-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/464c6d7d6f5a06a7caeb83a18f88c184.pdf
099c85013859a8d47f82b81a9af38a27
PDF Text
Text
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
·
DOCUMENT NO. ·
AND TYPE
Clinton Library
SUBJECTffiTLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
Phone No. (Partial) (1 page)
n.d.
P6/b(6)
Laura D. Tyson to President Clinton. Subject: Monday's budget speech
and our budget campaign ( 1 page) ·
001. note
07/2111995
P5
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speech writing
David Shipley
OA/Box Number: 10706
··~·
FOLDER TITLE:
Boys Nation [4]
Jamie Metrailer·
2006-.1734-F
"m280
RESTRICTION CODES
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
Presidential Records Act- [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)[
PI
P2
P3
P4
National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA]
Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
.
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRA]
P6'Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
·."'~~. <>, . - J""~ ..;.,: .
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon req~est.
b(lrNational security classified information [(b)(l) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9)J~elease,would di~close geological or geophysical information
· · . . . . concer.riing \\;ells nb)(9rof the FOIA]
' .\. LINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
• - · H++**'Fi k
·.!
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
-
95Jll21 A9:
· July 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
TYSO~U. '~"~·
FROM:
. LAURA D.
RE:
MONDAY'S BUDGET SPEECH AND OUR BUDGET CAMPAIGN
As you know, the White House Working Group to promote the Clinton Budget is now
up and running. Both the members of the Working Group and the principals, who comprise
the NEC Budget Strategy Group and advise the Working Group, agree that you should give a
speech on Monday, July 24, 1995 to re-introduce your balanced budget plan to the American
people and to kick. off our concerted campaign to promote it around the count:rY.
The principals of the NEC Budget Strategy Group believe that this campaign is of
. critical importance because it is our only real source of leverage to realize an ultimate budget
deal which reflects your priorities and which can be used to define the Clinton economic
vision during the 1996 election year. We must make the case for our budget consistently,
forcefully and clearly to the American voters during the next few weeks so that they strongly
prefer it to the Republican alternative. Their active support is essential if we are to succeed in
realizing a compromise we can accept sometime during the fall.
Many of the NEC principals also believe that we must fmd opportunities to express
_our concern about a likely budgetary train wreck this falL One possibility would be to voice
such 1COncern in your Monday speech. The press <;:urrently seems quite interested in the train
wreck story, and your speech could key into this interest with a multi-part message: "I am
concerned and disappointed that the Congress is far behind schedule on the reconciliation
process; I exhort them to accelerate the pace of their work, so that the American people have
time to understand and evaluate the profound budgetary choices confronting them; I am
prepared to do everything I can to avoid a train wreck; But I will not sacrifice my priorities
and vision to do so; and I will not allow the American peopleto be blackmailed into
accepting huge cuts in Medicare, education and training and a huge tax cut for the wealthy. "
Several of your advisers believe that a strong message along these lines will increase
our leverage to avoid a train wreck both by alerting the American people to the budgetary game of chicken which some Republicans wish to play and by indicating to the Congress that
you will not blink in such a game. Right now many of your advisers fear that Congressional
Republicans do not take our veto threats seriously bec;~.l,l~~- !Qey believe that we have more to
. i
A_;:,·;., ·--. _ '_,;,;.:_- --- .-- . - --· -.. . .
_/,,
..,,
(~"~TON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY~~
.
-
. ·:
:
�Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
SUBJECT!TITLE
DATE
Kitty Higgins to President Clinton. Subject: Hot issues
in Tennessee
RESTRICTION
10/09/1996
P5
(1 page)
l!IDG
002. memo
re: Campaign (2 pages)
10/0911996
Personal Misfile
003. memo
re: Campaign (4 pages)
10/0911996
Personal Misfile
004. memo
re: Campaign (3 pages)
10/08/1996
Personal Misfile
005. memo
re: Campaign (3 pages)
10/0911996
Personal Misfile
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speech writing
David Shipley
OA/Box Number: 10705
··':
FOLDER TITLE:
Internet [4]
Jamie Metrailer
2006-1734-F
'm271
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act; [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
b(l) National security classified information [(b)(l) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIAl
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information ((b)(4) of the FOlA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information _compiled for law enforcement
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
~(2) &lease .wou!d;dl,!iclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S,C.
1
2201(3).
'··-concerning ~eJ"fs':~b)(9) of the FOIA]
.
, ?'Ji'!il·~· ..,_p'~:.
. ..
..
.
. .· ·,;~) · '
RR. Document will be reviewed upon reqtie~t,
'··
''iNIFON:LIBRARY PHdt0B(i)py,_,;,\t, ....•~
Pl National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(3) of the PRAl
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRA]
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy ((a)(6) of the PRA]
·
· .
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
.J{J~~
FROM:
KITTY HIGGINS .
SUBJECT:
HOT ISSUES -- TENNESSEE
Nashville Football Stadium Minority Contracts: African-American members of the
Nashville City Council are concerned that less than J percent of the work at the $130
million Nashville Arena project went to minority contractors. These members withheld
· their support for the football stadium -- to be the home of the relocating Houston Oilers -until the mayor agreed to fund a $500,000 study of city contracting disparity. (DOC)
Death of Knoxville Two-Year-Old Who Was Denied Hospital Admission: In August,
Danielle Sara Lynn Davis died after being denied admission to St. Mary's Hospital
emergency ·room in Knoxville. Initial reports indicated that the child was in cardiac arrest
when she was denied admission. It has also been reported that the Knox County Medical
Examiner stated. that the girl had beeri dead for two hours before her grandfather found her
and called an ambulance. The Tennessee State Survey Agency investigated a possible
-"dumping" violation, but determined that the case did not violate COBRA requirements
because admission was denied when the patient was in the ambulance and not physically on
the grounds of the hospital. HCFA's Regional and Central Offices conducted a physician
review because of concerns that the hospital might have failed to meet the Medicar.e
Conditions of Participation for Hospitals, but reached the same result. Physician reviewers
employed by the state Peer Review Organization concurred. There has been significant
media coverage, including Geraldo Rivera and Inside Edition. (HHS)
Phillips Electronics Layoffs: The Phillips Electronic Company is stationed in three
locations in Tennessee. One of the three plants,· in Greeneville, TN, will lay-off 2,000
employees with no plans to re-hire. It is DOL's concern that the POTUS does not mention
this company as an outstanding employer due to this recent development.
~=~~~RY PlldTOCOPY
"""
]
�Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
SUBJECTffiTLE
Dick Mon·is to President Clinton, Don Baer, and David Shipley.
Subject: Draft of Michigan speech (1 page)
05/04/1995
P5
Dick Morris to Don Baer. Subject: Vision (Annotations) (13 pages)
002. memo -
DATE
02114/1995
P5
RESTRICTION
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speech writing
David Shipley
OA/Box Number:
10708
FOLDER TITLE:
Michigan
St~te
Commencement [I]
Jamie Metrailer
2006- I 734-F
'm796
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- (44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act- (5 U.S.C. SS2(b)]
PI
P2
P3
P4
b(l) National security classified information [(b)(l) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of ·
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions l(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) ~elease would d~close geological or geophysical information
· ·-concerning wells t(b)(9) of the FOIA]
National Security Classified Information ((a)(l) of the PRA]
Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRA]
Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(3) of the PRA)
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such a~visors [a)(S) of the PRA]
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
-~·'·· - _p;:-::-~1;.;,: ···· '
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
I'£ . ·
i
·; .iZbLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY . ,j
I
Q84&4
@@
Q$
�04 '95
MRY~MAY
I,,--
02:59PM
..
i
I,
•·'
1'0; ·riU~ ?K5SIDBN1'
n(,.111BaeJ:
D.a\id Sbil)ll:)'
'•
From; Die~ Mo.rc4s
· ~; ~~of M~cl\igau S~h
f~lte Th~ay, l3~ PM.
,.
8UA l"d iikc i1! sl\~~pCr JU( On lltc lhilltia. f V.<ltlt W ~lutfJil:'!\ the '"'hOW dl!!Tfllhf!y"'•,;ec(l().t\ abit.
~ink i~ ·Sll_ou1d be
l];tnL. . . . .
..
g
how doliC yoo-t11at \\iU niUe.t!luch better TV- :•s irtb_c President is iOilking d!,iX11y 11n.
..· .
. . ·.
rCI picpose'~~sli.&:ir li!n&~lftle
.
.
.
. . ..
. .. :'
-"'"
· _. J'tus t~ a~cc.~inl)'. We have thev()t~ .. W.c ~:i'·c·rr~ ~h. W~ hU\ic a~i ~ti~~ jn~~dgidi~~
.. JUiHt&s: ·we MVc the tig11t. lO prin'l. wJDili·wc w~fu.aild sefuf,il to whOmever \~c .'W:iint,,~so i ~i.v'iiJ. thr;) .
j,nC(tl$."
.
. . .
.
..
.. . .
. .. . '
.
.. .
.• . .
·~~6'14· dare )·ou sa); t.ML vi~leniic is th(: ~illy way ~dina~ t;J~I,g~;: whe,n ycit1 Qlin g(} ·,c_) ~ ~·¢iitfu ~Hi ,jiJ .
~ec.tion dny
.
.
1-incl rblai.:c al'iy ~hangc yo•& ,.;ant.
..
.·
.
· ··
·
· ·. · · · ·
,,,·.·
How di,Jr~ yoQ say lbaL ahc s-»'enul'icr_u ill m' a c:onspi1"i!C)" In l:tk.;,r<lilr ftcedof11.· 'l'h~s :iii Ut,c CO\•,Ci"tD'IJ!Crll
yoti hCU~ci ei.CI.it and ~·au caq c1utng.::~ "I'}Qs is the go"'"'rmhtm of th.:. pcopli;, by the ~pic. ~-!'d iorJht:
. pe:ople: JIo,W dare you ·say thai ils· Hke soinc vit.ion fto111 St~linisl RuS.iiin or Na~i q~ii11~n1·~ tho~ .~rc d~k=·
kifld of, 8r.wer~ments who p1ol against tll.;ir p(:~pll:~, nota . dcm<lCr~il:y like th~ United sunc~ or A1r,cricn.
.
.
.
.
.
'
..
.
Ho'w d~rc y6\J tn::aL ia"; (:tJfOrg:mcu~ officers lilce stnltc kJnCI or eilemY ;lrril)', :to be s~~~rtd,' ·derided. and
as yo\i turn tric ~lht.r w~y. ti1urdered. ~;.s~; mkn and thes~ ,,·otticn rilik.theit'Jives to prolci:t ~ ail ~nd
kriep US aU free. Tbcy help u:;;, they sti~llcr u.s,.lhe guard 11-!i· lhl'4' d~ yo\1 iri1p1,1grt lliUln Md lhr(•;Uel\
. fti'DQJlB, ' .
.
. .
. ..
.·
'
,
.
. ..
.
.
liow dare yOU,atppropmtc lO )'Oiir paranqld w~it;, ~ui sacr~<J naiiothd ~)'inbc!Js. l fow d;lrt.': you Ctl~lpt\ie
)iO~i'SeiVC.'Ii
tO c.cl(oi}jafrit!liias. '''1-'hei f(i~~ghl for dca'rtOCf<l~.; ~·ilit:hyOLir:ig"{agnil'l!'l;
.
Bo~· da"Q:: y~ii in~oke Lht 'Foun~lng f~nhtrs WltO crliailiid the cl~r.ai'I.'C so,·C:,·itmciu you daun
·
pe~1et.
···
·
.
.
ali )·nur.
·
H<i'W d:u-o you suggC~>t thatl\'c, in lhc freeest Mtion m1 earth. U"e tmdcr ~~·rani\~·
·J--W11\-' ~ri:i you
c:Sil )'cillr8Ch·es pauiots Y Ha-.· dare yon call yoursch•es h:crtisl
We have more rr=:~om........ ·
ll~na~ points ·~p2 pardgraph 3. dorl'l ~cxn to beliitlc the ··iumdrcds of thcn~s.ands"' Qi" 1\rucnc:'ln dc:nd h~·
· St.c'lnint to con1pan: tiU;an with the 27 l'lliliian dead m f{u~ia
·
p2. para£ don·, dr~~· :A pte and posi WWII distinction ll s~mnds Ul.e we consitkrcci the: fear CJ( fil!l''&$1')'1
anorc: rcaltbal\ '"~ rc:ar o! C:QI'\vrni_ni~n.. il i$ aU a SQI!nlless W<,-b uf est.;lrn:ti lhn:al.li
�.Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
A.ND TYPE
SUBJECTffiTLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
00 I. statement
re: Fundraiser (2 pages)
04/0411995
Personal Misfile
002. memo
Paul Begala to Don Baer and Doug Sosnick. Subject: American
Society of Newspapers Editors speech (4 pages)
04/03/1995
P5
Working Group to President Clinton. Subject: Communications plan
(4 pages)
03/3111995·
P5
~~
LtlO~
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speechwriting
David Shipley
OA/Box Number:
10705
.. :;
FOLDER TITLE:
American Society of Newspaper Editors
Jamie Metrailer
2006-1734-F
'm260
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- (44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
PI
P2
P3
P4
National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRAI
Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRA]
Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
finanCial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRAI
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
:#];:_ , ·- ..JC.-;:~o~,i;.;:
2201(3).
'
RR. Document will be reviewed upon reqOest.
,., .
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
b(l) National security classified information ((b)(l) of the FOIAI
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of .
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
·
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIAI
b(9) ~~lease. would.disclose geological or geophysical information
. . , •concerning we1Isi(b)(9) of the FOIA]
�J\1anh 31, 1995
l\1emonmdum for the P•·esident
Fron1:
Working Group
Subject:
Communications Plan
This memo presents for your review and comment a communications plan for April and May.
The following plan reflects the consensus of your senior staff.
.
.
.
.
'
.
Four Majo1· Speeches
We propose that we designate four of your upcoming speeches as the building blocks of our ·
message in the months ahead:
American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 7, 1995.
.. · .
Dallas, Texas ·
·
•
Micb.ig<:m State UniversitY Commencement, M<1:Y 5; 1995.
East Lansing, Michigan
US Air Force Academy Commenc.enierit, May 31; 1995
Colorado Spri'ngs, Colorado
•
,'\
Dartmouth College Commencement, 1'u~ne 11, 1995 ·.
Hanbver, Ne~ Hampshire
In thes~ spee~hes,. we propose that y6u outl.ine your
.\ve approach the 21st century.
visi~n to reriew the American Dream as
The commencement addresses, in·particular, offer you ari onportunity to sp~ll out forthe next
generation the realities of the new world they will inherit -- the .challenges they will face, the
opportunities they will enjoy, and the responsibilities they must assume to achieve the.·
American Dream. Like the GeorgetoWn spe'eches, the thr.ee commencement speeches should
each address a disti~ct part of that vision, e.g. the challenges of the new econo111y, American
'leadership in the new world, and the mainstre~m va:h.Jes -- opporturiit)', responsibility, family - that must guide us. Unlike Georgetown, the speeches need not outline our policies; those
polices are on the table already. Instead, the speeches should allow you to articulate your
vision for the future and describe for Americans. their 'common mission as we approach the
next century.
The speech to the American Society of Newsp,'aper Editors -- which occurs n~xt Friday -serves a more tactical purpose and warrants a separate discussion.
�Speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors
We propose that this speech serve two purposes:
Set the Stage for a Month-Long Focus ori Education as the Key to Economic Growth.
•
'
Suggest the Major Contrast Between Our Values a!ld Thos.e of the Republicans
This speech must serve as a pivot away from the next week's focus on the NewCongress's
achievements-- a mixed record-- to your thoughtful vision for the future, a vision that links
education to the .economy. It will be followed throughout the month of April by events
1
demonstrating our commitmen~ to improving education. We will use the ASNE speech to
move away ftoin criticism to our positive education messag~ in April. The basic elements of
that 111essa,se follow:
Education aridlifelolig learning are t11e key to opportunity in the new economy.
Indi,viduals,Iocal communities, private institutions, and business all share
responsibility for this effort ·So does the feder.;al go\·ernment.
..
Ctittirig· edu(:atioii in this era of· giQbal cornpetitiQri is like cutting ciefen~e
diHing the Cold War. That's why ..;;,~must preser\•e the gains we have. made ·
. to improve education andttainingand 11i1bv~ forward on the rest ofour agenda_
Unlik~e the A.CE Speech in February and the PTA: re~arks in -March, this speech sho.uld riot
focus oh a vow to protect education programs:_ Instead, it sho!lld inwlidtly contr<;1st your
v;~ipn for the future with that of the Republicar1~. .
·
. , .
.
.
Ojl'por•ttlnitie's and i>anger·s. The audience, major A~wspaper editors, ~irtLr~lly guaranteE;s
that-.flle ASNE speech will be treated seriously, fiowever, th~ Q&A'~.e~sion· following the
speech'. pbse$ a major trap. Last year, you delivereda,fhought'ful speech to the ASN.E th?t
was drowned O!Jtby your assessment of-the press's co.\1e·rage of Wh_itewater in response to a
· questiqn. As we saw this Week, there is en()ilgh !'hot news'' out there, 'e,g, Guatemala, Iraq,
etc;.,
divert attention from a serious, positi~e speech. Your responses to Q&A should be
perfuQctory ei;tough to keep attention when~ it belongs: on the speech.
tq
100 Days. Friday, April 7 is the day Speaker Gingrich has· chosen to celebrate the I 00 Days
of his ,;Contract with America." He has planned "! flag-waving rally at the Capitol and a live
evening address to the.nation that CNN will broadcast The networks will broadcast their
evening news fro,m the Capitol on both Thursday and Friday. The speech to the ASNE is
your response. By not attacking the Contract head-on, you can rise above the hoopla around
the 100 days, while allowing others to drive home the contrast
The basic thrust of that contrast is bet;een our commitment to education and the Republican
effort to cut education to pay for tax cuts forthe wealthy: This contrast will pain a larger
picture about what we as Democrats stand for, what we consider important. That effort
begins next week. The Vice President .will kick it off in a speech on Monday, while
Democrats in the Bouse; Senate; Governors, mayors, local officials and interested groups will
amplify your message,:,~n.g 0;g{· . ·he.,:rf.Q.tlJ£~~!x~thWM~h8,WJittb.~~~~~-~\[(:g,nd month.
·;i\[~W~t ",,~~~h~~v,~w~i~~~!~lll
�Other· .Education Events
The following is a preliminary sketch of April events designed to show your
education as the key to renewing the American Dream.
.
.
.
Radio A,~dress on Education. Allows you to follow-up on message of
the Economic Conference and kick off th·e month by previewing
education and economy theme.
April 3, 1995
Arkansas School. Dedication. Allows you to highlight commitment to··
education at thebeginning of a Week when Senate Republicans vote on
education cuts and House Republicans. vote on tax cuts for the wealthy.
Apri17, 1995
ASNE Speech. Previously discussed.
.
.
Local Event. Reinforce and echo ASNE speech with Dallas residents.
Designed not tq make news and "trump" th~ ASNE speech.
April
s: 1995
Speec::h to .the Nati~nal Edtr·catiot1 Associatiot,t. Focus on challenges
and solutions. that schools; parents;st(iqents, com.rnunities and.
·
go~ernhH~nt face in crea,hng s.afe schoq·Js where. children dm ·learn.
Radio Addl'ess on Education.· .Exce·rpts front NEA speech,
.
.
Plea.~e Note. NEA speech is· after d.eki]lihe, 'so we' must approve .
.
excerpts iri advance and . u~eradio addte$~ to· move~ the story,
.
.'
; ~
.
.
.
'April 12, 1995
Pr'imetim'e Press Confer·erice-. Lead with the announceme~t of 500+
new institutions adrhitted "into. the third year ofdir~ct. lending.
April -13; 1995.
Local Event ori Middle C·lass Bifl of'Rights. Event with_ young people
highli'ghting the education provisions of the Middle Clas~ ·BilL of Rights.
April 15, 19')5'
Radi·o Address on Edtrcation. Coriicides with taxes and College
Admissions Day. Summarize the week, with anecdotes from "people
e'vents." Restate the case for lifelong learning.
April24; 1995
Aniedcan Association ofCommunity Colleg~s. Focus on advanced
training as the key to opportunity to the new economy.
April25, 1995
National Rural Conference: Devote some segment of the program to
·highlight rural education, including the role of telecommunications.
April 27, 1995
Teache•· of the Year. Focus on White House agenda for world-class
public education, including reform, investment and choice. ·
.
•
•
.
.
•
.
I
:
J
.
.
/.
�Othe•· Message Events -- Oppo•·tunities
There are several other message events we will do in April Given the high
ncentra
education events, the likelihood that these other events will dilute our focus is somewhat
diminished. Unlike the education events which we will designate publ_icly as the main thrust
of our activity, the following events -- grouped thematically -- should be seen as attempts-to
lay down markers.-- in some cases for future fights.
Reinventing G()vemment~ Two events.
.
.
-
.
SociaiSecurity on April 13, 1995. Message is that.we are fixing government and
prese~ving Social Security for the next generatioh
· Missouri dli April 26, i 995. Highlight our effort to cut red tape and allow states to
reform .welfare, move people to work.
P•·ote~ting.
~-
the Envi•·Qnmen-t and Public Health·..
·. Eartkt>ay'(>h-April2l,l995, Ghariceto lay down a str6ngn1arker againstGOP
efforts ·to roll back ·environmental protection.
. .
.
·-
'
'.
Th~ P~iitic~l_ ·" Cainp~ign ~tol'ies.
More. clan_gerous tqari events on· other initiatives .is the da~ger that bur efforts be portray~d
· · ag1c1ihst the back~tlropof the qascent preside!itial campaign:· yv.e ,h~Y.e a.l r~ady s¢en coverage
of yo'ur trip to the South ·colored by politiGal reporting. With R~publicans up ahd running, •'
tepornirs are iricr~~siqgly likely to cast all our efforts aspoliticaf and d'imiriish their .
..
signifi-cance·,_ We· can counter that tendency in part byayoiclillghe<it~d rhetoric and partisan
cilqllenges.. However, it will be diffitu'ifto paint a contrast bet~een our vision and that of the·
Republi.caris is that· contrast is too flat.
·
•:
Dist•'actions
..
f•"orii. 'i'he
Non Message Events
..
Throughout the month; you will be addressing· groups before the press in settings where we
would prefer not to make news, e;g. the Af11erican Jewish Congress; the California
bemocratit.State .Convention, the Construction and Trade Workers, etc. We must be careful
.
.
'
not to allow these secondary, political events to i•truinp" our public message. That is best
done ~y keeping the rhetoric and partjsan nature of these speeches unusually muted.
'·
'
�Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
SUBJECTffiTLE
DATE.
. RESTRICTION
001. note
SSN's (Partial) (1 page)
n.d.
P6/b(6)
002. notes
re: Draft radiation statement (2 pages)
n.d.
P5
09/2911995
PS
003~em9~-~Bfl Leon Panetta to President Clinton. Subject: Advisory
Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (4 pages)·
.
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speech writing
David Shipley
OA/Box Number:
10709
FOLDERTITLE:
Radiation [1]
Jamie Metrailer
2006-1734-F
"m328
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
Pl National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAI
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(J) of the PRA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
·financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRA]
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy l(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(l) National security classified information [(b)(l) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of.
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(J) of the FOIA].
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information ((b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted' invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIA]
·
b(9) Releas~; . would.!Jisclose geological or geophysical information
-·concerning weiiS"{(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. <:;losed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�September 29, 1995
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR TilE PRESIDE
FROM:
1HROUGH:'
To approve several recommended actions to be taken on Tuesday, October 3, when you
are scheduled to receive the Advisory Committee's ~eport.
~,~·~
BACKGROUND
You appointed this Committee in January 1994 after Secretary O'Leary made public a
number of revelations of the government's conduct during the 1940s and 50s with regard
to radiation experiments using human research subjects. You issued an Executive Order
charging the Committee with reviewing the records of the Federal agencies and
providing expert advice on many issues, including 1) whether human radiation
experiments sponsored or conducted by the government from 1944-1974 met the ethical
and scientific standar4s of the time and those that exist today; and 2) whether current
human subject research safeguards are adequate to prevent recurrence ofsuch ethical
abuSes.
The Committee's work essentially, falls into three. categories: 1) a review of experiments
from the Cold War, 2) a survey of current human subjects research and 3) a review of
secrecy and openness guidelines.
1) Cold War: 1944- 1974: The Committee found conclusive evidence that the
govemment sponsored a very large number of human radiation research experiments·
f om 1944-1974. Because of the large number, the Committee focused on identifying the
ethical standards that applied to the government and the medical profession, not the
particulars of the hundreds of experiments, although they focussed on a few in-depth.
The basic storyline here is that the Committee found that the vast majority of the
experiments they examined in-depth were not harmful to the subjects, but, nevertheless,
·the government did not effectively implement policies to ensure that consent was
obtained from. the subjects.
~~-:t~·-~ '-~•.:_:,":':. ;·· -~~,:··, ____
.
....--::..
- .. ·-·-·
~FNTON LIBRARY PH~TOCOPY
�0~
~~E.SID€'1\t~
~
'(
.J..:.
The Committee will recommend financial compensation for the families of the ~ L( 0
0
subjects of the plutonium injection experiments (the experiments for which the
Albuquerque Tribune won the Pulitzer) because this was the most egregious·e
le of
the government keeping secret an experiment, although it was unlikely physical h
resulted fromthe experiment itself. The Comt:llittee will also recommend.compensation
for_ another larger class of people who were subjects of experiments; approximately 4,000 .
may deserve compensation, but the nuniber is very, very difficult to determine .. · These · · ·
people were harmed to some degree, were not in a position to benefit medically, and the
experiments were not ethically proper. Experiments in this category include the testicular
irradiation of prisoners, and the total body irradation in Cincinnati. OMB is working with
the agencies on several options for a compensation scheme. It is premature for you to
comment with any specificity.
l q
-
.
·2) Current Human Subject Research: 1974 - present: The Committee reviewed 125
current or recently Federally-funded studies (not ~ted to radiation research) and .1)
interviewed patients at leading hospitals in order to gauge the adequacy of procedures
for obtaining informed consent from subjects, 2) evaluated the research risks of the
experiments and 3) sampled attitudes towards human subject research.
The Committee found that most of the protections and informed consent were up to
standard. However, the Committee did find that about 25% of the experiments were
"trmibling" in terms of the informed consent and the risks involved in the research. The
Committee has notified each of the sponsoring institutions (usually a university research
hospital) of these problems and asked each of the institutions to strenuously review their
procedures. You will issue an Executive Order directing the agencies to review their
policies and procedures.
3) Secrecy and Openness: The Committee's recommendations in this section fall
generally into two categories: 1) additional safeguards for the protection of human
subjects involved in classified research, and 2) environmental oversight of classified
programs. ·The Committee's recommendations are geared to preventing 40s and 50sstyle experiments from ever happening again.
......
III.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Administration is officially seeing the final report for the first time, although we
have been working closely with the Committee. It would not be correct for you to
. respond with a great deal of specificity about the Committee's recommendations, but
rather lay out a set of principles and then ask the Cabinet to work on implementing the
Committee's recommendations. The theme of your remarks will be that your
Administration has. "done the right thing," lifted the veil of secrecy on the government's
conduct during the Cold War - your Administration has taken a risk of exposing
deficiencies in the protection of human research subjects in order to improve the system
and help restore the trust in government.
·
;A;;:o. -,,.f:'iC:::C~k.~
-
•
. .• ....
~INT~~ LIBRARY PHOT-OCOPY
�0~
~
PRes~,
·
<>«::
t) apologize: there will ~ representa~v~ ?t victims righ~ groups at e evt.j.~ O\ j
We recommend that, while you don't mdiVIdually apologiZe to those pr ent, you
~
;j
Therefore, we recommend you take the following actions at the event on 0
()
~
ober 3rd:
~
issue a heartfelt apology on behalf of the nation to those who were harm
participating in unethical experiments.
2) Endorse the Committee's notion that people who were harmed as subjects in
unethical experiments should be compensated, and pledge that your
Administration work closely with the Congress to establish a streamlined
compensation scheme. This will be the first time you have substantively
commented on this subject and your comments will. receive the most media
~ttention out of the event.
3) Issue an Executive Order that 1) directs all federal agencies to review their
policies and procedures with regard to human subject research and 2) establishes
the National Bioethics Advisory Committee to look at, among other things, the
whole of issue of human subjects research, and lay out new guidelines for
informed consent to fill in the gaps that the Committee has found to exist.
Accept general outline
Reject general outline
Discuss further
j
;;~~;.;:.• , ,. fl'.T.:~j;.;__:
....
.
..
.
~INTON Li~RARY PHOTOCOPY
�f-.~ V-~
·Jf
~J
~u.
~\ )£"?~}.
(~- rrvy~c;~· ~ )(jt)-J.
~
fv . ~ r-t- 4- ~ t ,.__} ()
~
r Lt-M
,_, &.. -k.yv
4-w~ :~ ~-~ r)
A1"
f
~ -+~0·
C-t.- r '- , rr. r ,._, rs _,_
!A.{
r., yv (/' ~ .
"-1-t~r. ~j
~ ~ ~ .. ~ rr
f..A... ../,
f"-L
~
f ('-. . . II< ~ ~ • rJ ':l ~ .
~~
f
{'-e
A l <A
(\A' A
:;
~(?'
.r
~
:5/ fA(-, r~)
J-< "-"-J
~ -~-) • . v ~
II'>
._
fy._
').o
~
c.;:!,
ft')~ -~>·~
U,..,<-1/\.Af..-lrs
~ uy l~f-c) -h-~14--<:
1" f (';-_J
~lft:-./-,r:r_
!vvvv
v- ~ " L }_; ( (
tA,
o-t ,,
ly
l'v-r .
)O).r-
~)
·
tn..,
t- ~ .. ~
~ ~. ~ . fb '"'- ''rd/c../- :.
~
~ -1-l ~
r
f'-'-lc,J
~-r; ~
'f\.t ff- y c d l. ~
•No
c.:;
f
.._
,_ .... l
..... v
~A
v-..
.... ,
- ....
.
~
•
hy
""'--
tAl·
1 ..J
. ~.,
f., d- __
-~~--Fe:!:;....
.
h k """- :..
}a "t
1 ,.,
-
,
s •
.
~.TNTON ti~R ARV Ptln<rdt'Citiv
Ft ~I ~ rv
"-"'r'V1--',.
,... ...
•
�,---------------------------------------------
----------------------.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. memo
t@~:tlb-003. schedule
SUBJECTffiTLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
Kevin Sullivan to Michael Waldman and Jonathan Prince. Subject:
NEA speech (2 pages)
06/18/1996
P5
Laura Tyson to PresidentClinton. Subject: Educational infrastructure
and offsets (16 pages)
07/0511996
P5
Phone No.'s (Partial) (1 page)
07/1011996
P6/b(6)
({ l!C>
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speechwriting
David Shipley
OA/Box Number:
12006
FOLDER TITLE:
School Reconstruction [1]
Jamie Metrailer
2006-1734-F
'm350
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
PI
P2
P3
P4
National Security Classified Information J(a)(l) of the PRAI
Relating to the appointment to Federal office J(a)(2) of the PRAI
Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(3) of the PRAI
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commerciaf or
·financial information J(a)(4) of the PRAI
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors Ja)(S) of the PRAI
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
·personal privacy J(a)(6) of the PRAI
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
. ;#f!IJ,)Z«, .. _::;-~:!;...:·
RR. Document will be reviewed upon req11est.
Freedom of Information Act- IS U.S.C. 552(b)l
b(l) National security classified information J(b)(l) of the FOIAI
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of . ·
im agency J(b)(2) of the FOIAI
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) ofthe FOIAI
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information [(b)(4) of the FOIAI
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy J(b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes J(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIAI
b(9) ~elea_st:.:~.ould_~sclose geological or geophysical information
- .· ... "~"concerning wells'f(b)(9) of the FOIAI
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 5, 1996
- MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Laura Tyson
SUBJECT:
Educational Infrastructure and Offsets
your economic advisers have been meeting to review and develop options for a
possible federal government initiative to support construction, renovation, and/or repair of
the nation's elementary and secondary public schools. On Monday, a group of your
advisers will meet with you to discuss how you might pay for such an initiative, should you
choose to go forward with it. An attachment describes the pay-for options that were
prepared for your consideration. Our Monday discussion of these options will also be
relevant to any other new policy initiatives you might wish to consider between now and
the November election -- initiatives such as capital gains tax relief and simplification for
homeowners, or a new proposal to stimulate job creation in urban areas.
Mop.day's meeting is planned to focus on pay-fors, not on the general pros and cons
of an educational infrastructure initiative nor on the design element's of such an initiative.
Since your economic team has not yet had an opportunity to meet with you on these issues,
I thought it would be useful to provide this background memo indicating some of our .
concerns. (I mentioned some of these to you on Wednesdai in our Oval Office discussion.)
Two different kinds of concerns have surfaced in our discussions: concerns about the
effectiveness of a federal program to support educational infrastructure; and concerns about
the political advisability of such a program.
I. CONCERNS ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS
1.
Is There A Better New Education Proposal?. Although there is compelling
evidence that a large number of the nation's public schools are in need of repair or
replacement, the evidence linking educational infrastructure to student performance
is tenuous at best. Given the tight constraints on education spending, your advisers
question the wisdom of spending resources on school construction--which is already
tax-advantaged under current law--as opposed to some other educational program whose effects on educational outcomes are stronger and more reliable. For example,
why not call for an equally bold proposal on pre-school and Head Start, or on
student loans, or on teacher computer training? One possibility, described in the
attached preliminary proposal, would be a federal commitment to set a new standard
of two years of preschool for all children, starting with adequate funding so that all
eligible children· could attend at least one full year of Head Start, a program with a
~-, . . . ~·-·'·" ,.:: ..,_, ,_.,,... :....--••··"··--'
__
·'· .... -··"''"'·"·~..,
~rN~~N :mRARY Pi!Qtcicoi>Y
l
�proven track record.
if you are interested.
2.
Will We Spur Additional School Construction? Your advisors generalt~~8@<"rn
aid would be given in the form of a credit subsidy approach because it would
require the local community to share in the responsibility for financing school
. construction by voting to borrow and repay funds. Several of your advisers are
concerned, however, that federal support for educational infrastructure would simply·
substitute for local support that would otherwise be forthcoming, without any
significant increase in the overall amount of construction that is fmanced. We have
been working on a program design that in principle should address this problem--by
fashioning federal support in the fomi of a credit subsidy for incremental spending.
.
~..v., ··r-~
An incremental approach is somewhat more feasible if it is applied at the state level.
At this level, we can try to focus on a federal subsidy for incremental expenditures
over and above the average annual amount spent on school construction in the state
during some previous period. But it is nearly impossible to apply an incremental
approach at the local level because it would simply disadvantage districts that have
fmanced high levels ofconstruction in recent years and because the timing and
amount of school bond issues can be quite erratic over time. For this reason, most
of your advisors believe that if we try to apply an incremental approach, a
substantial share of any federal credit subsidy program would have to take the form
of challenge (block) grants to states based on state averages of recent construction
efforts. Others believe the difficulty of implementing such a standard makes it
. advisable to focus only on a needs analysis.
The problem is that it is that even with our best efforts at design, it would be
impossible to know with any certainty how much construction would occur anyway,
and very difficult to design an incremental plan that we know would be effective.
The Treasury, in particular, believes that there is no way to design a federal program
to guarantee that it leverages additional construction fmancing rather than
substituting for state/local financing that would have otherwise occurred: At the
very least, a federal program to subsidize educational infrastructure will be subject to
a fair amount of criticism on this ground.
3.
How To Target and Who Should Do it? States and local school districts have
very different· school construction needs and financing capabilities. Ideally, one
would want to concentrate scarce federal dollars on where the needs are greatest, the
capabilities are the most restricted, and the additional infrastructure spending would
have the greatest impact on educational performance. Targeting federal dollars to ·
districts on the basis of income and demographic characteristics and/or targeting
federal dollars for repair rather than construction or for classroom space rather than
gymnasium space might be reasonable approaches. But this kind of detailed· targeting
would require that the federal government have the ability to evaluate and adjudicate
among requests from thousands of local school districts. Moreover, it is by no
2
-·--"·-;~:._
"·
�In light of these difficultie.s, your advisers have developed a hybrid approach.
would channel some of the federal support to the states, which in turn would have
the task of dividing it among local school districts, and would channel the remainder
of the funds for allocation by the Department of Education to the largest--and most
of the neediest--school districts in the country. An alternative approach, favored by
the Department· of Education, would have all of .the federal money allocated by the
Department but would limit. such money to school repair projects or projects
necessary to meet environmental or technology goals or other federal priorities. The
third option would be, as mentioned above, to simply give the funding 1 to the states
to allocate -- either at their discretion or consistent with federal targets.
II. POLITICAL· CONCERNS. Your economic advisers have also raised several political·
concerns about a new federal program to support educational infnistructure.
1.
School construction has traditionally been a local government issue in which
intensely
the federal government has not been involved. It is also often
charged political issue at the local level. As the Secretary of Education said
at one of our meetings, the federal government should avoid being thrown
into the briar patch of local politics over school construction.
2.
A new federal program in this area, especially one which is financed by
revenue-raisers, could be fairly characterized as a tniditional big-government,
tax and spend approach.
3.
In 1992, you proposed significant new infrastructure investment at the federal
level. Budgetary constraints have prevented us from delivering on this
promise. On one hand, an education infrastructure program could be seen as
taking a more targeted approach to meeting your infrastructure: goals. Oii the
other· hand, a new infrastructure initiative in a new area might' focus criticism
on our failure to deliver on an earlier commitment and could be greeted with
skepticism.
4.
While a $5 billion program could increase yearly spending on construction by
a sizable percentage for a year or two -- if we are actually able to leverage
net incremental spending -- a federal infrastructure program of about $5
billion is not likely to sound like much compared to an estimated price tag of
$112 billion to bring the nation's schools into good overall conditions. Will
a new program make the federal government responsible for the solution to a
problem which it cannot solve because it does not have adequate resources?
an
,. ..
'
3
rt;:::~=:~;P~OTOCOP¥.~
�~~~SI0£1\tl/.
0~
g L(llC>
5.
~oncerns
A federal program to support local school construction could rais
.
about federal government interference in local school decision-m
g, which
·is a hot-button issue with many right-:wing groups. Targeting feder
would likely aggravate such concerns.
Two Attachments:
Two Years of Pre-School: This is an alternative proposal to spur two years of preschool -- with the federal contribution coming through expanded Head Start and
possibly parenting education.
Offset List: Over the last week, NEC, OMB and Treasury have been searching for
offsetS that could be used not only for this initiative, _but for any additional ideas you
might wish to announce over the summer. Leon and the economic team both feel
that it is important for you need to review the entire list of options so that you have.
a sense of the difficulties involved in financing any new spending proposals in the
. current budgetary environment.
As you will see, the list includes two revenue .increases from limiting or ending tax
·preferences to multinationals that have income in foreign countries. While both of
these policies may be good policy and good message and less difficult than the other
options, Bob Rubin feels we must also calculate the degree to which such proposals
inspire the business community to mobilize against us as they did in health care.
Another option seen as less politically onerous than. others is corporate jet subsidies,
yet Leon fears that this might trigger the type of reaction that took place with the
luxury boat tax. There is also an apparently painless Federal Reserve option, but it ·
is not clear it would score, and many feel that it would be labeled a gimmick and
would undermine our credibility on the budget.
4
A~.
m·-·~·
• ,··" .. .
....
!~~~:~ L~RARY PHotOcoPY
'~\.
"?(
~
l
't"
�l
NEW NATIONAL NORM FOR ALL YOUNG AMERICAN
~ llO
TWO YEARS OF PRE-SCHOOL, TWO YEARS OF COLLEGE
Visions:
The President would set a new national standard:
to quality pre-school for two years.
all young children would _go
The President•s vision for the nation: every child should have two years of preschool: every young person two years of college.
Challenge: .. ·
As with the Hope Scholarship, where the President sought to make two years
of college a new national standard, so two his proposal would be designed to
establish two years of pre-school as a new national norm. In doing so, he
would speak to all. Americans: He would·
Challenge all parents to be their child•s first teachers and help them be ready to
learn
Challenge parents to use their $500 tax credit to help them get their children
quality pre-school education.
Challenge states to expand pre-school programs and to open more· community
schools that allow pre-school in their activities.
Challenge more day care. centers to teach children and not just baby .sit.
Initiative: $6-8 Billion Head Start/Pre-School Initiative: Because this national norm will
only be reached with a nationwide mission, to ensure that even the poorest children have the
·
chance and that all parents have· the skills to be first teachers, the President proposes the
following three-part initi~tive:
Fully Fund Head Start for 4 Years-Olds: While our goal should be two
years of pre-school for all children, we could take a huge. step by ensuing that
all children get at least one ·year of Head Start -- by doubling the number of
Head Start recipients from 750,000 to 1.5 million by the year 2002.
Head Start 0-3: A new Clinton initiative has been Head Start for 0-3.
Currently, we spend only $140 million a year. We should make a major step
by moving to $500 million a year, so that more and more young people can get
the help they need from the start, and more poor working mothers will find it
easier to be both parents and workers.
'Ai:.:·.·.:·-, ....P-~:a::a,::·~--
::. . . · ... -·- ·.
~LINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
�0~
;..:,
~
~
~?-~SI0€'t\lr.
~('
L·
c.
f
Parents as First Teachers: Building off the bipartisan efforts of Hi
. (·I l ()
Ointon, Barbara Bush and Kit Bond, the President calls for a natio
effort
~
for local community programs modeled after Arkansas and Missouri
other
'
states to help parents get the help they need to be their child's first teache:r--~
·a concept Barbara Bush also. promoted.
Offsets:
No Trade-ofT Between Young and Old: Many have stated that the only way
we can properly invest in the yo1ing is by forcing a trade-off between childrcns
programs and harsh cuts· to Medicare. That is not so. This proposal shows that
by cutting. unnecessary subsidies in the budget we can help make two years of
pre-school education a new national norm without gutting Medicare or Social
Security.
·
�07/05/96
07:41PM
'
offsetsu
POTENTIAL OFFSETS - SUMMARY
(in billions of dollars)
6-Year
Category 1
SaYing~
Limit availability of tax deferral for controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) ........................................ .
frt~
z
.....,
0
z-.
t""'
"""""'""
tp-
-~""0
'
'\j
·1
5.0
Replace sales source rules with activity based rule ..................................................... :.................... .
4.0
Tighten the substantial understatement penalty ................................................................................ .
0.2
Deny dividends-received deduction (DRD) for portfolio preferred stock ..... ,............... :.......... .-.......... ~.
0.2
Impose aviation fees on corporate owned jets ...................................................................................
1.8
Limit annual investment in annuities with tax deferrals ..................................................•....................
1.3
Require the Federal Reserve to transfer surplus reserve holdings to Treasury ................................ .
1.7
Prorate reduction in percentage depletion benefits ................................................ :........................... _
3.0
'I'"
·'
_:J::
0_
.....,.
0:
()
0
>:t:l•
-<
Repeal tax exemption for large credit unions,.....................................................................................
Total, Category 1.................................... ,..................... ·...............................
2A
19.6
J
�07/05/96
07:41PM
oftsetsu
POTENTIAL OFFSETS -SUMMARY
(in billions of dollars)
6-Year
Category 2
Sa.~ing~
Auction digital broadcast spectrum ....................._
........ ~ ................................ :.... ~·································
Reduce FSC benefits ..... -~ .................................... :.......................... ·....................................................
~
,-
I:""'
63
-~·'?0
1.2
Disallow deduction for certain entertainment expenses .................................................................... .
1.3-
Impose a cost of capital offset fee for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .............. ~ ................................. .
4.2
1.1
3.0
Sell three power marketing administration ............................................................. : ........................... .
Total, Category 2.; ...............................................................\ ........ ·
.............. .
27.7
':
'
'
. Cl ~4
z
Apply the lower tax brackets to income excluded by Americans working abroad (section 911 ) ........ .
Repeal deductibility of advertising costs for tobacco and hard liquor................................................ .
rJ
l
2.5
Double flood insurance premiums ...................................................... :_ ... _
......................................... .
~\
r·ft·· _,.
:2
12.5
;j_
f·
··->
"<:
"t1
~
0
'"'l.
0
n
0
""0:
~-
j
.r·
u
Category 3
Begin deeming sponsor's income to determine eligibility for Medicaid for legal immigrants...............
1.5
Require amortization of exploration and development costs .................................... :..................... :...
3.0
Require capitalization of multi-period timber growing costs ............................. '·····~····························
Expand current .25 percent gambling excise tax to casino games, bingo, keno, etc ........................ .
4.
Phase-out the dependent care credit for AGI $90,000-$100,000 ................. ,.·................................... .
1.
Impose inland waterways userfees: .... ~ ............................. ~···············································:···············
Total, Category 3 ........................................._. ............................................. .
,.,.....,
,....
_____j
�Potential Offsets
(in billions of dollars) ·
07/05/96
08:40PM
6-year
sayriogs
CaiggQnU
Limit availability of tax deferral for controlled foreign corporations ................................................ ~ ................ ;.......... .
Under the controlled foreign corporation ("CFC") rules of the Internal Revenue Code, U.S. shareholders of
CFCs are treated as receiving an annual_ distribution of their pro rata share of the CFC's "subpart F"
income. Subpart F income generally consists of highly mobile income, including passive income and
·
income from certain third-country sales and services activities.
-·----- ...
~~
z r
~-
'.h
.....,
1
0
. ~1
l'
;j.
. ~'-
z
5.0
53 .-.,
Under current law, shareholders of a CFC are permitted to defer U.S. tax on CFC's income that is Subpart
F income. The proposal would require that a CFC's Subpart F income be decreased by half of its
non-Subpart F earnings and profits. This proposal would reduce the extent to which foreign tax holidays or
·other incentives could distort the allocation of capital between U.S. and foreign investment.
The proposal will be strenuously opposed by U.S.-based multinationals on the grounds that it would harm
their ability to compete against foreign-based multinationals conducting the same operations in the same
foreign countries. International competitiveness, however, is based less on the applicable rules of
international taxation than it is on non-tax issues such as the cost of capital, the use of advanced
technology, and the level of education and training in the labor force.
~
~·
"1:1
::r:
0
.....,.
0
8
>:t:l-
-<
.Replace sales source rules with activity-based rule .............................................. :.................................................. ..
;
'
.i
--~----·- ./,
Currently, exporters that have excess foreign tax credits can take advantage of a safe harbor rule that
permits them to treat 50 percent of their foreign sales as foreign source income, when in fact the actual
percentage of foreign source income is much lower. In proposing the tuition tax credit, the Administration
proposed reducing this safe harbor from 50 percent to 25 percent.
- ·
In fact, no safe harbor is appropriate; rather, the sales income should be sourced according to where the
economic activity occurs-that produces the income. Accordingly, this proposal would completely eliminate
the fixed-percentage safe harbor with an activity-based test.
Thls proposal will be opposed by u:s.-based multinationals that_ both conduct high-taxed foreign operations
and export products from the United States. The Administration believes that _export benefits should apply
in a neutral manner to all exporters, rather than provide special benefits to only those exporters that also
have excess foreign tax credits generated by other foreign operations.
- 1-
4.0
�Impose aviation fees on corporate-owned jets ............................................·.......... ·
.............. ,. ........... :........................ ;.
1.8
Currently, most of the revenues derived from aviation is from the ticket tax. In addition to fuel excise taxes
of 15-17.5 cents per gallon, fees of$ 5 per aircraft are paid by general aviation (small private aircraft). ·To
better reflect the cost of the services provided by the FAA (as well as air traffic control services provided by
the Defense Department) to these users, the fees paid currently could be expanded or increased. In
particular, additional fees should be imposed on corporate-owned jets.
The proposal targets principally large businesses, who might argue that they are being unfairly singled out
for additional charges. Oppon·ents would likely describe it as a job killer.
_
·
_
..
- Limit annual investment in annuities with tax deferrals: ............................................. ~...............................................
~~
fZ ..
z ':
"J
'""'l
0_
I
~ ...
z :"
t: -~ .
~~-
::r::
1.3
Deferred annuities are a tax-favored investment because the "inside buildup" of investment earnings is not
taxed until the policyholder begins to receive the P.ayout of the cash value of the contract. This proposal
would impose an excise tax of 6 percent on contnbutions of more than $50,000 ($100,000 for married
taxpayers filing jointly) made to tax-deferred annuities during the taxable year. (A similar tax already
applies to nondeductible contributions over $2,000 made annually to an individual IRA.)
This proposal will likely be vehemently opposed by the insurance industry, for fear that this proposal would
make inroads into taxing currently exempt inside. buildup in insurance products generally.
;
Require the Federal Reserve to transfer its surplus reserve account holdings to the Treasury ................................ .
.
1,7
0
....,
g
~-
Currently, the Federal Reserve has a $3.5 billion surplus reserve that represents retained earnings of the
Fed that have not been transferred to the Treasury as deposits of earnings. The Fed argues it needs this
"rainy day account" to insulate it from risk of loss in international currency and other r1,10netary transactions.
Congress has directed CBO, in recent budget resolutions, not to score any savings from legislation that
required transfer of these surplus earnings. In addition, the proposal would be viewed as a gimmick
because additional Fed payments now would be offset by lower Fed payments later.
·
Prorate reductions in percentage depletion allowance .......................................................,. ..................................... .
Currently, certain producers of natural resources may deduct a portion of their sales proceeds, regardless
of their investment in the property.·· The proposal would reduce this tax subsidy. Producers, particularly .
independent oil and gas producers, will be hit hardest. They will argue that this subsidy is an important ..
incentive for domestic exploration and development, enhancing our energy security and keeping product
prices low.
·
-2-
3.0
�Repeal tax exemption for large credit unions ..................................................................... ,....................... ;...............
2.4 _
Currently, credit unions are exempt from tax, even though they are virtually indistinguishable from a bahk or
thrift. The tax exemption for credit unions with assets of more than $100 million would be repealed. The
proposal would subject such credit unions to tax under the rules that apply to large commercial banks.
The proposal will likely be vehemently opposed, including significant grassroots efforts, as the credit unions
stir up their depositors.
.
Tighten the_substantial understatement penalty ..................................................................................................:.....
...•, , '
~\;:
z:
i
t::l
,,
i
>-3·
z
0
t"'
53
~-
~
~
0
6:
n
0
'"C·
-<
ii
··~~
.'1 .
.r
0.2
Currently, taxpayers may be penalized for erroneous, but non-negligent, return positions only if the amount
of the understatement is "substantial" and the taxpayer did not disclose the position in a statement with the
return. For this purpose, substantial is defined as 10 percent of the taxpayer's total current tax liability,
which for very large corporate taxpayers can be a very sizable amount.
This ability to comfortably avoid any penalties on aggressive positions with quite substantial potential
liabilities at risk has led many large corporations to take very aggressive positions with large amounts at
stake, in effect playing the audit lottery without any downside risk. Recognizing that a large deficiency can
be considered substantial even when it is less than 10 percent, the proposal would consider any deficiency.
greater than $10 million to be substantial.
The proposal is targeted at taxpayers that have tax liabilities of $roo million or more, who will argue that
the penalty should continue to reflect a relative notion, even where very .large amounts are involved.
Deny dividends-received deduction (DRD) for portfolio preferred stock .................................................................. ..
Currently, corporate holders of stock in other corporations generally are entitled to 'deduct at least 70
percent of any dividends received on that stock. The Administration's FY 1997 Budget proposed to reduce
this deduction to 50 percent in the case of portfolio stock. Passive stock investments that have priority
over the common shareholders, however, arguably are indistinguishable from other passive, non-stock
investments (for example, corporate debt). Accordingly, the proposal would eliminate the ORO on portfolio
preferred stock.
As with the Budget proposal, this proposal will be strongly opposed by corporate issuers, financial
intermediaries, and investors, who will argue that since dividends are not deductible by the paying
corporation, the proposal results in multiple taxation of the same income.
- 3-
0.2
�CategQr~JI
Auction digital broadcast spectrum ................................................................................... :........................................
12.5
'
This proposal would auction the portion of the spectrum that was to be used for broadcasting digitallY,
instead of giving it to the broadcasters in exchange for the spectrum they currently use as proposed ·in the
budget. The FCC could auction the digital channel spectrum within the next two years.
While this proposal makes broadcasters pay for a very valuable public resource, there would be vehement
opposition from many members of Congress -- especially those from rural areas, ·the broadcasters , the
public and the companies developing technology for digitallY.
.
····--· ....
...
~/'
-~.
"""l
0
z
t"'·
While this proposal makes broadcasters pay for a very valuable public resource, there would be vehement
opposition from many members of Congress -- especially those from rural areas, the broadcasters , the
public and the companies developing technology for digitallY. The American firms spending billions on
digital TV R&D would feel that they no longer have a guaranteed market for their product.
.
~1
J1. Reduce FSC benefits ................................................................................................................................................
'(·
Sl ··
There are two principal export tax incentives, the foreign sales corporation (FSC) provisions and the "sales
~source" rules. The Admimstration recently proposed reducing the beneficial sales source rules (in the
f:O
;...,::
context of the tuition tax credit proposal), but did not address the FSC rules.
"1::1'
::c:
Treasury studies have indicated that the cost of the FSC program is very high compared to the amount of
0
>-"3
additional exports created. Accordingly, the FSC benefits would be reduced by 20 percent. However, we
0
()
recently proposed expanding FSC to cover softWare. In addition, this proposal would be viewed as
0
"1::1,
unwisely discouraging exports. However, there may be more efficient export-incentive programs.
;...,::
2.5
. Reform taxation of Americans working abroad by applying lower brackets to excluded income (stacking)...............
1.2
The foreign earned income exclusion under present law applies to income that otherwise would be taxed at
the taxpayer's highest marginal rate. Thus, taxable (non-excluded) income drops into the lowest brackets
and is taxed at lower rates.
To more equitably tax U.S. persons who elect the foreign earned income exclusion, one could apply the
lower brackets to currently excluded income and tax any additional income beyond the income eligible for
the exclusion at the higher rate brackets that would apply if the excluded income were not excluded. A
similar proposal was floated in early January during the budget negotiations and was met with strong
opposition, including direct responses from affected workers.
I
-4-
�They argue the incentive is necessary to allow America to compete in overseas hardship ports. The main
effect is on the wages the multi-nationals have to pay their workers, which would increase without the tax .
exemption.
'
Disallow deduction for certain entertainment expenses ........................... :.......................... .' ................... , ........ -.........
1.3
No deduction would be allowed for the cost of tickets to entertainment events, including sporting events,'
concerts, theater, and other performances, or for the cost of renting a skybox or other private luxury box
· (regardless of the period of the rental). The current exception for certain charitable sports events would still
·
·
apply (so those costs Would remain fully deductible).
The proposal will likely be strongly opposed by a wide range of constituencies, since it affects performing
arts, sporting events, and other entertainment. The opposition likely will argue that the premise is incorrect
that business-related activities do not occur at these events. However, while there is the ability to conduct
some amount of business activity at these events, it is generally nominal.
_
~).
c
~.
}/
....,
;
0
',:)
......
JJ_.
z
t""'
Impose a cost of capital offset fee for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ... :.................................................................... .
ft
§
Because of their affiliation with the Federal Government, CBO estimates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
probably avoid over $1.5 billion pe~ year in interest costs. This is because their status as Government
sponsored enterprises (GSEs) probably saves them more than 30 basis points on the long-term debt that
they issue, and about 5 basis points on the mortgage-backed securities they guarantee. Yet they do not
pay the Government a fee or any other compensation for the reduced cost of capital they enjoy because
of their status as GSEs.
'"d·
::z::
0
....,
0
()
0
'"d
><:
;)
·I..
--·. J"•
Imposing an offset fee equal to one-half of the savings they derive from their Federal affiliation would raise
$4.2 billion over 6 years. Initially the fee would reduce the GSEs' earnings, but the fee could also raise
interest rates on mortgages with a face value below $200,000. If the entire fee were passed on, home
buyers could face interest rates that were up to 0.1 percentage points higher.
Critics would call this a tax on homeownership, although CBO would likely score it as a fee rather than a
revenue increase. HUD and Treasury are currently considering whether to recommend privatizing these ·
.
. GSEs or imposing these types of f~es. If they were privatized one could no longer apply the fee. It
appears likely their reports will recommend against privatizing or imposing these fees.
-5-
4.2
�Double flood insurance premiums .............................................................. : ...................... ·.·.......................................
1.1
Doubling flood insurance premiums would reduce the Federal Subsidy by 50%. This proposal, which is
assumed in the FY 1997 Budget Resolution, will be opposed by FEMA, Congressional delegations from
TX, LA, FL and elsewhere, plus the policyholders and insurance companies. In addition, nonscorable
disaster costs would increase as policyholders cancel policies.
Repeal deductibility of advertising costs for tobacco and hard liquor.. ........................................................ ~ ............. ..
·~~
p!<·
~:
z·
~
t
Currently, all advertising, marketing and promotional expenses are deductible from taxable income.
Recognizing the substantial social costs that are attributable to these products, the Federal Government
should not be viewed as subsidizing these products through deductibility of the costs of encouraging their
consumption. The proposal, thus, would repeal any deduction for this type of advertising, promotion, etc.
The tobacco companies, in particular, will vehemently oppose this proposal, citing loss in output and jobs.
Other industries may also oppose this proposal based on the concern that they may be next to be viewed
as socially undesirable.
·~
t:: . ···< · Sell three power marketing administrations ...............................................................................................................
·(.
to
'
·
~·
·~
~
0
;j·
! .
' ·
3.0
1.9
The Administration proposed sale of three PMA's (Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western) in the 1996
but not in the 1997 Budget. There was broad opposition to the FY1996 Budget proposal, particularly in the
Senate, including Senators Daschle, Baucus and Hatfield. Their claim will be in part that it will raise utility
bills. The net proceeds shown above assume that Southeastern is sold at the end of FY97, Southwestern
at the end of FY98 and Western at the end of FY99.
(')
0
·"'C .
.....::
-6-
_j
�CategQ[}UII
For legal immigrants begin deeming sponsor's income to determine eligibility for Medicaid ............................. :........
1.5
SSI, Food Stamps and AFDC now count ("deem") a portion of sponsor's income to the immigrant to
determine eligibility. This option would begin deeming in Medicaid, with the same exemptions as,in current
law. This policy is included in the immigration bills passed by the House and Senate and will most likely
become law.
This is a more desirable policy than is in Congressional welfare reform bills, which would ban legal .
immigrants from key safety net programs. However, the Administration has opposed deeming in Medicaid.
Strong opposition can be expected from the Hispanic Caucus and. many in the Democratic party. It is very
hardfor low income immigrants to get health care coverage on their own. This policy could leave many
indigent elderly and children without health coverage and could shift costs to public hospitals.
~~.
z
~--,. ;~1
Require amortization of exploration and development costs for all minerals ..... ,.................................................... .',.
~·
An independent oil company can expense 100 percent of intangible drilling and development costs (IDCs).
An integrated oil compar:'IY can expense only 70 percent of its IDCs, with the remaining 30 percent
recoverable ratably over 60 months.· In addition, to avoid tax preference treatment for alternative minimurn
tax purposes, taxpayers may elect to amortize IDCs paid or incurred after 1989 over 5 years.
>-l· . ~
0
z.· '·"
rJ.
t"''
lr:
ea· r,'
~
;;o'
'-<
""C
::r::,
o·
"'"1
0
()
0
""C
'-<
\~
''
Non-corporate mining companies can deduct all domestic exploration and development costs. Corporate
mining companies can deduct only 70 percent of these expenses, with the remaining 30 percent deductible
ratably over 60 months. In addition, to avoid tax preference treatment for alternative minimum tax
purposes, all mining companies may elect to amortize these expenses over 10 years.
The proposal would require capitalization and amortization of exploration and development expenditure for
all minerals over 10 years. Alternatively, the proposal could be limited to non-fuel minerals only ($100
·million).
The proposal will be strongly opposed by virtually all natural-resource companies, who will argue that these
provisions are appropriate incentives to stimulate exploration and development, especially of domestic
properties.
·
-7-
3.0
�· Require capitalization of multi-period timber growing costs ............... ; ....... .'.........................................................:······
- 3.5
Currently, the costs of raising timber and evergreen trees generally are excepted from the application of the
uniform capitalization rules. Thus, the indirect costs of growing these trees, such as for fertilizer, pest ·
control and other maintenance, may be deducted as incurred. The proposal would repeal this exception for·
large C corporations.
As a result, both direct and indirect costs incurred during the pre-productive period would be required to be .
capitalized and could not be recovered until the trees are harvested or otherwise sold. Timber companies, ·
whose major holdings are in the Pacific Northwest, Southeast Alaska, and the Southeast United States, will
strongly oppose the proposal. They will likely describe it as a job killer.
In addition, they will likely argue that these costs are properly viewed as period costs that are deductible
when paid. However, that argument has little technical merit. ·
__
Ttf ·
Expand current .25 percent excise tax on gambling to casino games, bingo, keno etc ............................................ .
~··
Currently, a .25 percent excisetax is imposed on most state authorized wagers. The tax could be
.
~·. ··~n _
expanded or increased in a number of ways.
~- )":
.
\' · ·
~~·
"<
':1:1·
:I::
0
i
The proposal would be strongly opposed by Nevada and New Jersey, as well as by Indian Nations that
have casinos, bingo, keno, etc. Th~y will describe it as a job killer. It likely will also be viewed warily by the
states that have, or are contemplating, a state-run lottery.
-
Phase out dependent care benefits through cafeteria plans forAGI, $90,000-100,000 .......................................... .
"'l
0.
0
4.0
1.0
Currently, the dependent care credit is never less than 20 percent of qualifying costs, regardless of the
taxpayer's income. The credit could be reduced or eliminated above certain high-income thresholds.
0
':1:1
~·
.
.!
J··
__ , __ -,-· .r
At certain income levels, however, it is unnecessary for the Federal government to subsidize the taxpayers'
child care costs. Thus, the proposal would phase out the credit for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income
is $90,000-$100,000.
Impose inland waterway user fees .............................................................................................................................
The Administration proposed applying an inland waterways user fee in 1993 but received-little support.
Charging $1.75 per 1000 ton-miles would raise $2.3 billion over 6 years, and would cover the Federal cost
of inland waterway operations, maintenance, and construction. CBO could count it as a spending cut -- an
offsetting receipt -- rather than a tax.
The barge industry would strongly oppose it, arguing that it is a job killer. ·But their true power is the
agriculture industry behind them. In addition, it affects some key states like Illinois and-Missouri--: and
anyone on the Mississippi.
·
·
-8-
2.5
�Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
SUBJECTffiTLE
DATE
Laura Tyson and Gene Sperling to President Clinton. Subject: School
construction initiative (4 pages)
07/09/1996
RESTRICTION
PS
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
·Speechwriting
David Shipley
OA/Box Number:
12006
FOLDER TITLE:
School Reconstruction [3]
Jamie Metrailer
2006-1734-F
·m801 ·
RESTRICTION CODES.
Presidential Records Act -144 U.S.C. 2204(a)J
Freedom of Information Act- 15 U.S.C. 552(b))
Pi
P2
PJ
P4
National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRA]
Relating to the appointment to Federal office l(a)(2) of the PRA]
Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(J) of the PRA]
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRA]
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors la)(S) of the PRA)
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy l(a)(6) of the PRA)
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
;Ai>·
.""'--:-,;.,:
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon requi!st.
(
l,, ..
\
b(l) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIA)
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency l(b)(2) of the FOIA)
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(J) of the FOIA)
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information l(b)(4) of the FOIA)
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy l(b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA)
b(9) Rele!)se would disclose· geological or geophysical information
... c~~cerning wen;f(.b)(9).of the FOIA)
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
LEON PANETTA
CC:
LAURA TYSON
. GENE SPERLING
FROM:
Decisions on the substance of the school construction initiative
·SUBJECT:
In order to move· forward on school construction, we need guidance on six key issues, .
· · which are laid out below.
The first four are interrelated issues of targeting: (1) eligibility; (2) purposes; (3) degree
of subsidy; apd (4) targeting by effort. Decision. ( 5) is on who should administer the program.
Decision (6) is the off-sets we will use.
·
There is also a new proposal from the Treasury Department that would allow Connie Lee
to guarantee all school construction. The volume would make this bold, but the degree of
subsidy for any specific city .would be· shallow in comparison to the proposals we have been
working on. This new proposal is also attached.
DEGREE OF TARGETING. Any initiative will have a mechanism to ensure that the largest
cities will get a fair share of funding because they have the greatest need. Beyond the· issue of
large cities, the degree of targeting will affect ll.ow we describe the proposal, the breadth of its
appeal, how it could be administered, and the depth of the subsidy provided to .each recipient.
1. Eligibility: . Should the assistance be targeted based on some measure of need and past
effort, or should it be available to all school districts? If eligibility is limited,_ one
viable measure of need is income-based, such as the number of children in poverty or
eligibility for Title 1 funding.
a. Targeted to Poorest Districts: This proposal would target the neediest school
districts. It would address schools in the worst conditions in the areas which could
least afford to improve them.
b. Universal: Allow all schools districts to apply. Funds could still be targeted -- so
that the neediest were given the largest subsidies -- but all schools could apply.
c. 95% of All School Districts: This would be the same as the proposal listed above
except it would exclude those school dist~icts like Bloomfield Hills, Beverley Hills
and other well-q_fk,-schq~h4istricts that
rioi.need ·a federal subsidy.
do
;:
(~~~TON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
,
.
�2.
1)
Fixing or modernizing classrooms or academic setting;
2)
Safety;
3)
Disability access;
4)
Environmental hazards or energy efficiency;
5) ·
Facilitating technology and modernization.
Nonetheless, there is still a question of whether we should limit the construction to
repair, renovation and modernization or whether w_e should include the building of
new schools. Limiting eligibility to renovation rather than construction of
additional schools would target funds on the repair problems described in the GAO
report rather than on the needs of school districts with growing populations on the
grounds that they are also likely to have growing resources. Limiting the subsidy to
renovation and repair would allow more school districts to be helped and would
limit the federal role. Those supporting the inclusion of new school building feel
that the federal government should not encourage a school district to rebuild a
crumbling building when it would be best to build a new school.
a.
yes__
b.
3.
Any eligible school construction or renovation project.
Only eligible renovation or rebuilding of an existing school.
yes__
Targeting of Subsidy. Another way of targeting is the degree of the subsidy
given. We could say that all winners are given a certain amount -- 25% of
fiiuincing or interest costs. Or we could provide a sliding scale of 10-50% of
financing costs depending on need. That way, a poor school district could be given
a significant subsidy, while an tipper-middle class suburban school 'district might
get only 10%. The actual scale could be given on a formula basis or left to the
discreti<;m of the decisionmaker -- such as the Department of Education or the
State education department depending on what model we choose. If we chose a
, highly targeted eligibility criteria -- only poor school districts -- than it may make
sense to simply have one subsidy award. If, however, we allow broad eligibility, a
sliding scale approach would be a way to ·make the proposal universal while still
allowing funds to be targeted based on need.
a.
Target poorest schools with single subsidy rate
yes__
b.
Universal proposal with single subsidy rate
yes__
c.
Universal proposal with sliding scale (10%-50% financing)
yes__
' :Af:,;"D.• .. , --._· -~r:.:~k.:
. . .. -·- -
.-
".
.
(~.· INTON LI~RARY PHOTOCOPY
,· ; .
,,
.
.
..
.
�...,._..-:3.~,~1 D~1\1r.
4.
'fe
Target By Effort and Incremental Effort: Clearly, our goal is to lev
new
~<"
net school construction. Yet, there is a serious question as to how stric ~e shou~ · ·
be on this. On one hand, we would like to show that every dollar we ...J nd i\\ " '
leveraging new net construction. On the other h~d, it is hard to devis a r~~O.
way to say that a state would not get any funds until they show that all t e
localities in their state have spent their historical average. The two options ._
u
could choose are therefore to apply the strict incremental formula or to simply· say
that it will be a criteria we will build into the decisionmakers process -- whether it
is the Department of Education or the state education agency. Under the latter
approach, we would say that we would build in criteria that calls for considera?on
of incremental net construction as a key criteria for deciding how much credit
subsidies to give. However, this position may mean we would have to soften our
claims on how much we are leveraging, or simply describe it as a goal.
___
a.
Strict Net Incremental Formula
yes__
b.
Key Criteria
yes__
5. ADMINISTRATION CONNECTION TO TARGETING. The degree of targeting
directly affects the program's administration because the Education Department would find it
difficult to administer a program to which a large share of the nation's' 15,000 school districts
could apply.
Model 1. State as Recipient: In this model the state is eligible for a proportionate share
of funds that it can draw down once it meets its "incremental addition" criteria and
ensures that major cities will not be left out. This approach allows for state and local
control of the allocation of school construction dollars, subsidized by the federal
government. It also avoids criticism -- however unfair -- that the Department of
Education would not be able to administer such a complicated program with thousands of
individual applicants. Mostly, however, it avoids criticism that this is an inroad into
federal control of local education functions. The major downside is that even with a
formula it puts most of the program in the hands of governors who may be hostile to the
..
program simply because it is proposed by the President.
Model 2. Direct Application to the Federal Government: Under this model, thousands of
applicants would be able to apply directly to the Department of Education for funding.
The advantage here is that the Mayors arid superintendents who would be most
supportive of this new initiative would be able to apply directly for funds and would be
very vocal in their support. Anywhere any Administration official went they could speak
directly. to the people of that town and say that if you do "the right thing on school
construction, we will be your partner. The downside, as mentioned above, is that it could
be called "big government" and the federal government could be criticized for putting .
strings on money in an effort to impose its values or standards on local districts: It could
make the Department of Education a greater target -- with criticisms Gustified or not) that
it will not be able to handle the Administration of this program. In addition, while direct
applications would allow closer review of individual meritorious projects, it would make
an overall incremental standard very difficult to develop.
. ;A.:D· • ~- Jf'·"::-~k..' . ..
.
.
..
..
(~INTON L~RARY PHOTOCOPY
�~~RESto~
.A-.0 .
IV/Model 3. Hybrid: Under this proposal, the top 100 largest school districts wou r.tapply
-:v
to· the federal Department of Education for credit subsidy assistance. The Dep ...., ent o.f \ \
r-Education would set aside some amount of funds· (perhaps about 25%-35% of e ~
for large city applicants; these cities make up about 25% of national enrollment. ~e'st
of the funds would go to states who would then have the discretion to give out c ·t
subsidies to smaller communities who met the given criteria. The advantage of this
proposal is that big-city mayors would not feel dependent on potentially hostile governors
to get their funds, while the overall program would still be left to state discretion. This
can be justified by our desire to ensure that the large cities -- where the need is the
greatest -- would be treated comparably. The Education Department would not be open
to criticism for being overburdened since it would have to handle only 100 -- not ·1 0,000
applicants. The downside of the hybrid proposal is that it may seem more complicated,
and some may see it as simply designed to protect friendly Mayors.
.
6. OFF-SETS
Vice President's Spectrum Initiative Alone: This would likely· generate $3-4 billion.
The advantage is that this is a single spending savings _..: a one-time savings -- funding a
one-time school construction program. The disadvantage is that it may generate less than
$4 billion.
VP Spectrum and Sales Source: This would give us more funds -- well over $5 billion - and would just complete the elimination of a savings we have already started to
eliminate -- but would bother some because it would be a tax savings to pay for a
spending program.
VP Spectrum and DARS Radio Spectrum _,;. and Rearrange Hope Scholarship
Funding: .The Hope Tax Cut was paid for by three measures: an international ticket tax,
DARS radio spectrum, and sales source. One proposal that OMB is considering is to
change our Hope Financing and say that all of it will be paid for by eliminating all -- not
half .:._ of the sales source subsidy. Then the radio spectrum and the channel 60-69
television spectrum auction would fund the education infrastructure. The ~dvantage of this
is ·that we would have a tax provision funding a tax cut, and orily spect:ruln proposals
funding the education construction. The disadvantage of this proposal is that the
rearranging and changing of the financing for the Hope Scholarship. would probably be
met with significant skepticism by the press.
Other Savings: Corporate Jet Subsidy or Controlled Foreign Corporations: Two
savings proposals that have been off the table are the corporate jet subsidy and the
controlled foreign corporation provision. The corporate jet subsidy affects mostly two
states -- Kansas and Georgia and is scored as a spending cut. Some fear, however, that ·a
job loss argument could be launched against it. The controlled foreign corporation
provision has the advantage of being a provision that could contain an attractive political
message: taking away tax incentives and ta.X havens that encourage American companies
to move jobs and production overseas. The disadvantages are that it is a tax savings,
companies would argue that they were made less competitive in foreign countries with
adverse impact on jobs at home, and that together with the sales source multinationals
might rebel.
A.;;,-... ,_ ,__ y~;,::~f;;.;__:·'·;____ .. ...•.
.
(~LINTON LI~RARY PHOTOCOPY
�Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
DATE
Katie McGinty to President Clinton. Subject:Environrriental issues in
Nmth Carolina rpages)
07/0911996
Katie McGinty to President Clinton." Subject: Environmental issues in
North Carolina (~pages)
£...,
001. memo
SUBJECTffiTLE
07/09/1996
RESTRICTION
.P5
COLLECTION:
. Clinton Presidential Records
Speech writing
David Shipley
OA/Box Number:
12006
FOLDER TITLE:
School Reconstruction [5]
Jamie Metrailer
2006-1734-F
"m802
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- ]44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act- ]5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
Pl. National Security Classified Information ](a)(l) of the PRA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ](a)(2) of the PRA]
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute ](a)(3) of the PRAl
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information ](a)(4) of the PRA]
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors ]a)(S) of the PRA]
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy ](a)(6) of the PRA]
b(l) National security classified information ](b)(l) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency ](b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute ](b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information ](b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy ](b)(6) of the FOI.A]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement ·
purposes ](b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose infqrmation concerning the regulation of
financial institutions ](b)(8) of the FOI.A]
b(9) Relea~e would disclose geological or geophysical information
..... 'concerning welisf(b)(9).ofthe FOI.A]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
(!'"7.k,~
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR TH
From:
Katie McGinty
Subject:
Environmental i ues in North Carolina
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
This issue might come up at the NAACP gathering; it had been a priority for Benjamin
Chavis: In the first year of your Administration, you issued an executive order that directed
all federal agencies make environmental justice a part of their mission. Under the executive
order, each Federal agency must review its programs, policies, and activities to address
disproportionate and adverse effects on low-income or minority communities. Pursuant to
this order, each agency ~as developed its own environmental justice strategy, and must
consider impacts on minority and low-income communities when preparing environmental
impact statements. EPA has taken the lead in working with low income and minority
communities on a range of environmental justice issues, from regulatory standards to
brownfields redevelopment. The executive order was well received in the community, but
. there is a general feeling amoung EJ activists that we have not made this a high enough
priority. (Some also may feel that they were promised a White House summit with you on
the subject. This was something of a misunderstanding.)
BEACH RESTORATION
For many years the Army Corps of Engineers has funded projects to repair beach erosion,
typically by dredging sand from offshore and using it to build up beaches. These projects
can be very expensive and ongoing, since they are fighting the natural erosion process. The
Corps' current position is that, given Congressional budget cuts and the need to prioritize
existing funds, it will honor all existing commitments ( including those that involve ongoing
periodic replenishment of beaches) but will not typically consider new projects. The Corps
notes that new projects to create or enhance recreational or tourist destinations should not be
a high federal priority, since the economic benefits of such areas to the state and local
economy typically justify funding such work with state and local funds. However, the Corps
takes no position on the propriety of beach restoration generally, and emphasizes that each
state has· the authority to maintain its shoreline as it sees fit.
This is a highly-charged issue in coastal states including North Carolina and Florida.
. ;_£.,:..--..~-.
Recycled
··--.::.~·"":·~..;,_:··.:
. .. :..:
P~per
,;..,......
.
.
(~:~:.ON L~RA:RY PHOTOCOPY
�~--
---~-~---------------
~ ?RES!o~
"0
1--;.
~
~
.
.
~
Both Democrat and Republican officials, including Gov. Chiles of Florida, _insist th Olhe I j ' \ " :_
federal funding of new projects must continue. They argue that federal funding is j stified td. ~ cr-'a;
erihance economic growth through tourism, as well as to_ protect inlan~ are~s fr~m . ore
.
/
costly storm damage. Senators Mack and Bradley have mtroduced legislatiOn dtrectm Corps
· ~·
P?licy in the area, · and other pending legislation earmarks funds for particular re~toratio ,.__ _.......
projects.
While supporting current Corps policy, you should emphasize that this policy
encompasses a willingness and desire to work with state and local officials, and to .
continue substantial federal expenditures for this purpose. In FY 1997 the Corps expects·
to obligate $83 million for shoreline projects, the largest annual expenditure to date. In
addition, there is flexibility in the current policy. Each new proposal will be considered on
its merits, and limited exceptions can be made to allow new projects to protect permanent
existing-residential, commercial or industrial areas. We would expect to work closely with
-state and local officials to determine these needs, and meetings with OMB and state officials
on these issues already have taken place and will continue as necessary. Do not commit
yourself to any specific project or to changing Corps policy. But, leave rooni for that
possibility. (I am 'concerned that this'lnay blow up in key states.)
HOG WASTE
There was recently a major spill of hog waste into the Neuse River, in Eastern North
Carolina. This spill resulted from lax management of facilities regulated by Clean Water Act
permits, and was the most recent of several spills that have raised concerns about the
adequacy of regulation of hog waste and agricultural pollution sources generally. Although
the relevant permits for these hog wastes are issued under Federal law, the permits are issued
and overseen by the state of North Carolina, so it is largely a state issue. EPA, though, has
been working with the state to improve permit oversight. Note too that these spills reinforce
the importance of your stand against the House "Dirty Water Bill and the Dole Regulatory
Reform bill, either of which would have made it almost impossible to regulate pollution
sources like these. This issue is important enough that the Raleigh News and 9bserver won
a Pulitzer Prize for a series on the subject.
II
OFFSHORE OIL·DRILLING
As you know, the Administration has long supported the moratorium on new offshore oil
drilling in sensitive areas. This annual moratorium was extended with the Omnibus
Appropriations bill. However, the Outer Banks Protection Act-- which essentially made the
moratorium permanent -- was repealed in the same bill. Governor Hunt opposed the repeal
and supports· the moratorium; both Senators took the opposite position. Repeal of the OBPA
was not particularly controversial because the one-year moratorium was still in piace and
because no sales are proposed by DOl for the planning period that runs through 2002.
/IJ;:,,, ..... ,_.(?"C;-:·:..;;.,' - . .
-
(~_]}/TON LIBMY PHOTOCOPY
;
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Previously Restricted Documents
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-2001
Description
An account of the resource
<p>This collection contains documents that were previously restricted under the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html" target="_blank">Presidential Records Act</a> for restrictions P2 (appointment to federal office) and/or P5 (confidential advice between the President and/or his advisors and between those advisors). For more information concerning these collections please see the collection finding aids index. The finding aids detail the scope, content, and provide a box and folder title list for each collection.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html" target="_blank">Presidential Records Act (PRA)</a> includes provisions that these types of documents be withheld for twelve years after the end of a president's administration. These documents are now being made available to the public. The documents will be released in batches and will be uploaded here as they become available. The documents will also be available in the Clinton Library’s research room.</p>
<p>Please note the documents in this collection may not contain all the withheld documents listed on the collection's withdrawal sheet index.</p>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
397 folders
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
FOIA 2006-1734-F - David Shipley, Speechwriter
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-1734-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Previously Restricted Document Release no. 4
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference