Advertisement
Guest User

Untitled

a guest
Sep 6th, 2018
318
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 26.41 KB | None | 0 0
  1. From: Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO])
  2. Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 2:12 PM
  3. To: Timothy E. Flanigan ( CN=Timothy E. Flanigan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
  4. Cc: noel j. francisco ( CN=noel j. francisco/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO]); alberto r. gonzales (
  5. CN=alberto r. gonzales/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO]); brett m. kavanaugh ( CN=brett m.
  6. kavanaugh/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO])
  7. Subject: : Re: Adarand
  8.  
  9.  
  10.  
  11. ###### Begin Original ARMS Header###### RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) CREATOR:Brett M. Kavanaugh (
  12. CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO]) CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-AUG-200114:12:06.00
  13. SUBJECT:: Re: Adarand
  14. TO:Timothy E. Flanigan ( CN=Timothy E. Flanigan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN CC:noel j. francisco (
  15. CN=noel j. francisco/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN CC:alberto r. gonzales ( CN=alberto r.
  16. gonzales/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN CC:brett m. kavanaugh ( CN=brett m.
  17. kavanaugh/OU=who/O=eop@eop [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN
  18. ###### End Original ARMS Header ######
  19.  
  20. I agree with point 2.
  21.  
  22. As to point 1, that would introduce a concept that, at least to my knowledge, has not previously appeared in the
  23. Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence, which means it would require an elaboration and justification in the brief.
  24.  
  25. As to merits of a deliberate indifference standard, four questions. First, would it mean that a victim of private
  26. discrimination could sue the government on some theory that the government was merely deliberately indifferent to (rather
  27. than the cause of) the private discrimination? If so, that might suggest an extraordinary expansion of governmental
  28. responsibility and liability for private racial discrimination. Second, how would one prove that the federal government was
  29. deliberately indifferent to private discrimination apart from simply proving widespread private discrimination in the relevant
  30. jurisdiction and
  31. field, which presumably is the requirement under current law anyway?
  32. Third, and looking at it from the flip side, what precisely would this new requirement add in terms of limiting the government's
  33. use of race-based classifications? What exactly would be allowed under current law but be prohibited with the deliberate
  34. indifference standard? Fourth, the argument itself as outlined in the e-mail does not really hang together to the extent it
  35. presupposes that these regulations do not use race-based remedies. The brief assumes that these regulations are in fact race-
  36. based (although I do not believe the brief should assume as much).
  37.  
  38. The fundamental problem in this case is that these DOT regulations use a lot of legalisms and disguises to mask what in
  39. reality is a naked racial set-aside. I have no doubt that Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy will realize as much in short
  40. order and rule accordingly -- unless the Court DIGs the case. I assume O'Connor will so rule as well, although
  41. that is less certain.
  42.  
  43.  
  44.  
  45.  
  46. Timothy E. Flanigan
  47. 08/08/200112:49:12 PM
  48. Record Type: Record
  49.  
  50.  
  51.  
  52.  
  53. REV 00289596
  54. To: Noel J. Francisco/WHO/EOP@EOP
  55. cc: alberto r. gonzales/who/eop@eop, brett m. kavanaugh/who/eop@eop
  56. bee:
  57. Subject: Re: Adarand
  58.  
  59. I agree with Noel's suggestions.
  60.  
  61.  
  62.  
  63.  
  64. Noel J. Francisco
  65. 08/08/200111:59:28 AM
  66. Record Type: Record
  67.  
  68. To: Alberto R. Gonzales/WHO/EOP@EOP, Timothy E.
  69. Flanigan/WHO/EOP@EOP, Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
  70. cc:
  71. Subject:Adarand
  72.  
  73. I have read the brief and have two initial reactions. First, in the "compelling interest" section, we should incorporate the
  74. deliberate indifference standard. That is, argue that the widespread nature of the disparities gives rise to a presumption that
  75. the Government, in the course of funding highway construction, was aware of the discrimination and deliberately indifferent to
  76. it. This may not be sufficient in and of itself to justify race-conscious remedies. It is, however, sufficient to justify the narrowly
  77. tailored regulations implementing this program.
  78. Second, in the narrow tailoring section, I would simply move the last 8 parpagraphs of the brief -- which address the certification
  79. requirement that limits the race preference only to DB E's that have actually suffered discrimination -- into a separate argument
  80. that would be the first argument under narrow tailoring. Since we're making this argument anyhow, I don't see how the SH
  81. could object to a imple reordering of it. This, moreover, would focus the Court on the aspect of the program that makes it most
  82. likely to survive strict scrutiny.
  83.  
  84.  
  85.  
  86.  
  87. REV 00289597
  88. From: Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO])
  89. Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:58 AM
  90. To: Helgard C. Walker ( CN=Helgard C. Walker/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
  91. Subject: : Re: Racial Profiling
  92.  
  93.  
  94.  
  95. ###### Begin Original ARMS Header###### RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) CREATOR:Brett M. Kavanaugh (
  96. CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO]) CREATION DATE/TIME:17-JAN-2002 10:57:53.00
  97. SUBJECT:: Re: Racial Profiling
  98. TO:Helgard C. Walker ( CN=Helgard C. Walker/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN
  99. ###### End Original ARMS Header ######
  100.  
  101. The people who favor some use of race/natl origin obviously do not need to grapple with the "interim" question. But
  102. the people (such as you and I) who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral in fact DO need to grapple --
  103. and grapple now -- with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is
  104. developed and implemented.
  105.  
  106.  
  107.  
  108.  
  109. Helgard C. Walker
  110. 01/17/2002 10:47:08 AM
  111. Record Type: Record
  112.  
  113. To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
  114. cc:
  115. bee:
  116. Subject: Re: Racial Profiling
  117.  
  118. 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
  119. point was ...
  120.  
  121.  
  122.  
  123. You are right that we will have to grapple with the interim issue eventually, if we decide that our general policy will somehow be
  124. 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
  125. the q of interim, which I admit is hard. I am not sure what the answer is to that.
  126.  
  127.  
  128.  
  129.  
  130. Brett M. Kavanaugh
  131. 01/17/2002 10:37:29 AM
  132. Record Type: Record
  133.  
  134. To: Helgard C. Walker/WHO/EOP@EOP
  135. cc:
  136. bee:
  137. Subject: Re: Racial Profiling
  138.  
  139.  
  140.  
  141. REV 00328552
  142. Understood. I do not really care what Joel was or was not advocating or discussing. At staff meeting, I was curious
  143. about your position on the interim issue and explaining that the interim security needs almost by definition have to be one focus
  144. of you and the working group. That does not mean there are easy answers to that interim issue.
  145. But that issue certainly cannot -- or at least should not -- be
  146. avoided.
  147.  
  148.  
  149.  
  150.  
  151. Helgard C. Walker
  152. 01/17/2002 10:27:29 AM
  153. Record Type: Record
  154.  
  155. To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
  156. cc:
  157. bee:
  158. Subject: Re: Racial Profiling
  159.  
  160. And my only point is that there is no agreement in the working group on the general policy. And when Joel was in here
  161. yesterday and we were debating the issue, he was not, as Noel suggested, arguing only about the interim. He was asking about
  162. the use of race in the bigger picture.
  163.  
  164.  
  165.  
  166.  
  167. Brett M. Kavanaugh
  168. 01/17/2002 10:22:25 AM
  169. Record Type: Record
  170.  
  171. To: Helgard C. Walker/WHO/EOP@EOP
  172. cc:
  173. bee:
  174. Subject: Re: Racial Profiling
  175.  
  176. I still did not think anyone ever said the interim issue was the "only question" as your e-mail says ... My only point was
  177. that your long-term approach, with which I agree entirely, still leaves the interim question, which actually is of critical
  178. importance to the security of the airlines and American people in the next 6 months or so, especially given Al Qaeda's track
  179. record of timing between terrorist incidents.
  180.  
  181.  
  182.  
  183.  
  184. Helgard C. Walker
  185. 01/17/2002 10:12:14 AM
  186. Record Type: Record
  187.  
  188. To: Alberto R. Gonzales/WHO/EOP@EOP, Timothy E.
  189. Flanigan/WHO/EOP@EOP
  190. cc: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
  191. Subject:Racial Profiling
  192.  
  193. In light of our discussion at staff meeting this morning, I wanted to confirm for everybody -- especially the Judge --the
  194. issues up for decision in the internal administration working group.
  195.  
  196.  
  197.  
  198.  
  199. REV 00328553
  200. To be clear, it is not the case that there is widespread agreement in the group that we should be working toward a race-
  201. neutral (or as race-neutral as possible) system for airport security and other law enforcement, such that the only question
  202. 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-
  203. interim" question.
  204.  
  205. Rather, the question is whether we should work toward a race-neutral system at all or whether we should instead
  206. permit the use of race as a factor in certain circumstances. My own view is that, as required by traditional Equal Protection
  207. standards, we must at least consider how to construct a race-neutral system. I can imagine such a system that could be
  208. effective, perhaps even more effective than one based on racial classifications. For instance, you could break air passengers
  209. down into groups of those with/without U.S. passports, those with/without recent international travel, those with/without
  210. criminal history, et cetera, and subject persons in higher risk categories to higher levels of scrutiny. This sort of system would
  211. require airlines and/or governmental authorities to obtain more personal information from the flying public, and there is some
  212. resistance to that within the group on the grounds that that would too burdensome, invasive of privacy, and so forth.
  213.  
  214. Another school of thought is that if the use of race renders security measures more effective, than perhaps we should be
  215. 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.
  216.  
  217. The point being that the foregoing -- the general policy, not the
  218. interim policy -- is what we are currently debating in the group. Of
  219. 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
  220. of deciding upon interim measures. And that is, admittedly, not an easy question. But we are not there yet.
  221.  
  222. HCW
  223.  
  224.  
  225.  
  226. Message Copied
  227. To: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
  228. Courtney S. Elwood/WHO/EOP@EOP
  229. Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
  230. Bradford A. Berenson/WHO/EOP@EOP
  231. H. Christopher Bartolomucci/WHO/EOP@EOP
  232. Robert W. Cobb/WHO/EOP@EOP
  233. Noel J. Francisco/WHO/EOP@EOP
  234. Rachel L. Brand/WHO/EOP@EOP
  235.  
  236.  
  237.  
  238.  
  239. REV 00328554
  240. From: CN=Bradford A. Berenson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ]
  241. To: Courtney S. Elwood/WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ] <Courtney S. Elwood>
  242. CC: brett m. kavanaugh/who/eop@eop [WHO] <brett m. kavanaugh>;alberto r. gonzales/who
  243. /eop@eop [ WHO ] <alberto r. gonzales>;timothy e. flanigan/who/eop@eop [ WHO ] <timothy e.
  244. flanigan>;bradford a. berenson/who/eop@eop [WHO] <bradford a. berenson>;helgard c.
  245. walker/who/eop@eop [ WHO ] <helgard c. walker>;stuart w. bowen/who/eop@eop [ WHO ]
  246. <stuart w. bowen>;h. christopher bartolomucci/who/eop@eop [ WHO ] <h. christopher
  247. bartolomucci>;rachel I. brand/who/eop@eop [WHO] <rachel I. brand>;noel j. francisco/who
  248. /eop@eop [WHO] <noel j. francisco>;robert w. cobb/who/eop@eop [WHO] <robert w. cobb>
  249. Sent: 3/27/2001 3:15:40 AM
  250. Subject: : Re: Adarand -- other considerations
  251.  
  252.  
  253.  
  254. ###### Begin Original ARMS Header######
  255. RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
  256. CREATOR:Bradford A. Berenson ( CN=Bradford A. Berenson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO] )
  257. CREATION DATE/TIME:27-MAR-2001 08:15:40.00
  258. SUBJECT:: Re: Adarand -- other considerations
  259. TO:Courtney S. Elwood CN=Courtney S. Elwood/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
  260. READ:UNKNOWN
  261. CC:brett m. kavanaugh CN=brett m. kavanaugh/OU=who/O=eop@eop WHO
  262. READ:UNKNOWN
  263. CC:alberto r. gonzales CN=alberto r. gonzales/OU=who/O=eop@eop WHO
  264. READ:UNKNOWN
  265. CC:timothy e. flanigan CN=timothy e. flanigan/OU=who/O=eop@eop WHO
  266. READ:UNKNOWN
  267. CC:bradford a. berenson ( CN=bradford a. berenson/OU=who/O=eop@eop WHO
  268. READ:UNKNOWN
  269. CC:helgard c. walker ( CN=helgard c. walker/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO
  270. READ:UNKNOWN
  271. CC:stuart w. bowen ( CN=stuart w. bowen/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO J )
  272. READ:UNKNOWN
  273. CC:h. christopher bartolomucci ( CN=h. christopher bartolomucci/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO J )
  274. READ:UNKNOWN
  275. CC:rachel 1. brand ( CN=rachel 1. brand/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO J )
  276. READ:UNKNOWN
  277. CC:noel j. francisco ( CN=noel j. francisco/OU=who/O=eop@eop WHO ] )
  278. READ:UNKNOWN
  279. CC:robert w. cobb ( CN=robert w. cobb/OU=who/O=eop@eop [ WHO
  280. READ:UNKNOWN
  281. ###### End Original ARMS Header######
  282.  
  283. Of course the Clinton administration gave us some cover on this by
  284. declining to defend the constitutionality of the statute at issue in
  285. Dickerson last Term -- to near-universal praise by the media.
  286.  
  287.  
  288.  
  289.  
  290. Courtney S. Elwood
  291. 03/27/2001 08:12:14 AM
  292. Record Type: Record
  293.  
  294. To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
  295. cc: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
  296. bee:
  297. Subject: Re: Adarand -- other considerations
  298.  
  299. Another consideration: Although Olsen would likely find it troubling to
  300. do so, he and the AG, in deciding whether to defend the program, may take
  301. into consideration the "long-standing practice" of the Department "to
  302. defend [a] statute against [constitutional] challenge unless there is no
  303. reasonable argument that could be made in defense. See, e.g. The Attorney
  304.  
  305.  
  306.  
  307. REV 00125571
  308. General's Duty To Defend the Constitutionality of Statutes, 43 Op. Atty.
  309. Gen. 325 (1981) (Opinion of Attorney General Smith); The Attorney
  310. General's DutyTo Defend and Enforce Constitutionally Objectionable
  311. Legislation, 43 Op. Atty. Gen. 275 (1980) ." Letter from Dick Thornburgh
  312. to Senator Strom Thurmond, dated Oct. 7, 1999 (appended to the Brief of
  313. Amici Curiae former Attorneys General of the United States William P. Barr
  314. and Edwin Meese III Supporting Affirmance in Dickerson v. United States,
  315. No. 99-5525.
  316.  
  317. While in Adarand, the constitutionality challenged law is a regulatory
  318. program and not a statute, the practice may nonetheless have some
  319. application. I don't know. In any event, if the decision is made not to
  320. defend the constitutionality of the program, I suspect we will hear the
  321. words of these Republican attorneys general repeated back to us in the
  322. press and in briefs before the Supreme Court.
  323.  
  324.  
  325.  
  326.  
  327. Brett M. Kavanaugh
  328. 03/26/2001 08:58:32 PM
  329. Record Type: Record
  330.  
  331. To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
  332. cc:
  333. Subject: Adarand -- other considerations
  334.  
  335. A few more preliminary thoughts, although they are phrased
  336. somewhat more definitively. But these are really just initial ideas.
  337.  
  338. 1. My sense, for what it is worth, is that it would be better for
  339. the SG to independently assess and come to a constitutional conclusion
  340. about the program -- and only then advise the President of it -- than for
  341. the White House to dictate -- or even hint -- to the SG what the SG's
  342. position should be. Indeed, in my view, the White House should not be
  343. involved in the SG's formulation of a position in the first instance, but
  344. rather only in approving or disapproving what the SG proposes.
  345.  
  346. This is admittedly not my ideal of how a unitary executive should
  347. work, but it is the real world, and there is a very strong tradition in
  348. the Executive Branch -- and in the Congress and media -- that the SG is
  349. independent and should come to his or her own independent conclusions
  350. about the constitutionality of laws. It is also why SG is such a
  351. critically important position. That is not to say that the SG's office
  352. cannot be overruled by the President/White House; it can be and has been
  353. in the past and will be in the future. It is to say, however, that there
  354. is a serious long-term political cost to the perception or reality that
  355. the SG's positions and recommendations are being driven in the first
  356. instance by the White House. Lincoln Caplan's book The Tenth Justice is a
  357. fine example of the kinds of criticism that can occur.
  358.  
  359. Apart from that public relations/political consideration, as a
  360. matter of standard process, moreover, the SG is in the best position to
  361. assess a case like this in the first instance and propose a course of
  362. action.
  363.  
  364. I thus would recommend that, if asked and forced to answer, the
  365. President and Ari might say something like the following about the
  366. President's position:
  367.  
  368. In the Executive Branch, it is the role of the Solicitor General,
  369. acting under the Attorney General and ultimately the President, to
  370. represent the United States in the Supreme Court. In cases involving the
  371. United States, therefore, it is properly the role of the Solicitor General
  372. and the Department of Justice to examine and study the facts and the law
  373. in the first instance and to make appropriate decisions and
  374.  
  375.  
  376.  
  377. REV 00125572
  378. recommendations. Of course, the President is the head of the Executive
  379. Branch and in particularly important Supreme Court cases previous
  380. Presidents have approved -- and, on occasion, disapproved -- the
  381. Department of Justice's recommended course of action. In any particularly
  382. important case like that, however, this President would await the
  383. Department of Justice's recommendation before making any decision.
  384.  
  385. I also would recommend that the Judge communicate to the Attorney
  386. General that the President will await the recommendation of the Attorney
  387. General and Solicitor General as to the constitutionality of this program
  388. and the proper course of action in the Supreme Court. I would propose
  389. that there be no other communications between the White House and
  390. Department about this case.
  391.  
  392. 2. This case makes Ted Olson's hearing more likely to gain
  393. attention and draw fire given what he has written and who he has
  394. represented in race cases.
  395.  
  396. 3. An approach referenced but not elaborated in my earlier e-mail
  397. is for the SG to file a brief saying that the program is unconstitutional,
  398. thus refusing to defend the constitutionality of the program and forcing
  399. the Supreme Court to appoint counsel to defend the program. That is, in
  400. fact, my personal opinion about what the SG ought to do, but that is only
  401. my personal opinion. Again, however, if this is the SG's ultimate
  402. position, this is much better coming from the SG than being dictated or
  403. hinted in any way to the SG.
  404.  
  405.  
  406.  
  407.  
  408. Message Sent
  409. To:
  410. Alberto R. Gonzales/WHO/EOP@EOP
  411. Timothy E. Flanigan/WHO/EOP@EOP
  412. Bradford A. Berenson/WHO/EOP@EOP
  413. Helgard C. Walker/WHO/EOP@EOP
  414. Courtney S. Elwood/WHO/EOP@EOP
  415. Stuart W. Bowen/WHO/EOP@EOP
  416. H. Christopher Bartolomucci/WHO/EOP@EOP
  417. Rachel L. Brand/WHO/EOP@EOP
  418. Noel J. Francisco/WHO/EOP@EOP
  419. Robert W. Cobb/WHO/EOP@EOP
  420.  
  421.  
  422.  
  423.  
  424. Message Copied
  425. To:
  426. alberto r. gonzales/who/eop@eop
  427. timothy e. flanigan/who/eop@eop
  428. bradford a. berenson/who/eop@eop
  429. helgard c. walker/who/eop@eop
  430. stuart w. bowen/who/eop@eop
  431. h. christopher bartolomucci/who/eop@eop
  432. rachel 1. brand/who/eop@eop
  433. noel j. francisco/who/eop@eop
  434. robert w. cobb/who/eop@eop
  435.  
  436.  
  437.  
  438.  
  439. REV 00125573
  440. From: Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO]) [mailto:Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett
  441. M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO] )]
  442. Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:40 AM
  443. To: Noel J. Francisco ( CN=Noel J. Francisco/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
  444. Subject: : Re: LRM JAB205 0MB Request for Views on S Native American Small Business
  445.  
  446. ###### Begin Original ARMS Header###### RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) CREATOR:Brett M. Kavanaugh (
  447. CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO]) CREATION DATE/TIME:24-APR-2002 09:39:34.00
  448. SUBJECT:: Re: LRM JAB205 0MB Request for Views on S Native American Small Business TO:Noel J. Francisco (
  449. CN=Noel J. Francisco/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO]) READ:UNKNOWN
  450. ###### End Original ARMS Header ######
  451.  
  452. FYI
  453. ---------------------- Forwarded by Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP on
  454. 04/24/2002 09:39 AM ---------------------------
  455.  
  456.  
  457.  
  458.  
  459. Brett M. Kavanaugh
  460. 04/23/2002 09:04:57 PM
  461. Record Type: Record
  462.  
  463. To: Patrick J. Bumatay/WHO/EOP@EOP, James A. Brown/OMB/EOP@EOP
  464. cc:
  465. bee: Records Management@EOP
  466. Subject: Re: LRM JAB205 0MB Request for Views on S____ Native
  467. American Small Business
  468.  
  469. White House Counsel objects and raises questions about the
  470. constitutionality of this bill, including but not limited to the portions
  471. that refer to Native Hawaiians. See Rice v. Cayetano. We believe that an
  472. "Office of Native American Affairs" within SBA triggers both policy and
  473. constitutional concerns. If the Office will deal solely with tribes,
  474. members of tribes, and tribal activities, it is appropriate. But if it
  475. grants benefits to Native Americans because of their race/ethnicity alone,
  476. that raises serious problems under Rice and the Constitution, which
  477. generally requires that all Americans be treated as equal (absent a
  478. program narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest). The
  479. desire to remedy societal discrimination is not a compelling interest,
  480. however. See Croson.
  481.  
  482. OLC needs to review this.
  483.  
  484. Patrick J. Bumatay
  485. 04/23/2002 11:37:40 AM
  486. Record Type: Record
  487.  
  488. To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
  489. cc:
  490. Subject:LRM JAB205 0MB Request for Views on S____ Native
  491. American Small Business
  492. ---------------------- Forwarded by Patrick J. Bumatay/WHO/EOP on 04/23/2002 11:37 AM ---------------------------
  493.  
  494.  
  495.  
  496.  
  497. REV 00339902
  498. James A. Brown
  499. 04/23/2002 10:57:14 AM
  500. Record Type: Record
  501.  
  502. To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
  503. cc:
  504. Subject:LRM JAB205 0MB Request for Views on S____ Native
  505. American Small Business
  506.  
  507. LRM ID: JAB205
  508. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
  509. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
  510. Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
  511.  
  512. Tuesday, April 23, 2002
  513.  
  514. LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
  515.  
  516. TO: Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution
  517. below
  518. FROM: Richard E. Green (for) Assistant Director for
  519. Legislative Reference
  520. 0MB CONTACT:James A. Brown
  521. PHONE: (202)395-3473 FAX: (202)395-3109
  522. SUBJECT: 0MB Request for Views on S____ Native American Small
  523. Business Development Program
  524.  
  525. DEADLINE: 10:00 A.M. Friday, April 26, 2002
  526. In accordance with 0MB Circular A-19, 0MB requests the views of your
  527. agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship to the
  528. program of the President. Please advise us if this item will affect
  529. direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions
  530. ofTitle XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
  531. COMMENTS: The Small Business Administration is scheduled to testify on
  532. this legislation on April 30th.
  533.  
  534. DISTRIBUTION LIST
  535. AGENCIES:
  536. 025-COMMERCE - Michael A. Levitt - (202) 482-3151
  537. 059-INTERIOR - Jane Lyder - (202) 208-4371
  538. 061-JUSTICE - Daniel Bryant - (202) 514-2141
  539. 107-Small Business Administration - Richard Spence - (202) 205-6700
  540. EOP:
  541. WHGC LRM
  542. NEC LRM
  543. Philip J. Perry
  544. Matthew J. Schneider
  545. OVPLRM
  546. David S. Addington
  547. K. Philippa Malmgren
  548. Aquiles F. Suarez
  549. Gary Ceccucci
  550.  
  551.  
  552.  
  553.  
  554. REV 00339903
  555. Ann Kendrall
  556. Christine Ciccone
  557. Christine C. McCarlie
  558. Lauren C. Lobrano
  559. Stephen S. McMillin
  560. Alan B. Rhinesmith
  561. James Boden
  562. Janis A. Coughlin
  563. Richard E. Green
  564. James J. Jukes
  565. Anna M. Briatico
  566. Dirksen Lehman
  567. Sarah S. Lee
  568. Pamula L. Simms
  569. David Rostker
  570. LRM ID: JAB205 SUBJECT: 0MB Request for Views on S____ Native
  571. American Small Business Development Program
  572. RESPONSE TO
  573. LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
  574. MEMORANDUM
  575.  
  576. If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no
  577. comment), we prefer that you respond by e-mail or by faxing us this
  578. response sheet. If the response is short and you prefer to call, please
  579. call the branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a
  580. message with a legislative assistant.
  581.  
  582. You may also respond by:
  583. (1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be
  584. connected to voice mail if the analyst does not answer); or
  585. (2) sending us a memo or letter
  586. Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.
  587.  
  588.  
  589.  
  590. TO: James A. Brown Phone: 395-3473 Fax: 395-3109
  591. Office of Management and Budget
  592. Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant):
  593. 395-3454
  594.  
  595. FROM: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Date)
  596.  
  597. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Name)
  598.  
  599. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Agency)
  600.  
  601. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Telephone)
  602.  
  603.  
  604.  
  605. The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on
  606. the above-captioned subject:
  607.  
  608. ___ Concur
  609.  
  610.  
  611.  
  612.  
  613. REV 00339904
  614. _ _ _ No Objection
  615.  
  616. _ _ _ No Comment
  617.  
  618. _ _ _ See proposed edits on pages _ _ __
  619.  
  620. _ _ _ Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
  621.  
  622.  
  623. _ _ _ FAX RETURN of _ _ pages, attached to this response sheet
  624.  
  625. Message Sent
  626. To:
  627. --------------------------
  628. cl a@ sb a.gov @ inet
  629. CLRM@doc.gov
  630. justice.lrm@usdoj.gov
  631. ocl@ios.doi.gov
  632. WHGC LRM
  633. NEC LRM
  634. Philip J. Perry/OMB/EOP@EOP
  635. Matthew J. Schneider/OMB/EOP@EOP
  636. OVPLRM
  637. David S. Addington/OVP/EOP@EOP
  638. K. Philippa Malmgren/OPD/EOP@EOP
  639. Aquiles F. Suarez/OPD/EOP@EOP
  640. Gary Ceccucci/OMB/EOP@EOP
  641. Ann Kendrall/OMB/EOP@EOP
  642. Christine Ciccone/WHO/EOP@EOP
  643. Christine C. McCarlie/OMB/EOP@EOP
  644. Lauren C. Lobrano/OMB/EOP@EOP
  645. Stephen S. McMillin/OMB/EOP@EOP
  646. Alan B. Rhinesmith/OMB/EOP@EOP
  647. James Boden/OMB/EOP@EOP
  648. Janis A. Coughlin/OMB/EOP@EOP
  649. Richard E. Green/OMB/EOP@EOP
  650. James J. Jukes/OMB/EOP@EOP
  651. Anna M. Briatico/OMB/EOP@EOP
  652. Dirksen Lehman/WHO/EOP@EOP
  653. Sarah S. Lee/OMB/EOP@EOP
  654. Pamula L. Simms/OMB/EOP@EOP
  655. David Rostker/OMB/EOP@EOP
  656.  
  657.  
  658.  
  659.  
  660. ATI CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
  661. File attachment <P VMSX6003 WHO.TXT 1>
  662. - - -
  663.  
  664.  
  665.  
  666.  
  667. REV 00339905
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement