10:41 AM 15 Apr 1998
| from: |
Ingrid M. Schroeder |
| to: |
Alexander T., Alice E. Shuffield, Ananias Blocker, Barbara, Barry, Bruce N. Reed, Charles, Charles E. Kieffer, Constance J. Bowers, Elena Kagan, James C. Murr, Janet R. Forsgren, Joseph J., Lisa M., Mary C., Mary I., Michael, Paul J. Weinstein Jr., Randolph M., Richard P. Emery, Robert G., Robert M., s. A., Shelly A., Wayne |
| cc: |
Darlene O., James J. Jukes, Jeffrey A. Farkas, M. Jill Gibbons |
YOU WILL NOT BE RECEIVING A PAPER COPY OF THIS LRM.
Total Pages:
LRM ID: IMS293
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
Wednesday, April 15, 1998
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below
FROM: James J. Jukes (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
OMB CONTACT: Ingrid M. Schroeder
PHONE: (202) 395-3883 FAX: (202) 395-3109
SUBJECT: EDUCATION Report on HR2646 Education Savings Act for
Public and Private Schools
DEADLINE: 4pm Thursday, April 16, 1998
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB 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
of Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
COMMENTS: The Senate is scheduled to continue consideration of H.R. 2646
on Monday, April 20th. On October 21, 1997, the Administration issued a
House SAP on H.R. 2646 stating that: "If H.R. 2646 were presented to the
President, the Secretaries of Education and the Treasury would recommend
that he veto the bill because it is bad education policy and bad tax
policy." Please note that the attached Education letter also contains a
veto recommendation.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
118-TREASURY - Richard S. Carro - (202) 622-0650
76-National Economic Council - Sonyia Matthews - (202) 456-6630
EOP:
Gene B. Sperling
Elena Kagan
Bruce N. Reed
Michael Cohen
Ananias Blocker III
Joseph J. Minarik
Charles E. Kieffer
Michael Deich
Charles Konigsberg
Lisa M. Kountoupes
Alice E. Shuffield
Randolph M. Lyon
Robert G. Damus
James C. Murr
Barry White
Wayne Upshaw
Mary I. Cassell
S. A. Noe
Mary C. Barth
Shelly A. McAllister
Alexander T. Hunt
Janet R. Forsgren
Constance J. Bowers
Richard P. Emery Jr.
Robert M. Shireman
Barbara Chow
LRM ID: IMS293 SUBJECT: EDUCATION Report on HR2646 Education Savings Act
for Public and Private Schools
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 bye-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: Ingrid M. Schroeder Phone: 395-3883 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
No Objection
No Comment
See proposed edits on pages
Other:
FAX RETURN of _____ pages, attached to this response sheet
DRAFT
APRIL 15, 1998
10:30 AM
Honorable
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator
I am writing to reiterate my strong objections to the regressive proposal
for "A-plus Accounts" in H.R.2646, now awaiting action by the Senate, and
to express my equally strong objections to possible amendments to that
bill that would convert Federal education programs to block grants and
revise the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I would recommend
that the President veto this legislation if it were to reach him with any
of those provisions included.
A-Plus Accounts
AS the Administration has noted on several prior occasions, the
Coverdell/Archer proposal to accord tax benefits to expenses of elementary
and secondary education through individual retirement accounts is both bad
education policy and bad tax policy. Instead of targeting limited Federal
resources to build stronger public schools, which would help ensure that
all our Nation's children receive the education they need to become the
most productive citizens possible, the bill would divert needed resources
from these schools.
H.R.2646 would disproportionately benefit the most affluent families and
provide little benefit to lower- and middle-income families or to families
whose children attend public schools. Families in the highest income
bracket that saved the maximum amount permitted by H.R.2646 would receive
more than twice the benefit of families in the lowest tax bracket that
saved the same amount. Moreover, the bill would not create a significant
incentive for families to increase their savings for educational purposes;
it would instead reward families, particularly those with substantial
incomes, for what they already do. Finally, a recent analysis by the
Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation shows that taxpayers with
children in public schools would receive an average benefit of only $7
under this proposal in 2002. This is not the way to improve education.
I understand that Senator Moseley-Braun will propose a substitute
amendment, which would devote revenue from this bill to help finance bonds
for the construction of public schools. I would strongly support such an
alternative because the President and I place a high priority on helping
to ensure that our children are educated in safe, modern, and
well-equipped schools. We believe that the Federal Government should
support financing arrangements that help States and localities to address
the substantial needs for construction and renovation of school
facilities, particularly in poor urban and rural areas. I also note that
several other possible substitute amendments would do far more to improve
education than would the A-plus Accounts now in H.R.2646.
Block grants
I would also strongly oppose any amendments to the bill that would convert
Federal education programs into block grants. As the President noted last
fall, such a step would halt many of our most successful efforts to
improve education, including our efforts to raise educational standards,
make computers available in every classroom, establish more charter
schools, and keep our schools safe and free of drugs. It could also
seriously harm the ESEA, Title I program, which provides extra help to
low-income students so that they can master the basic skills of reading
and math, paving the way for them to reach high academic standards.
The American people rightly look to the Federal Government to focus its
efforts not on general aid to school districts, but on national
priorities, such as improving educational opportunities for poor children
and other children with specia~ needs, combating youth drug-abuse and
school violence, and researching and disseminating information on what
works. This Administration has worked diligently to eliminate unnecessary
regulations and take other steps to promote State and local flexibility in
carrying out these targeted efforts, while supporting strong
accountability mechanisms, such as the Government Performance and Results
Act of1993, that ensure program effectiveness and results and that justify
continued support by the taxpayers. Block grants would replace these
worthy efforts with general aid, providing no focus, no accountability for
results, and no rationale for ongoing support.
The issue here is not about who controls public education -- we all agree
that that responsibility rests at the local and State levels. The
question, rather, is whether the Federal Government will maintain its
long-standing, bipartisan commitment to helping local communities
strengthen accountability, raise standards, and improve student
achievement, by providing assistance that focuses on our neediest children
and schools and on activities in which national leadership can playa
critical role.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
As you know, it was less than a year ago that the President signed the
IDEA Amendments of 1997 into law. That legislation was the product of
comprehensive bipartisan negotiations involving both chambers of Congress
and the Administration, with broad public input from many other
individuals and interested organizations. The final product involved
compromises on many important and sensitive issues, including disciplining
children with disabilities, and was widely recognized as a significant
improvement of P.L.94-142, the landmark legislation from 1975 that
guarantees a free appropriate public education to our Nation's children
with disabilities. By passing this legislation last May by a combined
vote of 518-4 (98-1 in the Senate), the Congress expressed its
overwhelming support for improving educational results for children with
disabilities.
Because I firmly believe that last year's agreement on the IDEA should be
honored, I strongly oppose revisiting any aspect of the Act this year. I
therefore deeply regret that some would seek to begin undoing the
substantial progress that we made last year by proposing to amend the new
IDEA, particularly in complex areas such as discipline. After intense
negotiations among all interested parties, the new IDEA gives teachers and
schools the tools they need to ensure that our schools and classrooms are
safe places of learning, while scrupulously protecting the rights of
children with disabilities to due process and an appropriate education. I
view with great alarm the pending amendment by Senator Gregg to undo those
protections and to return us to the days when disciplinary measures were
used to remove children with disabilities simply because they were
difficult to educate.
I urge you to sustain the major achievements embodied in the bipartisan
1997 IDEA legislation, and to reject any efforts to undo those
achievements by amending the IDEA.
Summary
I urge you to oppose the unwarranted and harmful authority for A-Plus
Accounts in H.R.2646, as well as any amendments that may be offered to
convert Federal education programs into block grants or to undo last
year's IDEA agreement. I would recommend that the President disapprove
the bill if it contains any of those features. The Office of Management
and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this
report from the standpoint of the Administration's program and that
enactment of H.R.2646 with the objectionable features I have described
would not be in accord with the President's program.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
10:41 AM 15 Apr 1998
| from: |
Ingrid M. Schroeder |
| to: |
Alexander T., Alice E. Shuffield, Ananias Blocker, Barbara, Barry, Bruce N. Reed, Charles, Charles E. Kieffer, Constance J. Bowers, Elena Kagan, James C. Murr, Janet R. Forsgren, Joseph J., Lisa M., Mary C., Mary I., Michael, Paul J. Weinstein Jr., Randolph M., Richard P. Emery, Robert G., Robert M., s. A., Shelly A., Wayne |
| cc: |
Darlene O., James J. Jukes, Jeffrey A. Farkas, M. Jill Gibbons |
YOU WILL NOT BE RECEIVING A PAPER COPY OF THIS LRM.
Total Pages:
LRM ID: IMS293
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
Wednesday, April 15, 1998
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below
FROM: James J. Jukes (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
OMB CONTACT: Ingrid M. Schroeder
PHONE: (202) 395-3883 FAX: (202) 395-3109
SUBJECT: EDUCATION Report on HR2646 Education Savings Act for
Public and Private Schools
DEADLINE: 4pm Thursday, April 16, 1998
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB 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
of Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
COMMENTS: The Senate is scheduled to continue consideration of H.R. 2646
on Monday, April 20th. On October 21, 1997, the Administration issued a
House SAP on H.R. 2646 stating that: "If H.R. 2646 were presented to the
President, the Secretaries of Education and the Treasury would recommend
that he veto the bill because it is bad education policy and bad tax
policy." Please note that the attached Education letter also contains a
veto recommendation.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
118-TREASURY - Richard S. Carro - (202) 622-0650
76-National Economic Council - Sonyia Matthews - (202) 456-6630
EOP:
Gene B. Sperling
Elena Kagan
Bruce N. Reed
Michael Cohen
Ananias Blocker III
Joseph J. Minarik
Charles E. Kieffer
Michael Deich
Charles Konigsberg
Lisa M. Kountoupes
Alice E. Shuffield
Randolph M. Lyon
Robert G. Damus
James C. Murr
Barry White
wayne Upshaw
Mary' I. Cassell
S. A. Noe
Mary C. Barth
Shelly A. McAllister
Alexander T. Hunt
Janet R. Forsgren
Constance J. Bowers
Richard P. Emery Jr.
Robert M. Shireman
Barbara Chow
LRM ID: IMS293 SUBJECT: EDUCATION Report on HR2646 Education Savings Act
for Public and Private Schools
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 bye-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: Ingrid M. Schroeder Phone: 395-3883 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
______ No Objection
______ No Comment
See proposed edits on pages
______ Other:
FAX RETURN of _____ pages, attached to this response sheet
DRAFT
APRIL 15, 1998
10:30 AM
Honorable
united States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator
I am writing to reiterate my strong objections to the regressive proposal
for "A-Plus Accounts" in H.R.2646, now awaiting action by the Senate, and
to express my equally strong objections to possible amendments to that
bill that would convert Federal education programs to block grants and
revise the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I would recommend
that the President veto this legislation if it were to reach him with any
of those provisions included.
A-Plus Accounts
As the Administration has noted on several prior occasions, the
Coverdell/Archer proposal to accord tax benefits to expenses of elementary
and secondary education through individual retirement accounts is both bad
education policy and bad tax policy. Instead of targeting limited Federal
resources to build stronger public schools, which would help ensure that
all our Nation's children receive the education they need to become the
most productive citizens possible, the bill would divert needed resources
from these schools.
H.R.2646 would disproportionately benefit the most affluent families and
provide little benefit to lower- and middle-income families or to families
whose children attend public schools. Families in the highest income
bracket that saved the maximum amount permitted by H.R.2646 would receive
more than twice the benefit of families in the lowest tax bracket that
saved the same amount. Moreover, the bill would not create a significant
incentive for families to increase their savings for educational purposes;
it would instead reward families, particularly those with substantial
incomes, for what they already do. Finally, a recent analysis by the
Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation shows that taxpayers with
children in public schools would receive an average benefit of only $7
under this proposal in 2002. This is not the way to improve education.
I understand that Senator Moseley-Braun will propose a substitute
amendment, which would devote revenue from this bill to help finance bonds
for the construction of public schools. I would strongly support such an
alternative because the President and I place a high priority on helping
to ensure that our children are educated in safe, modern, and
well-equipped schools. We believe that the Federal Government should
support financing arrangements that help States and localities to address
the substantial needs for construction and renovation of school
facilities, particularly in poor urban and rural areas. I also note that
several other possible substitute amendments would do far more to improve
education than would the A-Plus Accounts now in H.R.2646.
Block grants
I would also strongly oppose any amendments to the bill that would convert
Federal education programs into block grants. As the President noted last
fall, such a step would halt many of our most successful efforts to
improve education, including our efforts to raise educational standards,
make computers available in every classroom, establish more charter
schools, and keep our schools safe and free of drugs. It could also
seriously harm the ESEA, Title I program, which provides extra help to
low-income students so that they can master the basic skills of reading
and math, paving the way for them to reach high academic standards.
The American people rightly look to the Federal Government to focus its
efforts not on general aid to school districts, but on national
priorities, such as improving educational opportunities for poor children
and other children with special needs, combating youth drug-abuse and
school violence, and researching and disseminating information on what
works. This Administration has worked diligently to eliminate unnecessary
regulations and take other steps to promote State and local flexibility in
carrying out these targeted efforts, while supporting strong
accountability mechanisms, such as the Government Performance and Results
Act of1993, that ensure program effectiveness and results and that justify
continued support by the taxpayers. Block grants would replace these
worthy efforts with general aid, providing no focus, no accountability for
results, and no rationale for ongoing support.
..
The issue here is not about who controls public education -- we all agree
that that responsibility rests at the local and State levels. The
question, rather, is whether the Federal Government will maintain its
long-standing, bipartisan commitment to helping local communities
strengthen accountability, raise standards, and improve student
achievement, by providing assistance that focuses on our neediest children
and schools and on activities in which national leadership can playa
critical role.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
As you know, it was less than a year ago that the President signed the
IDEA Amendments of 1997 into law. That legislation was the product of
comprehensive bipartisan negotiations involving both chambers of Congress
and the Administration, with broad public input from many other
individuals and interested organizations. The final product involved
compromises on many important and sensitive issues, including disciplining
children with disabilities, and was widely recognized as a significant
improvement of P.L.94-142, the landmark legislation from 1975 that
guarantees a free appropriate public education to our Nation's children
with disabilities. By passing this legislation last May by a combined
vote of 518-4 (98-1 in the Senate), the Congress expressed its
overwhelming support for improving educational results for children with
disabilities.
Because I firmly believe that last year's agreement on the IDEA should be
honored, I strongly oppose revisiting any aspect of the Act this year. I
therefore deeply regret that some would seek to begin undoing the
substantial progress that we made last year by proposing to amend the new
IDEA, particularly in complex areas such as discipline. After intense
negotiations among all interested parties, the new IDEA gives teachers and
schools the tools they need to ensure that our schools and classrooms are
safe places of learning, while scrupulously protecting the rights of
children with disabilities to due process and an appropriate education. I
view with great alarm the pending amendment by Senator Gregg to undo those
protections and to return us to the days when disciplinary measures were
used to remove children with disabilities simply because they were
difficult to educate.
I urge you to sustain the major achievements embodied in the bipartisan
1997 IDEA legislation, and to reject any efforts to undo those
achievements by amending the IDEA.
Summary
I urge you to oppose the unwarranted and harmful authority for A-Plus
Accounts in H.R.2646, as well as any amendments that may be offered to
convert Federal education programs into block grants or to undo last
year's IDEA agreement. I would recommend that the President disapprove
the bill if it contains any of those features. The Office of Management
and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this
report from the standpoint of the Administration's program and that
enactment of H.R.2646 with the objectionable features I have described
would not be in accord with the President's program.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
