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
135838562
label
Chron File, 09/24/1982-10/06/1982
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135838562
contentType
document
title
Chron File, 09/24/1982-10/06/1982
citationUrl
identifierLocal
35
collections
Records of the White House Office of Policy Development (Reagan Administration)
William P. Barr's Office Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135838562
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1983-12-31
year
1983
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
cef9764f15446ed5
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Barr, William: Files
Folder Title: Chron File, 09/24/1982-10/06/1982
Box: 16
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/
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: Equal Pay Act Statistics
On the face of the data, enforcement looks pretty good.
Maryalice Williams, who ought to know, thinks the numbers are
credible and impressive, and absent some particular reason for
questioning them, I defer to Maryalice.
DOCUMENT NO.
097679
PD
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 9/17/82
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 9/23/82
SUBJECT: Processing of Equal Pay Act Complaints
ACTION FYI
ACTION
FYI
HARPER
DRUG POLICY
PORTER
TURNER
BARR
D. LEONARD
BOGGS
OFFICE OF POLICY INFORMATION
BRADLEY
HOPKINS
CARLESON
COBB
DENEND
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
FAIRBANKS
OTHER
FERRARA
GALEBACH
GARFINKEL
GUNN
B. LEONARD
LI
MONTOYA
SMITH
UHLMANN
ADMINISTRATION
REMARKS:
Michael Uhlmann:
Could you check on the Administration's record in litigating
Equal Pay Act cases and send us a brief memo on the Administration's
record as compared to the previous Administration,
Attached are some papers from
Edwin L. Harper
Please return this tracking
Marialice Williams at OMB.
Thanks.
Assistant to the President
sheet with your response
2:Rock E. Rock
for Policy Development
(x6515)
EQUAL PAY ACT
TABLE 7
EPA COMPLAINT PROCESSING: WORKLOAD AND WORKFLOW
1982
1983
1984
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Current
Agency
Policy
Request
Complaints in Process
1,900
1,350
1,900
1,900
2,500
2,750
2,750
2,750
Complaints Received for
Processing
1,300
2,000
2,200
2,200
2,350
2,350
2,350
2,350
Directed Investigations
Initiated
350
750
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
Complaints Closed
2,200
2,200
2,700
2,700
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
Complaints Forwarded
1,350
1,900
2,500
2,500
2,750
3,000
3,000
3,000
Complaint Inventory
(Months)
9.8
8.3
9.1
9.1
9.5
10.4
10.4
10.4
Benefits
Total People
1,100
1,100
1,350
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
Dollars ($000)
$2,500
$2,500
$2,750
$3,200
$3,200
$3,200
$3,200
$3,200
Average Dollar Benefit
$3,300
$3,300
$4,000
$4,700
$4,700
$4,700
$4,700
$4,700
25
Subunit: Title VII, ADEA and EPA Enforcement
Objectives
1. To maintain the efficient delivery of service to victims of employment discrimination through systems
of the Commission designed to 'achieve timely resolution of charges and complaints.
2. To enhance enforcement of the statutes under the agency's jurisdiction through joint compliance-legal
staff efforts that selectively identify and target individual charges with class issues, directed
investigations (under ADEA and EPA) and Commissioner charges (under Title VII) in order to obtain remedy
and relief for affected persons subject to patterns and practices of employment discrimination.
3. To obtain significant backpay and injunctive relief for victims of discrimination through a selective
and balanced litigation program.
4.
To maintain a high level of staff productivity with concomitant quality of charge processing through
quarterly review of field office performance against goals, annual on-site review of field office
adherence to Commission policies and operational procedures, and delivery of training to enhance compliance
and litigation skills.
Highlights and Accomplishments
FY 82/83
1. In FY 83, 100% of the Title VII pre-1979 backlog will have been eliminated (Table 5).
2. Settlements are being achieved for 38% of Title VII charges resolved in rapid charge processing with a
22% settlement rate for ADEA and 25% for EPA.
3.
In FY 82 charge settlements accrued benefits to over 54,700 people; dollar benefits reached almost
$57 million. In FY 83 dollar benefits will reach $51.3 million and 49,000 people are expected to be
benefitted (Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7).
by lower
4.
Processing procedures were implemented in FY 82 to harmonize the processing of ADEA and EPA charges/
complaints with Title VII processing systems including the application of the fact-finding process to
ADEA charges.
5.
In FY 83, 1,400 charges will be recommended to District Office Legal Units for litigation. In FY 82,
240 lawsuits were authorized and 370 are projected for FY 83, a 54% increase; and a total of 250 consent
decrees and settlements were entered into in FY 82 with an additional 275 projected for FY 83 (Table 8):
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 27, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: Bankruptcy Reform
The last official word I had on this issue was that it had
been taken up in a Legislative Strategy meeting during the week
before last. My knowledge of what transpired there is informal
and secondhand, but it was apparently agreed that an Article III
resolution of the problem would be most desirable.
Rodino, as you may recall, has had a clean Article III bill
reported from his committee. He originally proposed to take it
up on the Suspension Calendar this week but that effort was
stymied late last week. Rodino is now pushing to have the bill
taken up this Thursday, but with each passing day he is losing
support among his Democratic colleagues. Increasingly, the
argument is being heard that it is madness for the Democrats to
hand the President 220-odd Article III appointments.
Meanwhile, on a related front, the Chief Justice (who has
been in orbit about the Article III possibility for some time)
has let it be known that the Rodino bill would deal a damaging
blow to the integrity of the federal judicial system. That
argument has not gained a wide audience outside partisans of the
judicial branch. Nevertheless, the judiciary has made enough of a
stink that some folks on the Hill who previously found an Article
III resolution acceptable are now looking for an alternative
compromise. Justice is said to be working on such an alternative
in an effort to salvage what we can from the deteriorating
position on the Hill.
I was told last week that the matter was being coordinated by
the Legislative Strategy Group (in effect, not to worry) and
inferred that DOJ and Legislative Affairs were working hand in
glove.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 27, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: Handicapped Policy; Strategy Concerning Department
of Education's Proposed Revisions to P.L. 94-142
Regulations
Over the past two weeks, Steve Galebach and I have familiar-
ized ourselves with the Department of Education's proposed
revisions to regulations under P.L. 94-142, the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act. The proposed revisions have brought
intense criticism from all segments of the handicapped community,
with only scattered, lukewarm support from school administrator
groups.
This morning, in a meeting with Mike McConnell and Chris
Demuth of OMB and Boyden Gray and Richard Breeden of the Vice
President's Task Force, we discussed what courses of action are
open to us at this point. There was general agreement that our
current course is politically untenable:
O The proposed regulations are subject to legislative veto;
the current proposal would surely lose in Congress, and
even a substantially revised one would face very tough
going in the current climate.
To have the proposed regulations pending during the
elections makes it almost impossible for Republican
candidates to avoid taking a position and repudiating us.
We are especially vulnerable to charges of cutting back on
family involvement and the mainstreaming of handicapped
students with their non-handicapped peers.
Even though federalism concerns cut against the 94-142
program, this program is one of the most difficult
contexts in which to reestablish federalism, and we would
do better to reform other areas of handicapped policy
first, where we have a chance of succeeding.
Since Secretary Bell has been called to testify on this issue
before a House Subcommittee on Wednesday of this week, basic
strategy decisions need to be made at this point. Chris Demuth
is calling Secretary Bell to set up a meeting to brief him on the
situation and the various options.
I recommend that Galebach and I brief you more fully on this
matter today.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 30, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: Situation Re Proposed Changes to Regulations
Under P.L. 94-142
I.
The Problem
Department of Education staffers are meeting this afternoon
with staffers of the House Subcommittee on Select Education to
define the precise extent of the pullback that Secretary Bell
proposed yesterday to make on the 94-142 regulations.
Quick-reaction decisions may be needed in the near future
to ensure we get smoothly out of the mess these proposed
regulations have created. Hence, the following background memo
on this problem.
The proposed changes to the regulations under P.L. 94-142,
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (see attached
summary of changes) have placed us in a politically untenable and
potentially disastrous situation:
The changes have been the target of overwhelming public
criticism and have received only scattered, lukewarm
support -- far less than we expected.
Department of Education made serious blunders in setting
up the hearings, creating an even more hostile environ-
ment.
We have been totally unable to take the offensive or to
defend our regulations persuasively -- Education cannot
even show any identifiable cost savings.
We face overwhelming hostility in Congress; we lost a
93-4 vote in the Senate on a resolution by Weicker
critical of the proposed changes, and Republicans on the
House Education and Labor Committee have indicated
support for the Biaggi Resolution condemning the
proposed changes.
II. Background
P.L. 94-142 is of great importance to the entire handi-
capped community, including many Reaganite relatives of handi-
capped children. The pattern of Department of Education conduct
has convinced an unusually broad spectrum of people that the
Department is fundamentally hostile to the whole 94-142 program:
The Department supported a proposed block grant for this
program, while resisting block grants for many other
educational programs.
The Department drafted changes to the 94-142 statute,
but found too much opposition on Capitol Hill to
introduce them.
o The program was targeted for 30% budget reduction in the
1982-1983 budgets.
Every one of these efforts has been stopped by overwhelming
opposition in Congress. Now the Department's proposed regulatory
changes are being viewed as one more effort in a continuing
campaign against 94-142.
III. Political Situation Re Proposed 94-142 Regulatory Changes
We face a nearly certain legislative veto if we promulgate
final regulations in anything like their proposed form. Even if
we delete several of the proposed changes, the regulations will
probably be vetoed because of a widespread perception that the
whole proposal is a watering down of the 94-142 program. Handi-
capped groups have succeeded in casting our changes as part of an
effort to gut the 94-142 program (even though the changes would
actually accomplish very little), and also to cut back on
parental control and the mainstreaming of handicapped students in
public schools.
Our chance of accomplishing anything positive by our
current course is virtually nil. The downside risks, if we do
not alter course, are severe:
o Democrats can make such an effective campaign issue of
our proposed changes that most and possibly all
Republican candidates will be pressured into repudiating
our position.
o We face likely attacks from some of our normal allies,
such as George Will, on grounds that we are retreating
from the President's commitment to parental and family
rights.
-2-
O If we simply postpone final promulgation of the regula-
tions, rather than withdrawing them, we will simply
invite unanimous criticism from the handicapped
community for our future changes in handicapped
regulations, as a way to keep us intimidated on 94-142.
IV. Analysis
We should stop butting our head against a brick wall on
94-142. Every initiative in this area has been trounced by the
Congress, and we are now simply asking them to do it to us again.
We have far more important deregulatory objectives in other
areas of handicapped policy -- especially Justice and Transpor-
tation regulations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973. We have received drafts of reasonable proposed regulations
from both agencies which do make substantial cost savings and
should gain substantial public approval.
However, the climate created by the proposed 94-142
revisions is so hostile that even reasonable revisions of other
handicapped regulations are likely to arouse insuperable
opposition among the public and in Congress.
As a result, it now appears that we can advance success-
fully on other more important fronts of handicapped policy only
by withdrawing on the 94-142 front.
v.
Secretary Bell's Proposed Changes
Secretary Bell proposed yesterday to withdraw six of the
most controversial changes, concerning:
Parental consent prior to evaluation or initial
placement.
Least restrictive environment.
Related services.
Timelines.
Attendance of evaluation personnel at individualized
education program (IEP) meetings.
Qualifications of personnel.
It is unclear what will be the outcome of this afternoon's
meeting with Subcommittee staff. We will report as soon as we
learn the outcome.
-3-
VI.
Recommendations
We need to make sure we reach a prompt, firm, and
clearcut resolution of this issue, so that it does not
remain a major campaign issue and does not linger on as
an impediment to other regulatory initiatives in the
handicapped area.
Either a total withdrawal or a clearcut withdrawal of
the most controversial provisions is needed; having
already given the appearance of "caving," Secretary Bell
should not be allowed to renew intense political
controversy on this issue.
To assure the more responsible handicapped groups of our
good faith, and to pave the way for positive regulatory
improvements in the future, we should issue a
Presidential or White House statement outlining the
general principles of our handicapped policy and
assuring the public that we wholeheartedly support the
positive accomplishments of the 94-142 program.
-4-
SUMMARY OF 94-142 REGULATION CHANGES
The following proposed changes to the 94-142 regulations
have given rise to the current controversy:
I.
Diminished Parental Involvement
1. Parental consent not needed for evaluation and initial
placement.
2. Specific requirements for manner of attempting to
notify parents are deleted; authorities need only make
"reasonable efforts."
3. At the meeting to devise the child's IEP, a person
familiar with the child's evaluation is no longer
required to be present.
4. "Related services" no longer include parent training
and counselling, one of the most cost-effective ways of
helping handicapped children.
5. The IEP need no longer be drafted during the meeting
with parents.
6. Authorities are no longer required to disclose
beforehand evidence they plan to introduce at the IEP
meeting with parents.
7. Parents may no longer receive public funding for an
independent evaluation of their child's needs.
8. Authorities no longer need inform parents of free or
low-cost legal services available to them in the
hearing process.
II. Diminished Incentive to "Mainstream" Handicapped Students
1. New provision says they need not be mainstreamed if
"substantial and clearly ascertainable disruption"
would result.
2. Requirement is now deleted that a handicapped child be
placed in a school "as close as possible to the child's
home."
3. Deleted provision for participation of handicapped
children with non-handicapped children in extra-
curriculars and non-academic activities (e.g., meals,
recess).
4. Schools no longer need offer a "continuum" of
alternative placements for handicapped children.
5. Schools may place "reasonable limitations" on the
"related services" they provide, based on location,
frequency, etc., of needed services.
6. Schools no longer need provide services to administer
medicine to handicapped students who need injections,
etc., at school (e.g., diabetic children).
7. State educational associations are instructed to place
handicapped children in institutions, without regard to
judgment of parents or local authorities, when the
state deems such action would "best serve" the child.
III. Miscellaneous
1. "Qualified personnel" no longer defined as state-
certified.
2. New provisions allow disciplining of misbehavior not
"caused by" a child's handicapped condition.
3. Time periods allowed for state action are generally
increased by 50% or left to state discretion to set
"reasonable" timelines.
4. New simplified procedure is created for evaluating
children whose handicaps are not "severe or complex."
5. New regs require the local agency where the child
resides to subsidize his care in an out-of-state
boarding school.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 30, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
wrs
FROM:
WILLIAM P. BARR
SUBJECT: Military Manpower Task Force Meeting
Fifteen months ago the Task Force was formed to study the
volunteer army and to make recommendations on improving it.
Tomorrow (October 1; 1530 hours) there is a meeting to
discuss and approve the Task Force's report to the President.
One major issue I expect to be raised at the meeting relates
to the formula for determining military pay. DOD favors (and the
report recommends) setting pay based on the ECI unless the
President determines a deviation is necessary. This, in effect,
puts the political burden on the President of justifying a
deviation. CEA and OMB have favored giving the President greater
discretion in setting military pay. I would be inclined to
support the CEA/OMB position.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 30, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
STEPHEN H. GALEBACH
SUBJECT: Anti-Busing and School Prayer Provisions in
Department of Education Appropriation Act of 1983
I have now gotten a report from the staff of the Republican
Whip in the House:
This bill will not come up on the House floor until the
lame duck session.
Sections 304, 305 (A), and 306 are already contained in
Department of Education appropriation acts of past years
and will simply continue the current situation, under
which the Department of Education is forbidden to take
action requiring school districts to bus students for
purposes of forced racial integration.
Section 305 (B) may be a new section. (I am working to get
a definitive answer and should have one soon.) If it is a
new section, it would have a novel impact on the block
grant created last year for funds to subsidize busing in
local school districts for purposes of racial balance.
Section 305 (B) would, at least as it appears on the
surface, prevent these block grant funds from being used
for their stated purpose.
Section 307 would not have any real effect, since funds
appropriated under this Act are not now used to prevent
voluntary prayer and meditation in the public schools.
The provisions referred to in this memo are contained on the
three attached sheets.
48
1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
2
SEC. 301. None of the funds appropriated by this title
3 for grants-in-aid of State agencies to cover, in whole or in
4 part, the cost of operation of said agencies, including the sal-
5 aries and expenses of officers and employees of said agencies,
6 shall be withheld from the said agencies of any State which
7 have established by legislative enactment and have in oper-
8 ation a merit system and classification and compensation plan
9 covering the selection, tenure in office, and compensation of
10 their employees, because of any disapproval of their person-
11 nel or the manner of their selection by the agencies of the
12 said States, or the rates of pay of said officers or employees.
13
SEC. 302. Funds appropriated in this Act to the Ameri-
14 can Printing House for the Blind, Howard University, the
15 National Technical Institute for the Deaf, and Gallaudet Col-
16 lege shall be subject to audit by the Secretary of Education.
17
SEC. 303. None of the funds provided herein shall be
18 used to pay any recipient of a grant for the conduct of re-
19 search an amount equal to as much as the entire cost of such
20 research.
21
SEC. 304.
No part of the funds contained in this title
22 may be used to force any school or school district which is
23 desegregated as that term is defined in title IV of the Civil
24 Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, to take any action
25 to force the busing of students; to force on account of race,
1 creed or color the abolishment of any school so desegregated;
2 or to force the transfer or assignment of any student attend-
3 ing any elementary or secondary school so desegregated to or
4 from a particular school over the protest of his or her parents
5 or parent.
6
SEC. 305. (a) No part of the funds contained in this title
7 shall be used to force any school or school district which is
8 desegregated as that term is defined in title IV of the Civil
9 Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, to take any action
10 to force the busing of students; to require the abolishment of
11 any school so desegregated; or to force on account of race,
12 creed, or color the transfer of students to or from a particular
13 school so desegregated as a condition precedent to obtaining
14 Federal funds otherwise available to any State, school district
15 or school.
16
(b) No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for
17 the transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase
18 of equipment for such transportation) in order to overcome
19 racial imbalance in any school or school system, or for the
20 transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase of
21 equipment for such transportation) in order to carry out a
22 plan of racial desegregation of any school or school system.
23
SEC. 306. None of the funds contained in this Act shall
24 be used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of
25 any student to a school other than the school which is nearest
J. 98-65°-0
DU
1 the student's home, except for a student requiring special
2 education, to the school offering such special education, in
3 order to comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
4 For the purpose of this section an indirect requirement of
5 transportation of students includes the transportation of stu-
6 dents to carry out a plan involving the reorganization of the
7 grade structure of schools, the pairing of schools, or the clus-
8 tering of schools, or any combination of grade restructuring,
9 pairing or clustering. The prohibition described in this section
10 does not include the establishment of magnet schools.
11
SEC. 307.
No funds appropriated under this Act may be
12 used to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary
13 prayer and meditation in the public schools.
14
This title may be cited as the "Department of Educa-
15 tion Appropriation Act, 1983".
16
TITLE IV-RELATED AGENCIES
17
ACTION
18
OPERATING EXPENSES
19
For expenses necessary for Action to carry out the pro-
20 visions of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973,
21 $129,073,000, of which $11,831,000 shall be available to
22 carry out title I, part A of said Act and not more than thirty-
23 five per centum of such sum shall be obligated in any single
24 calendar quarter of the fiscal year.
J. 98-657-0
MEMORANDUM
File
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 30, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
STEPHEN H. GALEBACH
SUBJECT: Long-Range Strategic Planning Concerning the Family
This is a very preliminary outline of ways in which federal
policy could be shifted to become more pro-family, or at least
less anti-family in various areas. We are continuing to explore
these ideas and discuss them with various outside groups that
have an interest in the subject matter; we expect to have a
detailed analysis and presentation of various options available
by the time of the elections.
I.
Defining the Objective
As a preliminary to discussion of various family "issues,"
we have attempted to define the primary objective of our family
policy: To preserve the integrity of the family and to affirm
the role of the family as the basic organic unit of society --
o The preferred institution for the nurture of children,
including the inculcation of civic virtues.
The proper and most efficient provider of care for those
who lack total independence for reasons such as age or
incapacity.
The principal educator of children, both in directly
educating them and in selecting and supervising
educational instrumentalities for them.
D
The basic economic unit -- within which decisions are
made about division of labor, allocation of resources,
saving, investment, consumption.
II. Specific Proposals
A. Tax Policy.
o
Review tax code to ensure that all inequities toward
married women have been eliminated: e.g., marriage
tax penalty (recently eliminated by us), inheritance
taxes with differential treatment toward surviving
wife and surviving husband, inequities in social
security benefits.
Review existing tax deductions under the Code to see
if any should be eliminated in favor of increasing
the personal and dependent exemptions.
Design tax credits and deductions to be neutral
toward wives who choose to work in marketplace and
wives who choose to raise family as full-time job:
e.g., increase dependent deduction rather than
increasing daycare credit, thus giving equal benefit
to mothers who choose either option.
B. Family Care of Aged and Handicapped.
Katie
Discontinue those aspects of federal policy that
Becket
encourage families to place handicapped children in
institutions, which are far more costly than home
care.
Shift flow of federal funds for the handicapped away
from large institutions and toward small-scale
family-based and community-based care systems.
Target developmental disability program (designed
for severely handicapped children) toward assistance
to families that have such children.
Give approval and emphasis to those handicapped
programs that favor family involvement and prepare
handicapped individuals for participation in work
force.
C. Upholding Parental Authority.
Frame laws and regulations to respect parental
authority over the prescription and use of drugs,
devices, and operations on under-age children,
including birth control and abortion.
Ensure that legal briefs prepared by Department of
Justice recognize the role of family as an important
institution having a legitimate authority over basic
decisions within the family: e.g., discipline,
nurture of children, religious training.
D. Assisting Those Who Lack Family-Based Care Outside
Family-Based Support Systems.
Review federal regulations concerning adoption to
minimize red tape and administrative burdens, and,
where appropriate, to encourage adoption.
Promote and publicize the Adolescent Family Life
program, recently funded by Congress to support care
facilities for unwed mothers.
E. Education.
o
Support tuition tax credits as a way to leave
resources within the family sufficient for effective
choice of proper education for children.
F. Federal Impact on State Family-Related Programs.
Make clear that federal pension funds are community
property which may be divided by state divorce
courts equitably between husband and wife.
Determine whether the federal government could
better assist in the enforcement of child support
payments.
G. Keeping Families Intact.
Reform welfare programs to stop encouragements for
break-up of families.
Use some family planning funds to research what
factors contribute to intact and stable families.
H. Family Planning.
Assess performance of Adolescent Family Life program
and direct family planning funds where they deal
with problems of unwed pregnancy in most effective
and most humane way.
MEMOKANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 30, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
WILLIAM P. BARR
SUBJECT: Update on Bankruptcy
Ed Schmults and Jon Rose have been negotiating with Senators
Dole, Thurmond, and East Wednesday night and Thursday.
Late Thursday a package was put together and agreed to which
includes the Article III court that we want, several general
court reform measures, and several substantive changes to the
bankruptcy law that are important to Senator Dole and the
commercial credit sector.
The chances are exceedingly remote that we will be able to
get this to the floor on Friday. Senator Baker has announced
that he will not take up anything unless there is a unanimous
consent agreement. As of 6:30 Thursday evening, it appeared that
Senator Metzenbaum would refuse to consent because he objects to
some of the substantive changes being sought by Senator Dole.
Justice is planning to go in to ask for an extension of the stay
either late Friday or over the weekend.
MINUTES
CABINET COUNCIL ON LEGAL POLICY
September 30, 1982
2:00 p.m., Cabinet Room
Attendees: See attached list.
1. Organized Crime and Narcotics (CM #302)
The Attorney General briefed the President and the Council on
the links between organized crime and drug trafficking. He out-
lined the Administration's progress to date in combatting the
crime problem, including the establishment of an Attorney
General's Task Force on Violent Crime; the reorganization of the
D.E.A. and its consolidation with the F.B.I.; the creation of Law
Enforcement Coordinating Committees within most federal districts;
the success of the South Florida drug-interdiction operation; the
passage of needed legislation, such as changes in the Posse
Comitatus Act and the Tax Reform Act; increased activities in
dealing with food stamp fraud and the arrest of fugitives; and
improvements in law enforcement training.
He then proposed a new program for combatting organized crime
and narcotics:
(1) Establish multi-agency Task Forces, modeled after the
South Florida operation, in 10 regions of the country.
(2) Increase efforts to pass numerous crime-related proposals
now pending on the Hill.
(3) Announce (a) a White House Conference and/or (b) a
Presidential Commission on Organized Crime.
(4) Coordinate federal training of state and local officials
with federal efforts against organized crime and
narcotics.
(5) Use the Cabinet Council on Legal Policy and its working
groups as forums for discussion and coordination of
policy in this area.
(6) Establish program to energize all governors and other
state officials on behalf of a similar undertaking within
their own jurisdictions.
(7) Publish an annual report to the President and Congress on
progress in this area.
The Attorney General estimated that the cost of this new
program would be approximately $200 million over the next fiscal
year, exclusive of military operational costs.
The proposal received general support, although concern was
expressed that the budget review process should be employed
before any final decision was reached on details.
It was agreed that an early meeting of the Budget Review
Board would be convened to consider the proposal, after which the
Council would meet again.
2. Legal Equity for Women (CM #185)
The Attorney General presented his first quarterly report,
pursuant to Executive Order 12336, on federal laws, regulations,
and policies which may discriminate on account of sex. After a
brief discussion, it was agreed that further questions or
comments could be raised at a future meeting.
CABINET COUNCIL ON LEGAL POLICY
September 30, 1982
PARTICIPANTS
The President
The Attorney General
Secretary Weinberger
Secretary Watt
Secretary Block
Secretary Donovan
Secretary Schweiker
Secretary Pierce
Secretary Edwards
Edwin Meese III
Edwin Harper, Assistant to the President for Policy Development
Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President
Loren Smith, Chairman, Administrative Conference of the U.S.
Deputy Secretary Dam
(Representing Secretary Shultz)
Deputy Secretary McNamar
(Representing Secretary Regan)
Deputy Secretary Trent
(Representing Secretary Lewis)
Deputy Director Wright
(Representing Director Stockman)
Chairman Feldstein
Richard Darman, Assistant to the President and Deputy to the
Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Dole, Assistant to the President for Public Liaison
Craig Fuller, Assistant to the President for Cabinet Affairs
Michael Uhlmann, Executive Secretary
Becky Norton Dunlop, Director, Office of Cabinet Affairs
For Presentation:
Rudolph Giuliani, Associate Attorney General
Jonathan Rose, Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy
William Webster, Director, FBI
Additional Attendees:
William Barr
Jim Cicconi
Kenneth Cribb
Tony Dolan
Carlton Turner
Sherman Unger, General Counsel, Department of Commerce
(Representing Secretary Baldrige)
John Walker, Department of Treasury
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL N. COHLMANN
SUBJECT: New Crime Package -- Draft Ed Meese Letter to
Christian Science Monitor
As you requested, attached is a draft response for Ed Meese's
signature to the Christian Science Monitor editorial -- "The
Wrong Crime Bill.'
The piece could be either a letter to the editor or an op-ed
piece. We would recommend an op-ed if possible.
Editor
Christian Science Monitor
The Christian Science Publishing Society
One Norway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
To the Editor:
Last month the President proposed legislation to strengthen
the criminal justice system in three critical areas. The bill
will (1) define and limit the insanity defense; (2) reform the
exclusionary rule so that evidence seized by police acting in
good faith will not be suppressed; and (3) set rules for federal
review of state criminal proceedings to reduce delay and
duplication, and to seek greater finality in the criminal justice
process.
Your September 17 editorial attacking the President's bill
was seriously misleading.
The editorial stated that the bill would "basically abolish
the insanity defense." In fact, the bill would treat the
insanity issue as part of the determination of whether the
defendant had the requisite state of mind for the offense. Under
this approach, insanity would be a defense if, for example, the
defendant were so deluded that he did not know he had a gun in
his hand or did not know he was shooting at a human being. But
if the defendant knew he was shooting at a human being for the
purpose of killing or harming, he could still be found guilty,
even if he were acting out of an irrational belief. A defen-
dant's mental disorder would remain relevant in mitigation of
punishment and in determining whether a defendant would be
treated punitively or therapeutically after conviction.
The Administration's bill would largely eliminate the
unseemly spectacles fostered by the current insanity defense,
including the degradation of criminal trials into swearing
matches between teams of opposing psychiatrists, and favoritism
toward well-heeled defendants who can afford an impressive array
of expert witnesses. Our approach has been endorsed by numerous
legal scholars, bar associations and psychiatrists.
The editorial also criticizes the Administration's proposal
to reform the exclusionary rule. The editorial's attack on this
aspect of the bill is ill-informed and unfounded.
The exclusionary rule is a judge-made rule that bars the use
of evidence against a defendant in a criminal trial if the
evidence was obtained by the police in an improper manner. The
courts have sought to justify this rule as a deterrent to police
misconduct; however, an increasing number of judges and scholars
are challenging it. They point out that the rule does nothing to
punish the policeman who has acted improperly; that it punishes
innocent citizens who are victimized by the criminals who are set
free; and that the real beneficiaries of the rule are guilty
criminals who are set free no matter how heinous their crime.
If the deterrent argument has any validity at all, it is only
in cases in which the police have consciously misbehaved. The
rule has no deterrent effect where a police officer honestly and
-2-
reasonably believes that his search is proper. Despite this, the
rule has, over the years, been expanded beyond its purpose, and
has been applied to suppress evidence seized by police who
reasonably believed they were acting properly and whose errors
were technical in nature. Clearly, the interests of justice are
not served by freeing a known criminal because a police officer
makes an innocent mistake in interpreting the complex, frequently
ill-defined and ever-changing law governing searches and
seizures.
The Administration's bill would restore the exclusionary rule
to its proper role by restricting its application to those cases
where it would in fact act as a deterrent. Under the proposal,
the rule would not be invoked where the police have obtained
evidence in the reasonable, good faith belief that their acts
were lawful. A number of federal courts have already adopted
this position, and the Administration bill would make it uniform
throughout the federal system.
The editorial also criticizes the Administration's proposed
reforms of habeas corpus procedures, claiming that our bill would
"take away the process by which a defendant can seek to have a
conviction overturned," a process which "protects those persons
who may in fact be truly innocent
...
or who may have been
given excessively harsh sentences." These claims are totally
false.
-3-
The writ of habeas corpus is a means whereby the constitu-
tional propriety of state criminal proceedings can be reviewed in
federal court, over and above the many layers of review provided
in state courts and direct review of state judgments in the
Supreme Court. Traditionally, the writ was understood to be an
extraordinary remedy. In recent years, however, this once
extraordinary remedy has been converted into a routine means for
seeking continual review of state convictions, often on frivolous
grounds. So used, it distorts the proper relationship between
federal and state government, undermines the need for finality of
judgment in criminal proceedings, and introduces needless
duplication of effort.
The Administration remains firmly committed to protecting
rights secured by the Constitution, including those of criminal
defendants in state criminal proceedings. It believes, however,
that the interests of justice are not served by allowing, as the
present system does, endless opportunities to second-guess state
court judges and juries.
The Administration bill is designed to limit unjustified
federal review of state convictions by (1) barring review of a
claim not properly raised in state proceedings, unless the state
failed to provide an opportunity to raise the claim consistent
with federal law; (2) establishing a one-year limit to apply for
the writ following exhaustion of state remedies; and (3) requir-
ing deference to state court determinations of factual and legal
issues which have been fully and fairly adjudicated in state
-4-
proceedings. Reforms of this kind are supported by a majority of
the Justices of the Supreme Court, many other eminent federal
judges, leading scholars concerned with federal court juris-
diction, and by virtually all state judges and attorneys general.
The bill discussed above is not this Administration's first
anti-crime proposal. Also pending on the Hill is the Violent
Crime and Drug Enforcement Act in which we have proposed numerous
reforms, including bail reform measures that would make it more
difficult for dangerous defendants to be released prior to trial
or during appeals, and reforms of the sentencing system that
would abolish parole and require judges to operate within
guidelines that will assure a greater likelihood of punishment.
The Administration's anti-crime proposals are the products of
extensive study and consultation. They are all important and
integral parts of our war against crime. They deserve the
support of the American people.
-5-
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: National Council on Educational Research
The National Council on Educational Research is in effect
the board of directors of the National Institute of Education.
Unlike typical advisory bodies, the Council has important
substantive policymaking responsibilities.
Although the Council has fifteen slots, none of them is
currently filled. President Reagan nominated twelve persons for
the Council during spring 1982. Senator Kennedy has held up
every one of the nominations, and we have heard that he is
threatening to hold them up indefinitely.
It would be absurd to allow Senator Kennedy to frustrate us
forever on this matter.
We should consider recess appointments for the entire
Council, so they can start their work.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: EEOC Enforcement
(Ref. 097774)
By way of a one-pager, attached is a short paper done by
Clarence Thomas in anticipation of the Post article.
As a follow-on, I have asked Clarence to provide a compre-
hensive analysis by the middle of next week. (A copy of my memo
to Clarence is attached).
THE
DEPARTMENT
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20506
#
FY81 6.137
SEP 27 1982
8m/82 692
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
$ litigation =
Ms. Nancy Hodapp, Staff Assistant
collected
Office of Cabinet Affairs
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. Hodapp:
Reference is made to the President's remarks at the National Black
Republic Council Dinner in which the following statements were made:
"The record of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, EEOC, is equally impressive. Under the
first full year of this administration, the Commission
25%
dramatically increased its activity over the previous
year. The number of charges of discrimination processed
by the Commission increased by 25 percent. The number of
persons assisted through negotiated remedies increased by
15 percent. And total back pay and other compensation
provided in negotiated remedies increased by 60 percent.
Similarly, the number of suits filed by the Commission
increased by 13 percent. And the number of suits settled
by voluntary agreement increased by 25 percent.
It appears that the information contained in his speech was taken from the
EEOC Enforcement Litigation Activity/Monetary Benefits 12 Month Comparison
Report for FY 1980 and 1981, the EEOC Compliance Production Comparison
Report for FY 1980 and 1981, and possibly the attached News Release dated
December 16, 1981. The basic problem with the statement can be summarized
simply by saying that our Fiscal Year reports were translated into the
phrase which erroneously indicated that it covered the first full year of
"this administration". As you know, the Fiscal Year dates from October to
October and therefore the data was not compiled on a calendar year basis.
Thus, the information contained four months of productivity and results which
took place prior to President Reagan taking office.
Attached please see the reports to which I refer noted by paper clips in the
appropriate areas.
Sincerely, Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1982
FOR:
CLARENCE THOMAS
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UILMANN
SUBJECT: Administration's EEOC Enforcement Record
We appreciate your quick response to the Post articles
challenging the President's statements on our EEOC enforcement
record.
As a follow-on to our luncheon meeting the other day, Ed
Harper has requested the following:
1. A comprehensive and detailed analysis of this
Administration's EEOC enforcement record (both race and sex).
2. A quantitative and qualitative comparison of our record
with the Carter Administration's.
3. Your analysis of the best case that we can make for our
record.
4. Your assessment of our vulnerabilities.
We need this by this middle of next week.
DOCUMENT NO. 097774
PD
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
9/30/82
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
10/7/82
SUBJECT:
Reagan Contradicted on Civil Rights Enforcement
ACTION FYI
ACTION
FYI
HARPER
DRUG POLICY
PORTER
TURNER
BARR
D. LEONARD
BOGGS
OFFICE OF POLICY INFORMATION
BRADLEY
HOPKINS
CARLESON
COBB
DENEND
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
FAIRBANKS
OTHER
FERRARA
GALEBACH
GARFINKEL
GUNN
B. LEONARD
LI
MONTOYA
SMITH
UHLMANN
ADMINISTRATION
REMARKS:
Are you on top of this? I'd like a one pager on this
general topic of EEOC's pursuing cases.
Edwin L. Harper
Please return this tracking
Assistant to the President
sheet with your response
for Policy Development
(x6515)
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1982
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: National Council on Educational Research
The National Council on Educational Research is in effect
the board of directors of the National Institute of Education.
Unlike typical advisory bodies, the Council has important
substantive policymaking responsibilities.
Although the Council has fifteen slots, none of them is
currently filled. President Reagan nominated twelve persons for
the Council during spring 1982. Senator Kennedy has held up
every one of the nominations, and we have heard that he is
threatening to hold them up indefinitely.
It would be absurd to allow Senator Kennedy to frustrate us
forever on this matter.
We should consider recess appointments for the entire
Council, so they can start their work.