. Jensen:\nAs you may be aware; the Senate Committee on Governmental Efficiency\nand the District of Columbia will be holding hearings in late January on the\nDistrict of Columbia Jury System Act (H.R. 2946) which was passed by the House\nin October. This bill has the support of the U.S. District Court as well as\nthe District of Columbia Courts and is the whicle without which this juris-\ndiction will not be able to use the increasingly popular One Trial/one day\njury system. We will be testifying; along with a number of others; in support\nof the passage of this bill by the Senate in early 1986.\nThe Congressional record of October 28; 1985; however; carries a copy\nof Mr. Phillip D. Brady's letter indicating Justice Department concerns and\nopposition to the bill. We believe that we can address those concerns and;\nhopefully, gain your support for this bill.\nFirst; let us say that we agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Brady's\nstatement that H.R. 2946 would improve the current jury selection system by\nbroadening the base of persons who can be surmoned for jury duty, by narrowing\nthe number of automatic exclusions from jury service, and by increasing the\npenalties for certain fraudulent conduct in the jury selection process.\nConsidering the volume of caseload in the Superior Court; this aspect alone\nwould justify the suggested changes in the law since the base of jurors in the\nDistrict is rather small.\nIn order to illustrate the important aspects of the bill, which would\nincrease flexibility and efficiency, it is necessary to explain the existing\njury selection process for the District of Columbia. Currently jurors are\nselected in a two-step process from a master jury list, The single master\njury list for both the D.C. Superior Court and the U.S. District Court is\ndeveloped in the D.C. Superior Court's Data Processing Division from a\ncombination of the D.C. voter registration list and the D.C. motor vehicle\ndriver's license list. From this master list our Data Processing Division\nHonorable D. Lowell Jensen\nJanuary 3; 1986\nPage'II\nrandomly selects potential jurces and sends out qualification questionnaires\nfor both Courts. Once these questionnaires are returned, the U.S. District\nCourt jury staff screen the questionnaires and make recomendations to the\nU.S. District Court Jury Commission which then qualifies prospective jurors\nfor both courts.\nThese qualified jurors are then re-entered into the D.C. Superior\nCourt's computer and become the qualified list from which juror summons are\ngenerated for the number of jurors needed for both Courts. The existing\nsystem is inherently cumbersome and duplicitious. First of all; there is a\ntwo-step questionnaire/selection process which results in additional costs for\nforms and postage and in the time between qualifying jurors and the summonsing\nprocess being far too long. This then leads to a low yield of actual jurors\nbecause the qualified list is stale and laden with persons who have moved out\nof the District. In addition; the Jury Commission adds a layer of bureaucracy\nwhich alows the selection process and permits little flexibility in adjusting\njuror needs to the ever increasing volume of jury trials in the Superior\nCourt.\nThe proposed Jury bill (H.R. 2946) would actually be more efficient at\nthe Superior Court level since the proposed system would eliminate much of the\nduplication which currently exists. It is envisioned and promised that; under\nthe proposed system; the Superior Court's data processing system will continue\nto develop the master juror wheel and provide automated support for the\nqualification and summonsing process for both courts. The only operational\narea that would be shifted to the Superior Court Clerk's staff would be the\nscreening for Superior Court \"qualified\" jurors. The Jury Commission review\nof prospective jurors for the Superior Court would be eliminated and replaced\nby a cne-step review by Superior Court Clerk staff. In addition, the proposed\nbill would permit the Superior Court to implement a one-step selection process\nwhereby prospective jurors would be screened and surmoned at the same time,\nthereby cutting in half the administrative costs of data processing, forms and\npostage and increasing the yield of jurors from the process by reducing the\ntime between the process of qualification and the issuance of a summons. This\nwould have no effect on the U.S. District Court except that it would reduce,\nby approximately 858; the number of prospective jurors that the U.S. Jury\nCommission would have to review for qualification and since that Commission is\npaid on a per diem basis, this should reduce Jury Commission costs\nsubstantially.\nThere is also a shift in the staff cost of the process for the\nqualifying review of jurors since each court will then do the initial\nreview of its am prospective jurors. Staff needs should decrease substan-\ntially for the U.S. District Court and some additional staff would be needed\nin the Superior Court. Costs for Superior Court forms and postage, now\ntotally funded by the U.S. District Court; would also shift to the Superior\nCourt. These costs for administration; supplies and postage will not increase\nbut will merely shift from one court to the other and in some cases a reduc-\ntion in cost will be possible.\nHonorable D. Lowell Jensen\nJanuary 3: 1986\nPage III\nIn short; we firmly believe the proposed bill will result in greater\nflexibility for the Courts of the District of Columbia with added efficiency\n(without added cost) as well as improved citizen participation and satisfac-\ntion. We encourage the support of the Department of Justice for this bill\nand would welcome the opportunity to discuss any or all of these issues with\nyou.\nSincerely,\nWilliam\nwe c. Payon Pryor\nChief Judge\nD.C. Court of Appeals\nH. Carl Moultrie I\nChief Judge\nSuperior Court of the\nDistrict of Columbia\nLary Planchy\nLarry P. Polansky\nExecutive Officer\nD.C. Courts\n8\nMr. Phillip D. Brady"
}