George W. Bush--The First 30 Months

Thanks and you nailed it...... There are only to options that one of which will be elected in 2004 to become President in 2005. That will be President Bush or the democrat candidate.... And as much as the purist and mal contents scream they can't change that.... Witness the fact the that the President will raise 175 to 200 million dollars during primary season and that tells you the people are gone from him. The dollars would be there if he didn't have the support of those who give it...

President Bush's campaign said Tuesday it has raised at least $34.2 million since he announced his 2004 re-election effort in May, with some checks still to be counted.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938860/posts?

I sometimes wonder if we are a DNC test market.

If so they will get some mighty screwed up results.... This site no were mirrors the voting populace in the Republican party....

"The extremest here that claim to be "true conservatives" will never be happy because the candidate that they approve of will never be elected, the same goes for the far left."

Good post! Yes, Sharpton, I suppose, DOES have a following. And Dean too.

But the discussion is about what President Bush has done. He is credited here with killing US participation in the Kyoto Treaty. My point is that the Senate had already done so.

I'm sorry, but it is just "here" where he gets the "credit" for killing Kyoto but the world over with much gnashing of teeth.

Never mind the Senate vote of yore, politically it is George Bush who drove the stake through its heart.

Whoops, left out a word:

I'm sorry, but it is just "here"

should say

I'm sorry,but it is NOT just "here"...

"Eliminate" all Palestinians

Feeling a little genocidal today?

Miss Marple--totally off topic, but as I reached your post here I have Brit's show on and Fred Barnes reminds us that Tet was a miserable military defeat for the Viet Cong and MISREPRESENTED by the press, and he went on to say that is what is going in Iraq regarding bad press and certain reports casting events in a negative light.

I know that the Tet Offensive propaganda is a story near and dear to your heart and you would like to know that Fred Barnes reminded Brit's viewers about it.

I heard Fred while I was cooking dinner. Thanks for bringing it up. I continue to use the Tet offensive as an example of how the media distorts things. It is very effective.

Plus it burns me up that our guys in Viet Nam were trashed with that story. They deserved better.

>>>President Bush has proven to be strong honest leader who has passed more conservative measures than Ronald Reagan did in his first 3 years in office by far.

I agree, PresBush is a strong leader and has made many conservative decisions in his short time in office. But on the domestic discretionary spending side, Bush hasn't measured up to Reagan's first three years of a conservative agenda. Republican's have to be honest about this fact. As I said earlier on this thread, I think the dynamic political duo of Bush-Rove will make the right adjustments in a second Bush term. They must get a serious effort underway to fight waste, fraud and abuse in the federal bureaucracy. They must control federal sending better. It's crucial to having fiscal responsibility in the federal government.

Total federal spending under PresBush`s first three years has increased by 14 percent as opposed to 7 percent under PresReagan. This includes adjustments for inflation. And while Reagan reduced non-defense discretionary spending by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent in federal spending. That's a huge 32 percent difference between the two men.

The following chart indicates the percentage of change in discretionary spending, first three years, Reagan v Bush.

Let's not forget, PresReagan's first priority in 1981 was to get the economy moving again and start to rebuild America's military. America was in the midst of the worse economic times since the Great Depression and the Cold War was still raging strong. Reagan worked together with Tip O'Neill and Bob Dole to give American workers some real tax reform. The first round of tax cuts that Reagan signed into law, were of critical importance to reducing interest rates, inflation and unemployment. Reagan's early tax cuts totaled a 25% marginal tax rate reduction, (Reagan wanted 30%) across the board. Those tax cuts stimulated spending, investment and savings, and fueled an economic recovery that lasted until 2000! The highest tax rates went from 70% to 50%. Reagan's 1986 Tax Reform Act would bring that 50% top rate, down to 28%.

I think Ronald Reagan would be very proud of PresBush and the accomplishments he's made thus far. But there's still a long road to go. Devaluing the Presidency of Ronald Reagan should not be the goal of Republican's and PresBush would be the first to agree with that.

Hopefully you kept reading and have learned that all things on that 2nd list are direct quotes from posters on Free Republic.

Very good response, informative links. I checked them all, and it looks good. Of course, homeland security dept is not even a year old. I hope we see some crack down - if we don't we can fully expect another terrorist attack. Not to toot my own horn, but myself, as so many others, said again and again that Osama ilk were going to try to hit us, this prior to 9-11, and that they will try to hit the towers again because they didn't finish the job the first time - and more than one said they would use a domestic plane as a suicide bomb kamikaze. What is going to happen next is, the open borders, Canada or Mexico, will be used, they definitely will try, and before they hit they will take refuge, probably in CA, probably in S.F. ... another prediction - the link to anthrax will be found, and it will likely be found linked to leftwing pro-Castro groups in the U.S. who routed the Iraqi anthrax to Islamic Fascists here in the USA. Why? Because these pro-Castro groups hate America, and all they did was scream about the sanctions against Iraq - they loved the socialist Baath regime of S.H..

OK, I did misunderstand where you were coming from. Sorry.

Do you have the numbers for Clinton offhand?

Look ... I never take a specific poster, specific handle/name, and then attack that person using names, or any personal attack. My M.O. is I used pet names against politicians e.g. Bufffalo Bush - I think politicians deserve it and it's expected - or I use pet names against political groups/wings, e.g. "fanatical wing of the Bushies" --- but never against a specific Buffaloed Bushie in particular, not a specific Bushie by name. And, then watch them - they attack me specifically by name, they use name calling and pet names directed specifically at me. You see? But I never respond back with the same. And I never participate in such name calling against specific handles/names/persons. It's always directed at politicians (which should be expected, and is pratically as American as hotdogs and applepie) or directed at general political wings/positions/groups. As far at those who say, if we pet-name Bush they take it as a personal name call against themself, well, they only have a problem that goes beyond simply political debate and into the realm of personal problems.

I don 't have the info on Clinton. You can find all the pertinent budgetary data going back to 1940 and in some cases back to 1776, on the OMB.com website. If you have MS Excel it will allow you to review the statistics on your own internal PC system. Some are in PDF form and difficult to to surf through.

Also the CATO website has some great information pertaining to economics. It's a libertarian website, but does offer fair analysis and evaluations when it comes to federal taxation ands spending.

No problem!

You need to do better than this. You just cut and pasted your list from Democrat sites.

Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
Yep. Good Job
#############
Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.
Yep. Good Job
##############
Killed the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.
Yep. Good Job
#######
Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
Bush Signs Largest Family Planning Bill In U.S. History
Covenant News ^ | 1/11/02
Posted on 01/11/2002 8:31 AM CST by truthandlifeOn Thursday, January 10, 2002, the White House reported President Bush signed the ominous $15.4 billion foreign appropriations bill, H.R. 2506, for fiscal-year 2002. The bill authorizes $446.5 million U.S. tax dollars to be given to other countries for abortion-family planning activities throughout the world. The abortion-family planning funds approved by Bush represents an increase of $21.5 million over last year for international family planning. Also on Thursday, Bush signed the labor, education and health spending bill, and a defense spending bill that was widely reported by The Associated Press
Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.
?????
###
Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules that would have shut down every home business in America.
Yep. Good
###
Passed 2 tax cuts----1 of which was the largest tax-Dollar value tax cut in history
His tax cuts mostly don’t take effect until his last year in office. The one that is going to be “largest tax-Dollar value tax cut in history” will not go into full effect until the year after he leaves office.
His tax increases are already in effect. He didn’t back-load them.
###

Pushed through TWO raises for our military.
Nothing but lip service ("Army Times" newspaper rips Bush & Republicans)
ArmyTimes.com ^ | June 30, 2003 | House editorial
Posted on 06/28/2003 9:01 PM CDT by fightinJAG
Editorial Nothing but lip service
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately. For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.
Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.
The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.
The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.
But Bush’s tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.
The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush’s proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush’s construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.
The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.
Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging “unequivocal support” to service members and their families, puts it this way: “American military men and women don’t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.”
Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks.

Increased Defense Dept funding which had deteriorated during the previous 8 years
See Above
###
Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit
Congress had to pass this over Bush’s appointees’ objections. Bush’s Clintonista buddy Minetta and Ridge have done everything they can to block this. There was no law against pilots being armed. Bush could have armed them on 9/12 by telling Minetta to reinstate the old transportation regulation that all pilots of planes carrying mail be armed.

It is very Clintonesq to create a problem and when Congress fixes it take credit for doing it. Even Di Fi was pushing for this but the administration was fighting it.
Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers.
Not pushing. Just said he would sign it. Big deal he signs everything they send him.
###
Ordered Attorney-General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, NOT a leftist-imagined "collective" right.
There is no evidence he ordered Ashcroft to say this. He did order Olson to fight against Emmerson though.
###
Successfully executed 2 wars: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.
It’s a little early to make that claim. Neither country has a government yet.
###
Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the Presidency
Your opinion. This is subjective about 5% of the nation disagrees.
###
Reorganized bureaucracy...after 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency: the Department of Homeland Security.
And put Tom Ridge in charge. Ridge who is very anti-Second Amendment and very pro-abortion.
###
Initiated discussion on Social security and individual investment accounts.
This was being discussed since 1994. Gingrich initiated the discussion.
###
Improving govt. efficiency with .8 million jobs put up for bid...weakening unions and cutting undeserved pay raises. Wants merit based promotions/raises only.
###
Hasn’t done it. He is just talking about it.
###
Executed a WAR ON TERROR by getting world-wide cooperation to track funds/terrorists (has cut off much of the terrorist's funding and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network)
He’s trying. Again it is too early to claim success.
###
Stopped foreign aid that would be used to fund abortions.
Bush Signs Largest Family Planning Bill In U.S. History
Covenant News ^ | 1/11/02
Posted on 01/11/2002 8:31 AM CST by truthandlifeOn Thursday, January 10, 2002, the White House reported President Bush signed the ominous $15.4 billion foreign appropriations bill, H.R. 2506, for fiscal-year 2002. The bill authorizes $446.5 million U.S. tax dollars to be given to other countries for abortion-family planning activities throughout the world. The abortion-family planning funds approved by Bush represents an increase of $21.5 million over last year for international family planning.
###
Ended abortions on military bases
Yep Good
###
Signed E.O. reversing Clinton policy of not requiring parental consent under the Medical Privacy Act
Reversed Clinton’s medical privacy protections opening private medical records to hundreds all sorts of people.
###
Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control.
Yep Good
###
Set to sign Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Hasn’t done it yet
###
Orchestrated Republican control of the White House, the House AND the Senate.
And did what with that control except grow government at the fastest rate since Jimmy Carter?
###
Killed the liberal ABA's role in vetting federal judges for Congress.
Re-nominated every Clinton judge that hadn’t been confirmed when Clinton left office.
###
GWB signed an executive order enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision (re: union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes)
Where is it being enforced? Name one union he has in court.
###
Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed
After letting China strip it of all the information and equipment they wanted.
He also gave Red China MFN while they were selling arms to the Taliban who our military was fighting at the time. This was after he said “You are either with us r against us in this war.”
###
Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.
Should have been out of Bosnia on day one. Pulling out of Germany and Korea may not be the good idea you think it is but we will not know for several years.
###
Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia
Now that is something. When have the Russians ever lived up to a treaty? I’ll tell you. When the treaty gives them some advantage they didn’t have before. We disarm, they get out of trying to keep up. Real Good Deal. (NOT)
###
Initiated comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE was critical.
The military isn’t pleased with this. It remains to be seen who is right, the politicians or the military brass.
###
Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first ten ABM silos in Alaska, so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes
Yep Good
###

Turning around an inherited economy in recession.
We shall see. The economy is showing mixed signals, but it isn’t out of the woods yet. Plus by raising taxes in the middle of the recession he made the recession longer and deeper.
###
Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.
He signed what congress sent him. He still hasn’t prosecuted Kenny Boy or a whole host of big crooks.
###
Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains
Yep
###
In process of eliminating IRS marriage penalty.
When DeLay wanted to tie this to the increased welfare for people who don’t pay taxes, Bush nixed the effort.
###
Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people
???
###
Signed into law the CFR legislation (under dark of night)
Signed this attack on free speech after saying it was his duty to veto it.
###
Signed into law the No Child Left Behind legislation delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations)
Doubled the Dept of Ed, increased spending and government control of local schools and set the stage for much worse. He and Kennedy shafted the nation good on this one.
###
Reorganized the INS in an attempt to safeguard the borders and ports of America and to eliminate bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.
LOL Has done nothing to stem the flow of criminals into the country. In some places the border is more open now than before.
###
Signed trade promotion authority
Congress should have never passed this. It is bad law and weakens the balance of powers.
###
Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men and women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa
Pissed away taxpayers money for something charities should be doing.
###
Urging Medicare Reform
Said send me anything so I can sign a drug bill. Is pushing for the biggest expansion of government in 40 years.
###
Urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits
Instead of loser pays is limiting what people can collect in real lawsuits to fight frivolous ones. This is like killing all men because some of them are murders.
###
Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims
Here again the devil is in the details. The reform that is needed is to make the lawyers get paid in the same form the victims are paid. If the victims get coupons the lawyers should be paid in the same coupons. This isn’t what he is proposing.
###
Submitted comprehensive energy plan--awaits Congressional action. ( works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy)
Another big government solution. He refused to back drilling in the Gulf of Mexico even though there is enough oil and gas there to make us totally independent and an exporter of oil and gas. He put politics ahead of national security and the good of the American people.
###
Endorses and promotes The Responsibility Era ("In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else -- to one in which every single American understands that he or she are responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself. " -----this quote was too good to leave out)
Feel good words that mean nothing. He is promoting irresponsibility and shifting responsibility to others with his drug bill and his increased welfare for people who don’t pay taxes.
###
Started the USA Freedom Corps
Another big government program modeled after Clinton’s AmeriCorps which congress cut and he is working to expand.
###
Pushing for passage of Prescription Drug Benefit package for Seniors which will have 'means' testing with a goal towards privatization of Medicare and CHOICES based on current Federal Employee Health benefits program.
Abandoned the push for means testing and privatization. Said just send me a bill fast. Conservatives in the House are trying to stop this massive expansion of government and transfer of wealth. Bush called them to the White House to try to get them to stop trying to fix the bill.
###
Initiated review of all federal agencies with a goal to eliminate federal jobs (review to be done by September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of federal gov while increasing private sector jobs.
When this was announced, the White House said that no federal worker would be displaced or put out of work. Just more smoke and mirrors. Very Clintonesq.
###
Part of coalition (Russia, Israel, Palestine, USA) for Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace"
Pandering to the Mohammedan terrorists at Israel’s expense. Blasted Israel for defending themselves and is the first American president to call for a Palestinian State carved out of Israel. Opposes Israel defending its borders with a fence.
###
Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become The League of Nations ( in other words, completely irrelevant)
Failed to recognize the UN is irrelevant and failed to get us out of that snake pit.
###
Nominated strong, conservative judges to the judiciary.
Re-nominated every one of Clinton’s nominees who were not approved when Clinton left office. Refused to allow Chester Lott to demand a real filibuster of the conservative judges.
###
Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary clean-up of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger.
Yep Good
###
As part of the national forests clean-up, the President restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges) and removed the need for an EIS (Enivironmental Impact Statement) before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.
Part of above split to make the list longer.
###
Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
???
###
Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
Congress did this. His budget asked for an increase.
###
Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
Again congress did this. I don’t know what Bush’s budget called for here.
###
Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
Put the money in his comprehensive energy plan. ( works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy) In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative
The President has announced an agreement between the Departments of Interior and Justice and private energy companies to buy back oil and gas leases in the Destin Dome area offshore from Pensacola, Florida.

Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
Untrue. From the EPA web site. This is a lowering of the acceptable standard from 50 ppb to 10 ppb a huge reduction.
Minor Clarification of National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic - Final Rule
EPA is affirming that the public health standard for arsenic in drinking water established in January 2001 is 10 parts per billion (ppb). In today’s action, EPA is making clear that when a monitoring result is expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L) rather than ppb, that any monitoring result greater than 0.010 mg/l is a violation of the January 2001 arsenic standard. To assure that this clarification extends to the regulatory text for arsenic and to remove any implementation uncertainty relating to this issue, EPA has amendended the arsenic Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) to express it as 0.010 mg/l.

Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons
This isn’t true. Here is the regulation.
[Federal Register: August 16, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 50123-50125]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16au00-136]

[[Page 50123]]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--National
Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English Proficiency;
Policy Guidance

AGENCY: Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Policy guidance document.

SUMMARY: This Policy Guidance Document entitled ``Enforcement of Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 `` National Origin Discrimination
Against Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP Guidance)'' is
being issued pursuant to authority granted by Executive Order 12250 and
Department of Justice Regulations. It addresses the application of
Title VI's prohibition on national origin discrimination when
information is provided only in English to persons with limited English
proficiency. This policy guidance does not create new obligations, but
rather, clarifies existing Title VI responsibilities. The purpose of
this document is to set forth general principles for agencies to apply
in developing guidelines for services to individuals with limited
English proficiency. The Policy Guidance Document appears below.

DATES: Effective August 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Coordination and Review Section, Civil Rights Division, P.O.
Box 66560, Washington, D.C. 20035-6560.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merrily Friedlander, Chief,
Coordination and Review Section, Civil Rights Division, (202) 307-2222.

Helen L. Norton,
Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D.C. 20530

August 11, 2000.
TO: Executive Agency Civil Rights Officers
FROM: Bill Lann Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division
SUBJECT: Policy Guidance Document: Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964--National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With
Limited English Proficiency (``LEP Guidance'')

This policy directive concerning the enforcement of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000d et seq., as amended, is
being issued pursuant to the authority granted by Executive Order No.
12250 \1\ and Department of Justice regulations.\2\ It addresses the
application to recipients of federal financial assistance of Title VI's
prohibition on national origin discrimination when information is
provided only in English to persons who do not understand English. This
policy guidance does not create new obligations but, rather, clarifies
existing Title VI responsibilities.

\1\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d-1 note.
\2\ 28 C.F.R. Sec. 0.51.

Department of Justice Regulations for the Coordination of
Enforcement of Non-discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs
(Coordination Regulations), 28 C.F.R. 42.401 et seq., direct agencies
to ``publish title VI guidelines for each type of program to which they
extend financial assistance, where such guidelines would be appropriate
to provide detailed information on the requirements of Title VI.'' 28
CFR Sec. 42.404(a). The purpose of this document is to set forth
general principles for agencies to apply in developing such guidelines
for services to individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). It
is expected that, in developing this guidance for their federally
assisted programs, agencies will apply these general principles, taking
into account the unique nature of the programs to which they provide
federal financial assistance.
A federal aid recipient's failure to assure that people who are not
proficient in English can effectively participate in and benefit from
programs and activities may constitute national origin discrimination
prohibited by Title VI. In order to assist agencies that grant federal
financial assistance in ensuring that recipients of federal financial
assistance are complying with their responsibilities, this policy
directive addresses the appropriate compliance standards. Agencies
should utilize the standards set forth in this Policy Guidance Document
to develop specific criteria applicable to review the programs and
activities for which they offer financial assistance. The Department of
Education \3\ already has established policies, and the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) \4\ has been developing guidance in a
manner consistent with Title VI and this Document, that applies to
their specific programs receiving federal financial assistance.

\3\ Department of Education policies regarding the Title VI
responsibilities of public school districts with respect to LEP
children and their parents are reflected in three Office for Civil
Rights policy documents: (1) the May 1970 memorandum to school
districts, ``Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services
on the Basis of National Origin,'' (2) the December 3, 1985,
guidance document, ``The Office for Civil Rights' Title VI Language
Minority Compliance Procedures,'' and (3) the September 1991
memorandum, ``Policy Update on Schools Obligations Toward National
Origin Minority Students with Limited English Proficiency.'' These
documents can be found at the Department of Education website at
www.ed.gov/office/OCR.
\4\ The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing
policy guidance titled: ``Title VI Prohibition Against National
Origin Discrimination As It Affects Persons With Limited English
Proficiency.'' This policy addresses the Title VI responsibilities
of HHS recipients to individuals with limited English proficiency.

Background

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits recipients of
federal financial assistance from discriminating against or otherwise
excluding individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin
in any of their activities. Section 601 of Title VI, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2000d, provides:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race,
color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

The term ``program or activity'' is broadly defined. 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2000d-4a.
Consistent with the model Title VI regulations drafted by a
Presidential task force in 1964, virtually every executive agency that
grants federal financial assistance has promulgated regulations to
implement Title VI. These regulations prohibit recipients from
``restrict[ing] an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any
advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service,
financial aid, or other benefit under the program'' and ``utiliz[ing]
criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of
subjecting individuals to discrimination'' or have ``the effect of
defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives
of the program as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or
national origin.''
In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), the Supreme Court
interpreted these provisions as requiring that a federal financial
recipient take steps to ensure that language barriers did not exclude
LEP persons from effective participation in its benefits and services.
Lau involved a group of students of Chinese origin who did not speak
English to whom the recipient provided the same services--an education
provided solely in English--that it provided students who did speak
English. The Court held that, under these circumstances, the school's
practice violated the Title VI prohibition against discrimination on

[[Page 50124]]

the basis of national origin. The Court observed that ``[i]t seems
obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer benefits than
the English-speaking majority from respondents' school system which
denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational
program--all earmarks of the discrimination banned by'' the Title VI
regulations.\5\ Courts have applied the doctrine enunciated in Lau both
inside and outside the education context. It has been considered in
contexts as varied as what languages drivers' license tests must be
given in or whether material relating to unemployment benefits must be
given in a language other than English.\6\

\5\ 414 U.S. at 568. Congress manifested its approval of the Lau
decision requirements concerning the provision of meaningful
education services by enacting provisions in the Education
Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-380, Secs. 105, 204, 88 Stat.
503-512, 515 codified at 20 U.S.C. 1703(f), and the Bilingual
Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., which provided federal
financial assistance to school districts in providing language
services.
\6\ For cases outside the educational context, see, e.g.,
Sandoval v. Hagan, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (M.D. Ala. 1998), affirmed,
197 F.3d 484, (11th Cir. 1999), rehearing and suggestion for
rehearing en banc denied, 211 F.3d 133 (11th Cir. Feb. 29, 2000)
(Table, No. 98-6598-II), petition for certiorari filed May 30, 2000
(No. 99-1908) (giving drivers' license tests only in English
violates Title VI); and Pabon v. Levine, 70 F.R.D. 674 (S.D.N.Y.
1976) (summary judgment for defendants denied in case alleging
failure to provide unemployment insurance information in Spanish
violated Title VI).

Link Between National Origin And Language

For the majority of people living in the United States, English is
their native language or they have acquired proficiency in English.
They are able to participate fully in federally assisted programs and
activities even if written and oral communications are exclusively in
the English language.
The same cannot be said for the remaining minority who have limited
English proficiency. This group includes persons born in other
countries, some children of immigrants born in the United States, and
other non-English or limited English proficient persons born in the
United States, including some Native Americans. Despite efforts to
learn and master English, their English language proficiency may be
limited for some time.\7\ Unless grant recipients take steps to respond
to this difficulty, recipients effectively may deny those who do not
speak, read, or understand English access to the benefits and services
for which they qualify.

\7\ Certainly it is important to achieve English language
proficiency in order to fully participate at every level in American
society. As we understand the Supreme Court's interpretation of
Title VI's prohibition of national origin discrimination, it does
not in any way disparage use of the English language.

Many recipients of federal financial assistance recognize that the
failure to provide language assistance to such persons may deny them
vital access to services and benefits. In some instances, a recipient's
failure to remove language barriers is attributable to ignorance of the
fact that some members of the community are unable to communicate in
English, to a general resistance to change, or to a lack of awareness
of the obligation to address this obstacle.
In some cases, however, the failure to address language barriers
may not be simply an oversight, but rather may be attributable, at
least in part, to invidious discrimination on the basis of national
origin and race. While there is not always a direct relationship
between an individual's language and national origin, often language
does serve as an identifier of national origin.\8\ The same sort of
prejudice and xenophobia that may be at the root of discrimination
against persons from other nations may be triggered when a person
speaks a language other than English.

\8\ As the Supreme Court observed, ``[l]anguage permits an
individual to express both a personal identity and membership in a
community, and those who share a common language may interact in
ways more intimate than those without this bond.'' Hernandez v. New
York, 500 U.S. 352, 370 (1991) (plurality opinion).

Language elicits a response from others, ranging from admiration
and respect, to distance and alienation, to ridicule and scorn.
Reactions of the latter type all too often result from or initiate
racial hostility * * *. It may well be, for certain ethnic groups
and in some communities, that proficiency in a particular language,
like skin color, should be treated as a surrogate for race under an
equal protection analysis.\9\

\9\ Id. at 371 (plurality opinion).

While Title VI itself prohibits only intentional discrimination on
the basis of national origin,\10\ the Supreme Court has consistently
upheld agency regulations prohibiting unjustified discriminatory
effects.\11\ The Department of Justice has consistently adhered to the
view that the significant discriminatory effects that the failure to
provide language assistance has on the basis of national origin, places
the treatment of LEP individuals comfortably within the ambit of Title
VI and agencies' implementing regulations.\12\ Also, existing language
barriers potentially may be rooted in invidious discrimination. The
Supreme Court in Lau concluded that a recipient's failure to take
affirmative steps to provide ``meaningful opportunity'' for LEP
individuals to participate in its programs and activities violates the
recipient's obligations under Title VI and its regulations.

\10\ Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 293 (1985).
\11\ Id. at 293-294; Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 463
U.S. 582, 584 n.2 (1983) (White, J.), 623 n.15 (Marshall, J.), 642-
645 (Stevens, Brennan, Blackmun, JJ.); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. at
568; id. at 571 (Stewart, J., concurring in result). In a July 24,
1994, memorandum to Heads of Departments and Agencies that Provide
Federal Financial Assistance concerning ``Use of the Disparate
Impact Standard in Administrative Regulations Under Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964,'' the Attorney General stated that each
agency ``should ensure that the disparate impact provisions of your
regulations are fully utilized so that all persons may enjoy equally
the benefits of federally financed programs.''
\12\ The Department's position with regard to written language
assistance is articulated in 28 CFR Sec. 42.405(d)(1), which is
contained in the Coordination Regulations, 28 CFR Subpt. F, issued
in 1976. These Regulations ``govern the respective obligations of
Federal agencies regarding enforcement of title VI.'' 28 CFR
Sec. 42.405. Section 42.405(d)(1) addresses the prohibitions cited
by the Supreme Court in Lau.

All Recipients Must Take Reasonable Steps To Provide Meaningful
Access

Recipients who fail to provide services to LEP applicants and
beneficiaries in their federally assisted programs and activities may
be discriminating on the basis of national origin in violation of Title
VI and its implementing regulations. Title VI and its regulations
require recipients to take reasonable steps to ensure ``meaningful''
access to the information and services they provide. What constitutes
reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access will be contingent on a
number of factors. Among the factors to be considered are the number or
proportion of LEP persons in the eligible service population, the
frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program,
the importance of the service provided by the program, and the
resources available to the recipient.

(1) Number or Proportion of LEP Individuals

Programs that serve a few or even one LEP person are still subject
to the Title VI obligation to take reasonable steps to provide
meaningful opportunities for access. However, a factor in determining
the reasonableness of a recipient's efforts is the number or proportion
of people who will be excluded from the benefits or services absent
efforts to remove language barriers. The steps that are reasonable for
a recipient who serves one LEP person a year may be different than
those expected from a recipient that serves several LEP persons each
day. But even those who serve very few LEP persons on an infrequent
basis should utilize this balancing analysis to determine whether
reasonable steps are

[[Page 50125]]

possible and if so, have a plan of what to do if a LEP individual seeks
service under the program in question. This plan need not be intricate;
it may be as simple as being prepared to use one of the commercially
available language lines to obtain immediate interpreter services.

(2) Frequency of Contact with the Program

Frequency of contacts between the program or activity and LEP
individuals is another factor to be weighed. For example, if LEP
individuals must access the recipient's program or activity on a daily
basis, e.g., as they must in attending elementary or secondary school,
a recipient has greater duties than if such contact is unpredictable or
infrequent. Recipients should take into account local or regional
conditions when determining frequency of contact with the program, and
should have the flexibility to tailor their services to those needs.

(3) Nature and Importance of the Program

The importance of the recipient's program to beneficiaries will
affect the determination of what reasonable steps are required. More
affirmative steps must be taken in programs where the denial or delay
of access may have life or death implications than in programs that are
not as crucial to one's day-to-day existence. For example, the
obligations of a federally assisted school or hospital differ from
those of a federally assisted zoo or theater. In assessing the effect
on individuals of failure to provide language services, recipients must
consider the importance of the benefit to individuals both immediately
and in the long-term. A decision by a federal, state, or local entity
to make an activity compulsory, such as elementary and secondary school
attendance or medical inoculations, serves as strong evidence of the
program's importance.

(4) Resources Available

The resources available to a recipient of federal assistance may
have an impact on the nature of the steps that recipients must take.
For example, a small recipient with limited resources may not have to
take the same steps as a larger recipient to provide LEP assistance in
programs that have a limited number of eligible LEP individuals, where
contact is infrequent, where the total cost of providing language
services is relatively high, and/or where the program is not crucial to
an individual's day-to-day existence. Claims of limited resources from
large entities will need to be well-substantiated.\13\

\13\ Title VI does not require recipients to remove language
barriers when English is an essential aspect of the program (such as
providing civil service examinations in English when the job
requires person to communicate in English, see Frontera v. Sindell,
522 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1975)), or there is another ``substantial
legitimate justification for the challenged practice.'' Elston v.
Talladega County Bd. of Educ., 997 F.2d 1394, 1407 (11th Cir. 1993).
Similar balancing tests are used in other nondiscrimination
provisions that are concerned with effects of an entity's actions.
For example, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
employers need not cease practices that have a discriminatory effect
if they are ``consistent with business necessity'' and there is no
``alternative employment practice'' that is equally effective. 42
U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(k). Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, recipients do not need to provide access to
persons with disabilities if such steps impose an undue burden on
the recipient. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. at 300. Thus, in
situations where all of the factors identified in the text are at
their nadir, it may be ``reasonable'' to take no affirmative steps
to provide further access.

Written vs. Oral Language Services

In balancing the factors discussed above to determine what
reasonable steps must be taken by recipients to provide meaningful
access to each LEP individual, agencies should particularly address the
appropriate mix of written and oral language assistance. Which
documents must be translated, when oral translation is necessary, and
whether such services must be immediately available will depend upon
the factors previously mentioned.\14\ Recipients often communicate with
the public in writing, either on paper or over the Internet, and
written translations are a highly effective way of communicating with
large numbers of people who do not speak, read or understand English.
While the Department of Justice's Coordination Regulation, 28 CFR
Sec. 42.405(d)(1), expressly addresses requirements for provision of
written language assistance, a recipient's obligation to provide
meaningful opportunity is not limited to written translations. Oral
communication between recipients and beneficiaries often is a necessary
part of the exchange of information. Thus, a recipient that limits its
language assistance to the provision of written materials may not be
allowing LEP persons ``effectively to be informed of or to participate
in the program'' in the same manner as persons who speak English.

\14\ Under the four-part analysis, for instance, Title VI would
not require recipients to translate documents requested under a
state equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act,
or to translate all state statutes or notices of rulemaking made
generally available to the public. The focus of the analysis is the
nature of the information being communicated, the intended or
expected audience, and the cost of providing translations. In
virtually all instances, one or more of these criteria would lead to
the conclusion that recipients need not translate these types of
documents.

In some cases, ``meaningful opportunity'' to benefit from the
program requires the recipient to take steps to assure that translation
services are promptly available. In some circumstances, instead of
translating all of its written materials, a recipient may meet its
obligation by making available oral assistance, or by commissioning
written translations on reasonable request. It is the responsibility of
federal assistance-granting agencies, in conducting their Title VI
compliance activities, to make more specific judgments by applying
their program expertise to concrete cases.

Conclusion

This document provides a general framework by which agencies can
determine when LEP assistance is required in their federally assisted
programs and activities and what the nature of that assistance should
be. We expect agencies to implement this document by issuing guidance
documents specific to their own recipients as contemplated by the
Department of Justice Coordination Regulations and as HHS and the
Department of Education already have done. The Coordination and Review
Section is available to assist you in preparing your agency-specific
guidance. In addition, agencies should provide technical assistance to
their recipients concerning the provision of appropriate LEP services.

[FR Doc. 00-20867 Filed 8-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-13-P
###
These items were cut and paste from democrat web sites and since the above is proved to be a lie I suggest you provide believable documentation for the claims.
Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii
Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%
Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws.
Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
Appointed John Negroponte -- an unindicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.
Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation.
Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.
Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands.
Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for public housing.
Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters
Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).
Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing
Appointed Otto Reich -- an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure -- to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List
Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming.
Gutted the White House AIDS Office.
Renegotiated a free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate workers's rights and safeguards for the environment.
Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program
Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness
Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects
###
Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can
Yep he prefers that we have murders in school rather than kids who have misdemeanor convictions. This must make you real proud.
###
Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah
Again this must make you proud. Was this a frat buddy?
###
Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco company lawsuit.
Yep Good
###
Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even in the case of daunting medical bills
Yep the first step toward making them demand socialized health care.
###
Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect
Prove it if you are so proud of this.
###
Helped kill a law designed to make it tougher for teenagers to get credit cards
Show me.
###
Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars.
High mileage prototypes came out in 2001 why do we need a law to make them available in 2004?
###

Earmarked $4 million in new federal grant money for HIV and drug abuse prevention programs to go only to religious groups and not secular equivalents
Never happened.
###
Reduced the Low Income Home Assistance Program by 40%; it aided low-income individuals who need assistance paying energy bills
Again this is untrue. He even expanded the program so the government buys some people houses.
###
Told U.N. "NO" re: global tax
Yep good
###
Items still to be accomplished and/or addressed
Allow sunsetting of AWB
Wants to keep this abomination
###
Fix illegal immigration issues and border control
Wants amnesty for these criminals. Refused to do anything about the problem.
###
Limit/eliminate federal entitlement programs
Is expanding them. When he gets his socialist drug bill it will be the biggest expansion of entitlements in 40 years. He will be up there with LBJ in expanding government.
###

Cut size of federal budget
Is has expanded it at a faster rate than anyone since Carter. When he gets his socialized drug program he will pass Carter.
###
Shrink federal government job force
So far he has expanded it.
###
Hate all Dems and do not treat them civilly
Loves Dems invites them over to watch movies after they help him expand government.
###
Don't appoint any homosexuals to public office
Too late.
###
Don't meet with Grover Norquist--or Muslims--or Homosexuals

Kill all terrorists in Israel
You must be off your meds.
###
Drop the idea of a Palestinian state
He is the first American president to back this. It is his idea. He wants this.
###
"Eliminate" all Palestinians
What are you taking?
###
Need means testing on Senior Rx legislation
He will never do this. It might cost him a few votes and wouldn’t expand government enough.
###
Get the United States out of the United Nations
Had his chance. He will not do it.
###
Banish the United Nations from U.S. soil.
Not George the Younger
###
Stop all foreign aid.
You listed his expansion of foreign aid as an accomplishment.
###
Stop all foreign aid to the Palestinians
They can’t have a state without aid. Bush wants them to have a state.
###
Eliminate Steel and Wood tarrifs
He put these taxes in place. He isn’t going to remove them.
###
Talk non-stop, at every opportunity, about judicial nominees and lack of Senate vote.
To hell with talk. Tell his sock puppet, Frist, to demand a real filibuster. But he would rather have the issue than the judges. Again he is putting his career ahead of the good of the nation.
###
Push Frist out.....bring back Trent Lott
Not Chester. Put in Mitch McConnell or James Inhofe
###
Fire Karl Rove
Why Rove and Bush agree on big government
###
Fire Colin Powell
Never happen it might cost a few votes.

ping

Great post !!

Very good post