Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- From: Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO])
- Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 2:12 PM
- To: Timothy E. Flanigan ( CN=Timothy E. Flanigan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
- Cc: noel j. francisco ( CN=noel j. francisco/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO]); alberto r. gonzales (
- CN=alberto r. gonzales/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO]); brett m. kavanaugh ( CN=brett m.
- kavanaugh/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO])
- Subject: : Re: Adarand
- ###### Begin Original ARMS Header###### RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) CREATOR:Brett M. Kavanaugh (
- CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO]) CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-AUG-200114:12:06.00
- SUBJECT:: Re: Adarand
- TO:Timothy E. Flanigan ( CN=Timothy E. Flanigan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN CC:noel j. francisco (
- CN=noel j. francisco/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN CC:alberto r. gonzales ( CN=alberto r.
- gonzales/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN CC:brett m. kavanaugh ( CN=brett m.
- kavanaugh/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN
- ###### End Original ARMS Header ######
- I agree with point 2.
- As to point 1, that would introduce a concept that, at least to my knowledge, has not previously appeared in the
- Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence, which means it would require an elaboration and justification in the brief.
- As to merits of a deliberate indifference standard, four questions. First, would it mean that a victim of private
- discrimination could sue the government on some theory that the government was merely deliberately indifferent to (rather
- than the cause of) the private discrimination? If so, that might suggest an extraordinary expansion of governmental
- responsibility and liability for private racial discrimination. Second, how would one prove that the federal government was
- deliberately indifferent to private discrimination apart from simply proving widespread private discrimination in the relevant
- jurisdiction and
- field, which presumably is the requirement under current law anyway?
- Third, and looking at it from the flip side, what precisely would this new requirement add in terms of limiting the government's
- use of race-based classifications? What exactly would be allowed under current law but be prohibited with the deliberate
- indifference standard? Fourth, the argument itself as outlined in the e-mail does not really hang together to the extent it
- presupposes that these regulations do not use race-based remedies. The brief assumes that these regulations are in fact race-
- based (although I do not believe the brief should assume as much).
- The fundamental problem in this case is that these DOT regulations use a lot of legalisms and disguises to mask what in
- reality is a naked racial set-aside. I have no doubt that Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy will realize as much in short
- order and rule accordingly -- unless the Court DIGs the case. I assume O'Connor will so rule as well, although
- that is less certain.
- Timothy E. Flanigan
- 08/08/200112:49:12 PM
- Record Type: Record
- REV 00289596
- To: Noel J. Francisco/WHO/EOP@EOP
- cc: alberto r. gonzales/who/eop@eop, brett m. kavanaugh/who/eop@eop
- bee:
- Subject: Re: Adarand
- I agree with Noel's suggestions.
- Noel J. Francisco
- 08/08/200111:59:28 AM
- Record Type: Record
- To: Alberto R. Gonzales/WHO/EOP@EOP, Timothy E.
- Flanigan/WHO/EOP@EOP, Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
- cc:
- Subject:Adarand
- I have read the brief and have two initial reactions. First, in the "compelling interest" section, we should incorporate the
- deliberate indifference standard. That is, argue that the widespread nature of the disparities gives rise to a presumption that
- the Government, in the course of funding highway construction, was aware of the discrimination and deliberately indifferent to
- it. This may not be sufficient in and of itself to justify race-conscious remedies. It is, however, sufficient to justify the narrowly
- tailored regulations implementing this program.
- Second, in the narrow tailoring section, I would simply move the last 8 parpagraphs of the brief -- which address the certification
- requirement that limits the race preference only to DB E's that have actually suffered discrimination -- into a separate argument
- that would be the first argument under narrow tailoring. Since we're making this argument anyhow, I don't see how the SH
- could object to a imple reordering of it. This, moreover, would focus the Court on the aspect of the program that makes it most
- likely to survive strict scrutiny.
- REV 00289597
- From: Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO])
- Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:58 AM
- To: Helgard C. Walker ( CN=Helgard C. Walker/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
- Subject: : Re: Racial Profiling
- ###### Begin Original ARMS Header###### RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) CREATOR:Brett M. Kavanaugh (
- CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO]) CREATION DATE/TIME:17-JAN-2002 10:57:53.00
- SUBJECT:: Re: Racial Profiling
- TO:Helgard C. Walker ( CN=Helgard C. Walker/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN
- ###### End Original ARMS Header ######
- The people who favor some use of race/natl origin obviously do not need to grapple with the "interim" question. But
- the people (such as you and I) who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral in fact DO need to grapple --
- and grapple now -- with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is
- developed and implemented.
- Helgard C. Walker
- 01/17/2002 10:47:08 AM
- Record Type: Record
- To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
- cc:
- bee:
- Subject: Re: Racial Profiling
- I do, b/c that is what Noel was purporting to represent. His opening words were something to the effect of, "Well I think Joel's
- point was ...
- You are right that we will have to grapple with the interim issue eventually, if we decide that our general policy will somehow be
- one that relies on more information and a system that take time to set up. But until we decide the general policy we can't get to
- the q of interim, which I admit is hard. I am not sure what the answer is to that.
- Brett M. Kavanaugh
- 01/17/2002 10:37:29 AM
- Record Type: Record
- To: Helgard C. Walker/WHO/EOP@EOP
- cc:
- bee:
- Subject: Re: Racial Profiling
- REV 00328552
- Understood. I do not really care what Joel was or was not advocating or discussing. At staff meeting, I was curious
- about your position on the interim issue and explaining that the interim security needs almost by definition have to be one focus
- of you and the working group. That does not mean there are easy answers to that interim issue.
- But that issue certainly cannot -- or at least should not -- be
- avoided.
- Helgard C. Walker
- 01/17/2002 10:27:29 AM
- Record Type: Record
- To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
- cc:
- bee:
- Subject: Re: Racial Profiling
- And my only point is that there is no agreement in the working group on the general policy. And when Joel was in here
- yesterday and we were debating the issue, he was not, as Noel suggested, arguing only about the interim. He was asking about
- the use of race in the bigger picture.
- Brett M. Kavanaugh
- 01/17/2002 10:22:25 AM
- Record Type: Record
- To: Helgard C. Walker/WHO/EOP@EOP
- cc:
- bee:
- Subject: Re: Racial Profiling
- I still did not think anyone ever said the interim issue was the "only question" as your e-mail says ... My only point was
- that your long-term approach, with which I agree entirely, still leaves the interim question, which actually is of critical
- importance to the security of the airlines and American people in the next 6 months or so, especially given Al Qaeda's track
- record of timing between terrorist incidents.
- Helgard C. Walker
- 01/17/2002 10:12:14 AM
- Record Type: Record
- To: Alberto R. Gonzales/WHO/EOP@EOP, Timothy E.
- Flanigan/WHO/EOP@EOP
- cc: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
- Subject:Racial Profiling
- In light of our discussion at staff meeting this morning, I wanted to confirm for everybody -- especially the Judge --the
- issues up for decision in the internal administration working group.
- REV 00328553
- To be clear, it is not the case that there is widespread agreement in the group that we should be working toward a race-
- neutral (or as race-neutral as possible) system for airport security and other law enforcement, such that the only question
- presented is how to handle security between now and the time that such a system is put in place -- i.e., the "what-to-do-in-the-
- interim" question.
- Rather, the question is whether we should work toward a race-neutral system at all or whether we should instead
- permit the use of race as a factor in certain circumstances. My own view is that, as required by traditional Equal Protection
- standards, we must at least consider how to construct a race-neutral system. I can imagine such a system that could be
- effective, perhaps even more effective than one based on racial classifications. For instance, you could break air passengers
- down into groups of those with/without U.S. passports, those with/without recent international travel, those with/without
- criminal history, et cetera, and subject persons in higher risk categories to higher levels of scrutiny. This sort of system would
- require airlines and/or governmental authorities to obtain more personal information from the flying public, and there is some
- resistance to that within the group on the grounds that that would too burdensome, invasive of privacy, and so forth.
- Another school of thought is that if the use of race renders security measures more effective, than perhaps we should be
- using it in the interest of safety, now and in the long term, and that such action may be legal under cases such as Korematsu.
- The point being that the foregoing -- the general policy, not the
- interim policy -- is what we are currently debating in the group. Of
- course, if it were decided that our general policy should be to try and devise a race-neutral system, we would be at the juncture
- of deciding upon interim measures. And that is, admittedly, not an easy question. But we are not there yet.
- HCW
- Message Copied
- To: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
- Courtney S. Elwood/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Bradford A. Berenson/WHO/EOP@EOP
- H. Christopher Bartolomucci/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Robert W. Cobb/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Noel J. Francisco/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Rachel L. Brand/WHO/EOP@EOP
- REV 00328554
- From: CN=Bradford A. Berenson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ]
- To: Courtney S. Elwood/WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ] <Courtney S. Elwood>
- CC: brett m. kavanaugh/who/eop@eop [WHO] <brett m. kavanaugh>;alberto r. gonzales/who
- /eop@eop [ WHO ] <alberto r. gonzales>;timothy e. flanigan/who/eop@eop [ WHO ] <timothy e.
- flanigan>;bradford a. berenson/who/eop@eop [WHO] <bradford a. berenson>;helgard c.
- walker/who/eop@eop [ WHO ] <helgard c. walker>;stuart w. bowen/who/eop@eop [ WHO ]
- <stuart w. bowen>;h. christopher bartolomucci/who/eop@eop [ WHO ] <h. christopher
- bartolomucci>;rachel I. brand/who/eop@eop [WHO] <rachel I. brand>;noel j. francisco/who
- /eop@eop [WHO] <noel j. francisco>;robert w. cobb/who/eop@eop [WHO] <robert w. cobb>
- Sent: 3/27/2001 3:15:40 AM
- Subject: : Re: Adarand -- other considerations
- ###### Begin Original ARMS Header######
- RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
- CREATOR:Bradford A. Berenson ( CN=Bradford A. Berenson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO] )
- CREATION DATE/TIME:27-MAR-2001 08:15:40.00
- SUBJECT:: Re: Adarand -- other considerations
- TO:Courtney S. Elwood CN=Courtney S. Elwood/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
- READ:UNKNOWN
- CC:brett m. kavanaugh CN=brett m. kavanaugh/OU=who/O=eop@eop WHO
- READ:UNKNOWN
- CC:alberto r. gonzales CN=alberto r. gonzales/OU=who/O=eop@eop WHO
- READ:UNKNOWN
- CC:timothy e. flanigan CN=timothy e. flanigan/OU=who/O=eop@eop WHO
- READ:UNKNOWN
- CC:bradford a. berenson ( CN=bradford a. berenson/OU=who/O=eop@eop WHO
- READ:UNKNOWN
- CC:helgard c. walker ( CN=helgard c. walker/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO
- READ:UNKNOWN
- CC:stuart w. bowen ( CN=stuart w. bowen/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO J )
- READ:UNKNOWN
- CC:h. christopher bartolomucci ( CN=h. christopher bartolomucci/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO J )
- READ:UNKNOWN
- CC:rachel 1. brand ( CN=rachel 1. brand/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO J )
- READ:UNKNOWN
- CC:noel j. francisco ( CN=noel j. francisco/OU=who/O=eop@eop WHO ] )
- READ:UNKNOWN
- CC:robert w. cobb ( CN=robert w. cobb/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO
- READ:UNKNOWN
- ###### End Original ARMS Header######
- Of course the Clinton administration gave us some cover on this by
- declining to defend the constitutionality of the statute at issue in
- Dickerson last Term -- to near-universal praise by the media.
- Courtney S. Elwood
- 03/27/2001 08:12:14 AM
- Record Type: Record
- To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
- cc: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
- bee:
- Subject: Re: Adarand -- other considerations
- Another consideration: Although Olsen would likely find it troubling to
- do so, he and the AG, in deciding whether to defend the program, may take
- into consideration the "long-standing practice" of the Department "to
- defend [a] statute against [constitutional] challenge unless there is no
- reasonable argument that could be made in defense. See, e.g. The Attorney
- REV 00125571
- General's Duty To Defend the Constitutionality of Statutes, 43 Op. Atty.
- Gen. 325 (1981) (Opinion of Attorney General Smith); The Attorney
- General's DutyTo Defend and Enforce Constitutionally Objectionable
- Legislation, 43 Op. Atty. Gen. 275 (1980) ." Letter from Dick Thornburgh
- to Senator Strom Thurmond, dated Oct. 7, 1999 (appended to the Brief of
- Amici Curiae former Attorneys General of the United States William P. Barr
- and Edwin Meese III Supporting Affirmance in Dickerson v. United States,
- No. 99-5525.
- While in Adarand, the constitutionality challenged law is a regulatory
- program and not a statute, the practice may nonetheless have some
- application. I don't know. In any event, if the decision is made not to
- defend the constitutionality of the program, I suspect we will hear the
- words of these Republican attorneys general repeated back to us in the
- press and in briefs before the Supreme Court.
- Brett M. Kavanaugh
- 03/26/2001 08:58:32 PM
- Record Type: Record
- To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
- cc:
- Subject: Adarand -- other considerations
- A few more preliminary thoughts, although they are phrased
- somewhat more definitively. But these are really just initial ideas.
- 1. My sense, for what it is worth, is that it would be better for
- the SG to independently assess and come to a constitutional conclusion
- about the program -- and only then advise the President of it -- than for
- the White House to dictate -- or even hint -- to the SG what the SG's
- position should be. Indeed, in my view, the White House should not be
- involved in the SG's formulation of a position in the first instance, but
- rather only in approving or disapproving what the SG proposes.
- This is admittedly not my ideal of how a unitary executive should
- work, but it is the real world, and there is a very strong tradition in
- the Executive Branch -- and in the Congress and media -- that the SG is
- independent and should come to his or her own independent conclusions
- about the constitutionality of laws. It is also why SG is such a
- critically important position. That is not to say that the SG's office
- cannot be overruled by the President/White House; it can be and has been
- in the past and will be in the future. It is to say, however, that there
- is a serious long-term political cost to the perception or reality that
- the SG's positions and recommendations are being driven in the first
- instance by the White House. Lincoln Caplan's book The Tenth Justice is a
- fine example of the kinds of criticism that can occur.
- Apart from that public relations/political consideration, as a
- matter of standard process, moreover, the SG is in the best position to
- assess a case like this in the first instance and propose a course of
- action.
- I thus would recommend that, if asked and forced to answer, the
- President and Ari might say something like the following about the
- President's position:
- In the Executive Branch, it is the role of the Solicitor General,
- acting under the Attorney General and ultimately the President, to
- represent the United States in the Supreme Court. In cases involving the
- United States, therefore, it is properly the role of the Solicitor General
- and the Department of Justice to examine and study the facts and the law
- in the first instance and to make appropriate decisions and
- REV 00125572
- recommendations. Of course, the President is the head of the Executive
- Branch and in particularly important Supreme Court cases previous
- Presidents have approved -- and, on occasion, disapproved -- the
- Department of Justice's recommended course of action. In any particularly
- important case like that, however, this President would await the
- Department of Justice's recommendation before making any decision.
- I also would recommend that the Judge communicate to the Attorney
- General that the President will await the recommendation of the Attorney
- General and Solicitor General as to the constitutionality of this program
- and the proper course of action in the Supreme Court. I would propose
- that there be no other communications between the White House and
- Department about this case.
- 2. This case makes Ted Olson's hearing more likely to gain
- attention and draw fire given what he has written and who he has
- represented in race cases.
- 3. An approach referenced but not elaborated in my earlier e-mail
- is for the SG to file a brief saying that the program is unconstitutional,
- thus refusing to defend the constitutionality of the program and forcing
- the Supreme Court to appoint counsel to defend the program. That is, in
- fact, my personal opinion about what the SG ought to do, but that is only
- my personal opinion. Again, however, if this is the SG's ultimate
- position, this is much better coming from the SG than being dictated or
- hinted in any way to the SG.
- Message Sent
- To:
- Alberto R. Gonzales/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Timothy E. Flanigan/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Bradford A. Berenson/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Helgard C. Walker/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Courtney S. Elwood/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Stuart W. Bowen/WHO/EOP@EOP
- H. Christopher Bartolomucci/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Rachel L. Brand/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Noel J. Francisco/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Robert W. Cobb/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Message Copied
- To:
- alberto r. gonzales/who/eop@eop
- timothy e. flanigan/who/eop@eop
- bradford a. berenson/who/eop@eop
- helgard c. walker/who/eop@eop
- stuart w. bowen/who/eop@eop
- h. christopher bartolomucci/who/eop@eop
- rachel 1. brand/who/eop@eop
- noel j. francisco/who/eop@eop
- robert w. cobb/who/eop@eop
- REV 00125573
- From: Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO]) [mailto:Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett
- M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO] )]
- Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:40 AM
- To: Noel J. Francisco ( CN=Noel J. Francisco/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
- Subject: : Re: LRM JAB205 0MB Request for Views on S Native American Small Business
- ###### Begin Original ARMS Header###### RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) CREATOR:Brett M. Kavanaugh (
- CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO]) CREATION DATE/TIME:24-APR-2002 09:39:34.00
- SUBJECT:: Re: LRM JAB205 0MB Request for Views on S Native American Small Business TO:Noel J. Francisco (
- CN=Noel J. Francisco/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN
- ###### End Original ARMS Header ######
- FYI
- ---------------------- Forwarded by Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP on
- 04/24/2002 09:39 AM ---------------------------
- Brett M. Kavanaugh
- 04/23/2002 09:04:57 PM
- Record Type: Record
- To: Patrick J. Bumatay/WHO/EOP@EOP, James A. Brown/OMB/EOP@EOP
- cc:
- bee: Records Management@EOP
- Subject: Re: LRM JAB205 0MB Request for Views on S____ Native
- American Small Business
- White House Counsel objects and raises questions about the
- constitutionality of this bill, including but not limited to the portions
- that refer to Native Hawaiians. See Rice v. Cayetano. We believe that an
- "Office of Native American Affairs" within SBA triggers both policy and
- constitutional concerns. If the Office will deal solely with tribes,
- members of tribes, and tribal activities, it is appropriate. But if it
- grants benefits to Native Americans because of their race/ethnicity alone,
- that raises serious problems under Rice and the Constitution, which
- generally requires that all Americans be treated as equal (absent a
- program narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest). The
- desire to remedy societal discrimination is not a compelling interest,
- however. See Croson.
- OLC needs to review this.
- Patrick J. Bumatay
- 04/23/2002 11:37:40 AM
- Record Type: Record
- To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
- cc:
- Subject:LRM JAB205 0MB Request for Views on S____ Native
- American Small Business
- ---------------------- Forwarded by Patrick J. Bumatay/WHO/EOP on 04/23/2002 11:37 AM ---------------------------
- REV 00339902
- James A. Brown
- 04/23/2002 10:57:14 AM
- Record Type: Record
- To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
- cc:
- Subject:LRM JAB205 0MB Request for Views on S____ Native
- American Small Business
- LRM ID: JAB205
- EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
- OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
- Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
- Tuesday, April 23, 2002
- LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
- TO: Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution
- below
- FROM: Richard E. Green (for) Assistant Director for
- Legislative Reference
- 0MB CONTACT:James A. Brown
- PHONE: (202)395-3473 FAX: (202)395-3109
- SUBJECT: 0MB Request for Views on S____ Native American Small
- Business Development Program
- DEADLINE: 10:00 A.M. Friday, April 26, 2002
- In accordance with 0MB Circular A-19, 0MB requests the views of your
- agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship to the
- program of the President. Please advise us if this item will affect
- direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions
- ofTitle XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
- COMMENTS: The Small Business Administration is scheduled to testify on
- this legislation on April 30th.
- DISTRIBUTION LIST
- AGENCIES:
- 025-COMMERCE - Michael A. Levitt - (202) 482-3151
- 059-INTERIOR - Jane Lyder - (202) 208-4371
- 061-JUSTICE - Daniel Bryant - (202) 514-2141
- 107-Small Business Administration - Richard Spence - (202) 205-6700
- EOP:
- WHGC LRM
- NEC LRM
- Philip J. Perry
- Matthew J. Schneider
- OVPLRM
- David S. Addington
- K. Philippa Malmgren
- Aquiles F. Suarez
- Gary Ceccucci
- REV 00339903
- Ann Kendrall
- Christine Ciccone
- Christine C. McCarlie
- Lauren C. Lobrano
- Stephen S. McMillin
- Alan B. Rhinesmith
- James Boden
- Janis A. Coughlin
- Richard E. Green
- James J. Jukes
- Anna M. Briatico
- Dirksen Lehman
- Sarah S. Lee
- Pamula L. Simms
- David Rostker
- LRM ID: JAB205 SUBJECT: 0MB Request for Views on S____ Native
- American Small Business Development Program
- RESPONSE TO
- LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
- MEMORANDUM
- If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no
- comment), we prefer that you respond by e-mail or by faxing us this
- response sheet. If the response is short and you prefer to call, please
- call the branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a
- message with a legislative assistant.
- You may also respond by:
- (1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be
- connected to voice mail if the analyst does not answer); or
- (2) sending us a memo or letter
- Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.
- TO: James A. Brown Phone: 395-3473 Fax: 395-3109
- Office of Management and Budget
- Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant):
- 395-3454
- FROM: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Date)
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Name)
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Agency)
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Telephone)
- The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on
- the above-captioned subject:
- ___ Concur
- REV 00339904
- _ _ _ No Objection
- _ _ _ No Comment
- _ _ _ See proposed edits on pages _ _ __
- _ _ _ Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
- _ _ _ FAX RETURN of _ _ pages, attached to this response sheet
- Message Sent
- To:
- --------------------------
- cl a@ sb a.gov @ inet
- CLRM@doc.gov
- justice.lrm@usdoj.gov
- ocl@ios.doi.gov
- WHGC LRM
- NEC LRM
- Philip J. Perry/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Matthew J. Schneider/OMB/EOP@EOP
- OVPLRM
- David S. Addington/OVP/EOP@EOP
- K. Philippa Malmgren/OPD/EOP@EOP
- Aquiles F. Suarez/OPD/EOP@EOP
- Gary Ceccucci/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Ann Kendrall/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Christine Ciccone/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Christine C. McCarlie/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Lauren C. Lobrano/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Stephen S. McMillin/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Alan B. Rhinesmith/OMB/EOP@EOP
- James Boden/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Janis A. Coughlin/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Richard E. Green/OMB/EOP@EOP
- James J. Jukes/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Anna M. Briatico/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Dirksen Lehman/WHO/EOP@EOP
- Sarah S. Lee/OMB/EOP@EOP
- Pamula L. Simms/OMB/EOP@EOP
- David Rostker/OMB/EOP@EOP
- ATI CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
- File attachment <P VMSX6003 WHO.TXT 1>
- - - -
- REV 00339905
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement