-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/1caafe8277aa2122e270a778317c9395.pdf
ea3745f8171524114f0f4bbea23a0761
PDF Text
Text
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
"'"
.
..
.
"MJPRESIDENT:
April 13, 1998
~-1.~
!}t~~Z~
lb
~~ ~~
r
Re~~
~
"'
The attached memo from Secretary Riley and Bruce
a decision from you on the Administration's stance on
California bilingual education initiative on the June 2 ballotf.o~-"i.. .
_
~~~u.
The memo, which I recommend you read, was written
.
primarily by Mike Cohen and is the product of weeks of
extensive discussions among your senior staff. Your advisors
recommend that you oppose the initiative; but couple such
opposition with a clear statement on strengthening and
reforming bilingual education that would include a set of
principles to guide local educators -- "reform not revoke" in a
phrase coined by Rahm. In reaching this recommendation,
yo'ur staff engaged in an extensive series of outreach meetings
with the Hill, California officials and education activists.
All of your advisors, including the Vice President, Secretary
Riley, Bruce Reed, Rahm, Sylvia, Maria, Mickey Ibarra and
Janet Murguia, agree that this is the best strategy. If you
approve, Secretary Riley would make the initial announcement
in the next week or so. You would publicly express opposition
during your trip to California in early May.
Secretary Riley; has asked that you act upon this before you
depart for Chile.
Phil Caplan'1>l:.
\·",,1
.
-:---
,
)
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 8, 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR
~SIDENT
FROM:
SECRETARY RILEY
BRUCE REED
SUBJECT:
California Proposition 227 (Unz Initiative) to End Bilingual Education
On June 2, California voters will consider Proposition 227, otherwise known as the Unz
Initiative, which proposes to eliminate virtually all bilingual education. This is California's third
potentially divisive race-related initiative in four years, following on the heels of Proposition
187, which barred public benefits for illegal immigrants, and Proposition 209, which ended
affirmative action.
Polls show that the initiative is popular and is likely to pass, although a strong opposition
camp'aign could make the election close. Many Latino voters currently favor the initiative, but
the polls show that Latino support has declined considerably as voters become more familiar
with the details of the proposaL Latino activists are strongly opposed to Unz, and are looking to
the' White House to support their efforts to defeat it.
Over the past several months DPC and Education Department staff worked with Maria
Echaveste, Mickey Ibarra, Karen Skelton, and Janet Murguia to study the Unz Initiative,
consulting widely with both opponents and supporters in California, in Congress, and in the
advocacy community. Although concerned about the effectiveness of some bilingual education
programs, your advisors strongly believe that the Unz initiative is bad education policy and will
harm students who need help the most.
We therefore recommend a strategy that Rahm has termed "reform, not revoke." Under this
strategy, you would oppose the Unz Initiative because it deprives local educators of the ability to
make educationally sound choices about how to meet the needs of Limited English Proficient
(LEP)children. At the same time, you would articulate the principles you support for reforming
and strengthening programs to help LEP students become proficient in English.
�•
c
2
.
.
I. The Unz Initiative and Bilingual Education in California
A. Overview of the Unz Initiative
This initiative, authored and backed by Silicon Valley millionaire Ron Unz, is designed to
end all bilingual education programs in California. More specifically, it would:
•
•
•
•
•
Require that all public school instruction be conducted in English.
Permit this requirement to be waived only if parents or guardians can show that the child
already knows English, has special needs, or would learn English faster through an
alternative instructional technique.
Provide initial placement for LEP students in "sheltered English immersion" programs for a
period normally not to exceed one year. Instruction in these programs would be conducted
in English, with some accommodations in the curriculum to take into account the limited
English language skills of the students.
Appropriate $50 million per year over 10 years to fund adult education programs designed
to teach English to LEP adults who in turn pledge to provide English language tutoring to
LEP students.
Make teachers, administrators, and school board members subject to suits and personally
liable for failure to implement the provisions of the initiative.
Unz and other backers of this initiative regard the existing system of bilingual education as a
complete failure. They argue that because bilingual education relies so heavily on use of the
students' native language and only slowly introduces English, the approach delays or prevents,
rather than promotes, the acquisition of English. Further, they point out that although
California's bilingual education law expired a decade ago, the legislature has been unable to
ena~t legislation to reform a broken program. This initiative, they argue, will break the
legislative impasse and dramatically improve educational opportunities for LEP students ..
B. Bilingual Education in California
Demographics. There are approximately 1.3 million LEP students in California,
approximately one quarter of California's K-12 students. This nUmber has nearly' doubled in
less than a d.ecade, and represents some 43% of the national total. Seventy nine percen of
Cali ornia's LEP students are native Spanish s eakers. As you know, HISparuCS ave a 50%
.dropout rate, and by most indicators t elf academic performance lags behind most other
population groups in the state.'
Educational Services. LEP students receive a wide variety of services intended to help
them learn English and academic subjects. In 1997, only about 30% received what is
. . cant use of the
conventionally considered bilingual education -- r
studen s p
anguage to teach academics while as
in ever reater amounts of English
1
More than half participate in specially designed instructional, programs that
-
�3
help students learn English, while teaching other subjects in a way designed to be accessible to
LEP students. (The Unz Initiative would eliminate these programs as well as conventional
bilingual programs.) Approximately 16% of all LEP students are not receiving any language
instruction services at all.
California Legal Framework. The legal framework for providing services to LEP students
in California is murky. California's Bilingual Education Act expired in 1987, but the State Board
of Education regulations implementing the act have remained in effect. Under this framework,
school districts are required to help students become fluent in English and competent in other
academic subjects, and are given a significant amount of flexibility in determining how to
achieve these goals. Neither bilingual education nor any'other specific approach to teaching LEP ,
students is required.
There have been a number of unsuccessful attempts in the past decade to enact new
legislation, but bilingual education reformers and advocates have been unable to agree on an
approach. A fresh attempt to craft legislation has arisen in the past month, partly to take the
steam out of Unz and to give Unz opponents something to support. This effort, however, is
likely to end in failure.
Early in March the State Board of Education decided to eliminate the state bilingual
education regulations. This process should be completed shortly before the vote on Unz. The
, effect of this action will be to eliminate any state requirement for the provision of specific
services to LEP students, and to give local school districts even greater flexibility. '
II. Political Context
The Unz initiative is currently the most serious threat to bilingual education, but it is not
likely to be the last. Earlier this year Speaker Gingrich proposed eliminating bilingual education,
, and some conservative education experts (~, Diane Ravitch) have also called for its end. Last
week, Rep. DeLay introduced a bill that would eliminate the federal bilingual' education program,
andHouse Republicans have included a $75 million recision ofFY98 funding for bilingual
education in the emergency supplemental bill.. Especially ifUnz passes, we are likely to see
energized opposition to the federal program, and increased opposition to bilingual education in
other states, and localities.
The Unz initiative presents a political dilemma in California. Ifwe oppose it, we risk
alienating a majority of California Anglo voters. If we fail to oppose it, we risk alienating a
vocal and increasingly influential group of Latino leaders, and possibiy Latino voters.
Current polls show that a large majority of California Anglo voters support Unz. For
Anglos, bilingual education may become a hot button issue similar to immigrant services and
affirmative action. In contrast, Latino voters are split on the issue. While many continue to
support Unz largely out of frustration at the public schools' failure to help their children, polls
�,
,
4
show that Latino support is eroding as voters become more aware of the particulars of the
initiative. It is likely that current polls overestimate Latino support for Unz, just as polls
overestimated Latino support for Propositions 187 and 209.
Latino activists and elected officials oppose Unz. To some of the Latino leaders, Unz is a
, litmus issue, like Propositions 187 and 209. Latino leaders are looking to the WhIte House to
become actively involved in the opposition to Unz, and are fearful that we will choose to sit on
the sidelines.
More organizations and elected officials are taking positions on Unz. The California
education community ~~ including the California Teachers Association and the California School
Boards Association ~~ is strongly opposed to Unz. Key Democratic officeholders (including Sen.
Boxer, Rep. Becerra and most Democrats in the California delegation, State Superintendent
Delaine Eastin, and Sp~aker Villaraigosa) have also announced their opposition to the Unz
initiative. All three Democratic gubernatorial candidates have come out against Unz. Sen.
Feinstein has not taken a public stance yet, though she appears likely to support Unz. A list of
organizations, elected officials, and other leaders that have taken positions on Unz is attached.
The Republican state party has supported Unz, though many Republican officials, including
Gov. Wilson, have not yet taken a position. Dan Lungren has not taken a position yet, but has
recently said that the recent, action by the S!!tte Board of Education has eliminated the need for
Unz. There is always a chance that White House opposition toUnz could polarize the situation
and push Gov. Wilson and other Republicans to support Unz, but at least some Republican
leaders are afraid to support another initiative viewed as anti~Hispanic.
The political dilemma can be resolved with a "Reform, not Revoke" response.
We believe the best approach to this issue is to strike a middle ground by admitting that bilingual
education needs reforming, but asserting that Unz is notthe way to do it. More specifically, we
can:
•
•
•
•
Start by reiterating the overriding importance of helping every child become proficient in
English;
Oppose Unz on the merits because it is too extreme;
Remind voters what we are for, including both our overall approach to strengthening public
education and our Hispanic initiative;
Articulate the fundamental principles that you believe should be used by local communities
to 'reform and strengthen their efforts to educate LEP students. These principles include
setting a goal for school districts to help LEP students learn English within three years,
holding schools accountable for results, providing local flexibility, and emphasizing quality
in any approach used.
�5
III. Specific Recommendations
I. Oppose Unz Initiative on educational and. legal grounds.
~
Educational. There is little doubt that current programs for LEP students leave much
room for improvement. While some promising efforts have emerged, the services now
. provided are not ~ffective on a large-scal.e basis. Ev~n when p:o~rams .themse~ves are good,
shortages of qualified teachers and poor nnplementatlon often lImit the meffectlveness
We believe, however, that the Unz Initiative would only make matters worse. A one-size
fits-all State prescription for how to educate LEP children -- and a demand that all special
services cease in one year will retard progress toward the goal of helping LEP students learn
English, reach high standards, and participate effectively in classrooms.. Experience and
research indicate that no one approach is the answer for all limited English proficient children.
By limiting the discretion of schools and teachers to determine what works best for their LEP
students, the Unz Initiative prevents teachers and parents from exercising common sense and
professional judgment regarding how to serve individual children.
And even assuming we should pick a single method of educating LEP students, there is
little to recommend the Unz "sink or swim" model. While a structured English immersion
approach may be effective for some limited English proficient children, it is likely to be
ineffective for many others. One year of special instruction -- whether in Bilingual Education
or an English immersion approach -- rarely is sufficient to enable a child who starts the
( program with almost no proficiency in English to become proficient enough to participate in
regular English-language classes.
.
Legal. Based on the educational problems described above, the Unz Initiative will raise
serious issues under federal civil rights laws. In the seminal 1974 case of Lau v. Nichols, the
Supreme Court interpreted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to require school districts to take
steps to ensure that national origin minority students with limited English proficiency can
effectively participate in the regular educational program. Similarly, the Equal Educational
Opportunity Act, enacted in 1974, requires public educational agencies to take appropriate'
action to overcome language barriers that impede student participation in instructional
programs. Neither LaY nor subsequent cases addressing Title VI or the Equal Educational
Opportunity Act mandate a particular approach to meeting these needs, but they require that
sound educational approaches be implemented and evaluated.
Assuming (as we probably should) that some educational experts will vouch for the
soundness of the sheltered English immersion approach mandated by the Unz Initiative,
Department of Education lawyers believe that a legal challenge asserting that the Unz Initiative
on its face violates Title VI or the Equal Educational Opportunity Act probably would not
succeed. But they believe that the Unz Initiative will cause widespread violations of Title VI
and the Equal Educational Opportunity Act once it is applied to cut off services to students
�6
who need them. The only way that such violations will be avoided is if the State or local
educational agencies use loopholes in the Proposition to extend services to LEP students
beyond the year specified in the initiative. The Unz Initiative thus will create legal
confrontations between California agencies and the Departments of Education and Justice over
violations of civil rights laws, and will divert resources and attention that should be focused on
educating children to conducting investigations and litigation.
Recommendation: For these reasons, we recommend that the Administration publicly
oppose the Unz Initiative. Taking a position soon will allow us to help frame the debate and set
a constructive tone, rather than get drawn into an already inflammatory debate. A prompt
announcement will.also allay concerns in the advocacy community that we may sit this battle out
until it is too late to have an impact on the outcome. We think that Secretary Riley should make
the initial announcement of the Administration's position within the next week to ten days.
We also believe that you should express opposition to· the Unz Initiative. during your visit to
California in early May. We will also work with the Vice President's office to create an
appropriate opportunity for him to state his opposition to Unz ...
~
___Agree ___
DiSag~
.
Discuss Further
2. Couple opposition to Unz with a clear statement of how local school districts can
strengthen education for LEP students.
We believe that you should couple your opposition to Unz with a strong statement about the
importance of helping LEP students learn English and the need for refonning and strengthening
bilingual education. This statement would articulate principles to guide local educators in
providing services to LEP stUdents.
We seriously considered but rejected the idea of underscoring your commitment to improve
bilingual education by also proposing statutory changes to the federal Bilingual Education
Program. After consultation with members of the California Congressional delegation, the
Hispanic Caucus and others, we concluded that this step would be premature since Congress is
unlikely to pass or even consider your proposals until next year, when the bilingual education is
scheduled for reauthorization. An Administration proposal now also would fuel other,
potentially dangerous Congressional proposals to alter or eliminate bilingual education. Further,
proposing changes to the federal program now would place members of the California
Congressional delegation in a difficult position; because they would be forced to take a position
on both the lJnz Initiative and your legislative proposal.
�7
We recommend a statement articulating the following principles:
Set a goal for school districts to help LEP students learn English within 3 years. _All
participants in this debate -- and especially parents of Hispanic and other LEP students -- want
children to learn English as rapidly as possible. Bilingual education programs that prolong rather
than speed the process of learning English, and are open-ended rather than transitional, do harm
to students. But currently, few school districts establish clear time lines or goals for LEP
students to learn English.
Challenging school districts to set and meet a clear goal of helping LEP students become
proficient in English within 3 years will ensure that your opposition to Unz is not -- and is not
taken as -- as an endorsement ofthe status quo. Setting a clear goalis the first step toward
reducing the length of time it takes for students to master English. It will send a clear message to
teachers and administrators to adopt educational strategies that will help students acquire English
proficiency as rapidly as possible. In this context, you should also urge school districts to set the
same academic standards and expectations for LEP students as for all others; notify parents of
every LEP student of these goals when the student is first enrolled; assess student progress in
English arid other academic subjects annually and; identify early, and provide extra help, to
students who are not making progress.
This proposal will be very unpopUlar with the Hispanic Caucus and the bilingual advocacy
community. They will argue that there is no clear research base to establish a 3-year time frame,
that individuals vary in how long they ne.ed to master English, and that pushing students to learn
English early will slow down their ability to master other academic subjects. They will also
argue that advocating a 3-year time frame -- or any other time limit -- plays into the hands of Unz
and his supporters by weakening the ability ofUnz opponents to make the case against the I-year
cut-off of services in his proposal. Further, they and many educators will argue that if it is
necessary to set time lines for learning English, local educators and communities ought to take
responsibility for determining the appropriate length of time.
We believe that you can mitigate these concerns by making clear that you are calling for a
goal rather than a strict time limit, by emphasizing that accountability for meeting the goal rests
primarily on local schools, and by not proposing to end language services to students wpo have
not yet mastered English within 3 years. These responses may not fully satisfy the bilingual
community, but the three-year goal is important enough, from both an educational and a political
• perspective, to take this risk of disagreement.
Local school districts must be accountable for performance and results.. School districts
must be held accountable for helping students become proficient in English as rapidly as
possible. They should report publicly how well they are doing to meet the timelines they have
established. They should test students periodically for English proficiency (as well as
achievement in other subjects) to determine if they are making-adequate progress, and they
�8
should provide additional services or take other corrective actions as appropriate when students
are not making adequate progress. School districts should evaluate their bilingual education
programs regularly as welL If a program is not helping its students progress rapidly enough, the
school district should strengthen it, or use another approach that research shows will work. .
There must be local flexibility. As discussed above, no one-size-fits-all prescription for
how to educate limited English proficient children will work. Local schools must have the
flexibility to design programs that meet their particular needs, mix of students, and resources.
So long as the goal is clear -- that students learn English as rapidly as possible -:. and there is
accountability for results, parents and educators should be free to work together to fashion
'
programs that work for them.
.
.
The focus must be on strengthening quality, regardless of approach. The research on
'instruction for LEP students does not identify any particular approach (~ bilingual'education,
English immersion, English as a Second Language, or dual-language immersion) as more
effective than others~ Rather, it suggests that effective programs have well-prepared teachers
lrX'ho~ know how to leach reading and mbo are knowledgeable about se,cond-Ianguage acqwsition;
bmvjde studentqwitb a eftaHenging eurriculum and high academic standards; and regularly
LPssess'student progress and make adjustments in the instructional program accordin&!y. In short,
, It Ltt' stuaems arc to learn EnglIsh and succeed III school, they must be in schools that work for
) all students--schools with high standards, good teachers, smaller classes, challenging curriculum
L,and accountability for results. Because of this, any discussion of the steps required to strengthen
local quality provides an opportunity to discuss your overall agenda for strengthening public
schools
""""_"-J_--..;Agree _ _ _
.
DiSagre~~
Discuss Further
�9
Elected Officials, Associations, Activists are Taking positions on Unz:\
Oppose Unz:
Senator Barbara Boxer
Lt. Gov. Grey Davis
Congressman Xavier Becerra
Congressman Cal Dooley
Congressman Bob Filner
Congressman Lucile Roybal-Allard
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher
Congressman Vic Fazio
Congressman Marty Martinez
Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of Public Instruction
Assemblyman Cruz Bustamante (former Speaker)
Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa
Senator President John Burton
Supervisor Gloria Molina
CTA
MALDEF
Republican Assemblyman Bill Leonard
Republican Assemblyman Rod·Pacheco (only R Latino Assemblyman)
CABE
Support U nz:
Ron Unz
Gloria Matta Tuchman
Jaime Escalante
Fernando Vega
Mayor Richard Riordan·
Darrell Issa, Republican Senate Candidate opposing Barbara Boxer
�I,',\> i~.·:
t.',;'~,': ,~,',; ,c,,;J,~ t,
-
4
"~,','~)I:~-, ,:;t:r :':;
:,~,',~." ;" ;- r -,
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
,
\
' ",
November 14, 1997
~SIDENT
MEMORANDUM F<iR THIi
FROM:
Bruce Reed
Elena Kagan
SUBJECT:
DPC Weekly Report
~
\
'97 NOV 17 AM8:2~
'F~mily AdOPtiO~ Legisla~ion:
1.
-You areschedulc!d to' sign new adoption legislation
o W nesday, in an event giving a prominent role to the First Lady. The legislation is a huge
, ~tep orward in promoting adoption and improving our nation's ,child welfare ,system. The final
bill largely incorporates the Administration's proposals in this area. In particular, the bill (1)
makes clear that children's health and safety are the paramount concerns of the public child
welfare system; (2) clarifies,the "reasonable efforts" standard; (3) speeds up,court hearings fOr
children in foster care and generally requires states to initiate proceedings to terminate parental
'rights after a child has be~n in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months; 1(4) provides states
with financial incentives to increasp. the number of children who are adopted;, (5) reauthorizes the
Family Preservation Program (staving off 4I1 ,~xpect¢ battle next year) and increases its funding;
(6) ensures health coverage for adopted children with special needs by requiring states to provide
coverage through Medicaid (Ir the [lewchHd health program; (7) expands HHS's authority to issue
waivers to states for child welfare and fost.p.r care demonstration projects; and (8) breaks down
barriers to adoptions across state lines by prohibiting ,state;,; from denying a s'uitable out-of-state
"
doption when no in-state adoption is available.
2. Health -- FDA Reform Legislatioll! You are scheduled to sign FDA.reform legislation
on Fri' . This legislation reauthorizes the very successful user fee program ~hat hase~.abled the
FDA to speed the approval of new drugs. The bill also codifies the REGO reforms, emphasizing
agency peifonnance and accolli~tability, th.atthe Vice President successfully implemented at the
FDA in 1995 and 1996. In t.lte course of considering the legislation, Congress deleted or amended
the provisions (involving, for example, off-label uses of drugs and deviCes) to which conswner
advocates most strongly objected. We worked closely with Senator Kerll1~dy in the effort to ensure
onswner protections, arid he happily cast the 100th vote in the Senate's unanimous passage of this
Ie .station.
'
,
. Health .... Qualit~ ComlPission: You are scheduled to accept the Quality Commission's
, Bill of Rights on Thursday. We plan [0 submit ~ me:mo to you eady this we~k summarizing the.
Bill of Rights and recommending an appropriare response. We are also ,reviewing possible
executive actions to improve the quality of he~.lth care in the federal government. We will discuss
these proposals in the memo as well. As a lead-up to yo.urannouncement on, Thursday, we have
�i
asked the board of the Journal of the Ameri~an Medical Association (JAMA) to brief the Vice
President, Secretary Shalala, and Secretary Herman on its upcoming issue, which is dedicated
entirely to concerns about health care quality. JAMA represent:atives are previewing this issue at
the Nation3I Press Club on Tuesday, and an event with the Vice President on the same day should
e' advantage of media interest and provide a good basis for your announcement later that week.
. Health - Satcher Nomination: The Senate adjourned before acting on the nomination
of Dr. D vid Satcher, notwithstanding a 12..5 committee vote in favor of confirmation. Senator,
Ashcroft placed. a hold on the vote on the ground that Dr. Satcher supports the Administration's
position on late tenn abortion. S0l11e have suggested that the Senator took this action solely to
position himself for a 2000 Presidential run. Dr. Satcher has never played a 'prominent role in
the abortion debate and has disavowed any intent to use the Office of the Surgeon General to
forward any "abortion tights'agenda. " Dr,. Satcher continues to enjoy the strong' support of a '
number of Republican Senators (Frist, Nickles, Jeffords) and pfvirtually every credible health
care group in the nation, including theAMA. Although we are optimistic that the Senate will vote
to confmn Dr. Satcher soon after returning in January, we will work hard throughout the recess'
to ensure that this nomination does not become .ateferendumon partial birth abortion.
I
""
.
'
I
5. Health ..... HHS Study on Take-Up Rates for Health Insurance: You recently asked
about an HHS study showing a decline jn take-up rates for health insurance. The study reported
on 10-year trends in access to and participation in ~mployer-sponsored health irlsurance. It found
that between 1987 and 1996, the proportion of workers with access to employer-based insurance
remained constant at about 82 percent. The proportion of workers accepting that coverage,
however declined from 93 to 89 percent. The decline ,WllS-lIlOst proaeeneea for YOUR~W. (inc8me people; only about 75 percent of the.indiyiduaJs. ill each of these g~ access to
~
insurance decided to purchase it. The study noted that the decline in take-up rates occurred during
ueriod when premiums increased three times as much as wages. These findings confinn what
,
the Administration has long recognized -- that affordability of insurance is as important as access
to insurance. We hope that we will have an opportunity to build next year upon our efforts in
granting Medicaid waivers and enacting -the Children's Health Insurance Program to provide
premium assistance for uninsured Americans.
t
6. Tobacco/Health -- Florida Tobacco Settlement and Children's. Coverage: You
asked last week whether we could agree to Flodda's'proposal to keep all the money it will gain
from settling with the tobacco industry on condition that it use that money to expand children's
health coverage. Current law gives us little room to enter into this kind of arrangement. ' The
statute explicitly requires us to collect a specified share of any Medicaid dollars that states have
recaptured. If we do not,. private plaintiffs are likely to
g qui tam SUI s on ehalf of U.S.
taxpayers against Florida and other' settling states; Teeo ry in such suits would be split between
the federal treasury (70-85 percent) and theprivat plaintiffs (15-30 percent). Of course, the
federal government would have no right to fec er (and any. qui tam suits would fail) if the
monies gained from the settlement were not
icaid-related. But the Department of Justice
believes that the damages Florida claimed -- a the amount it received in the. settlement -- derive
�. from costs to the Medicaid program. Given these circumstances, we think)t most fruitful to
pursue a legislative solution to the problem of allOCating tobacco funds between the federal and
state governments -- preferablytbrough a comprehensive national settlem~nt, but if necessary (in
the event no comprehensive settlement is reached) thfough legislation authorizing states to retain
all Medicaid funds recaptured in tobacco litigation provided they use these funds for agreed-upon
7. Tobacco·- Proposed Legislation: A number of Senators introduced tobacco iegislation _
. the last two weeks. Sen. McCain introduced a bill precisely incorporating the tenus of the
settlement, except for the addition ofprovisions to protect tobacco fanners. Sen.' Hatch introduced
legislation increasing the cost ofthe settlement from $368 billion to $397.5 billiqn, raising (but not
eliminating) the cap ·on penalties for failing to reduce youth smoking, and amending the FDA
provisions, though not in a way that the public health groups will view as much of an improvement.
Sen. Kennedy introduced a- bill raising the cost ofthe settlement to more than $600 billion, primarily .
by increasing the tobacco exCise tax by $1.500vet.: three years; the Kennedy bHl does not provide
tobacco producers with any relief from litigation. Sen. Lautenberg introduced a similar bill, costing
$494 billion.
No'one has introduced comprehensivel~gislationin the House, and last; week the Speaker
indicated interest in breaking the settlement into a number of separate bills and acting on each as a
n.,sensu.s emer?es. Also last week, Rep. B1i'Je¥ said .that ~e W:UJ.d.not mov.e le?islation ';IDtilJhe .
's lawsUit. (The tnal court
·tobacco companIes release 864 documents currentl at Issue III Mlnn
found that these ocuments fall within the crime/fraud exception to the attomey-client privilege, but
e tobacco companies have appealed this ruling.) Gingrich's·and Bliley's statements may suggest
a strategy of delay, but c()Uld well have some altogether different meaning. .
.
f
as.
We are continuing to seek 'a bipartisan pro~ess for enacting comprehensive tobacco
legislation. Both the Speaker and Sen. Lott, however, are proceeding slowly -- in part because they
have had to attend to more immediately pressing matters, in part because they ~ave not yet settled
on an overall tobacco strat~gy, ~d in .part because so many Members wish-. to playa role in
developing tobacco legislation. We and John Hilley are keeping in close touch With Congressional
leadership so that we cantak~advantage of whatever opportunities emerge in the n~xt few months.
~are -- Cessna Event: At an event in Wichi'ta on Monday, you will dedicate anew
state-of-the-art welfare-to-work facility at Cessna Aircraft Company, which is o~e of the founding
members of Eli Segal's Welfare to Work Partnership. You will announce (1) that in six months
2,500 companies from aliSO states have joined the Welfare to Work Partnership -~ far exceeding the
goal of 1,000 set at the launch of the Partnership; (2) that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has
committed to enlist every local chamber of commerce in persuading their members to join t::4e
Welfare to Work Partnership; (3) that welfare caseIoads fell 236,000 in July 19~n,' 1.9 million in
the 11 months since you signed the welfare law, and 3.8 million since youtook office; and (4) that
the Departments of Labor and Health and Human S~rvices are issuing ne~ work-focused. welfare
regulations (see beloW). '
3
�,
.
nu:p~tSmE~ t H~S :Stt~
. 11-1~-47-
~..
9. Welfare -- New Regulations: The Administration will announc.el two sets of new
" regulations on Monday: (1) proposed regulations from Hij'S to states operating the' TANF
program (essentially , the regulations for the entire welfare law), 'and (2) .interim final regulations
from the Department of Labor to states and localities receiving grants from the $3 billion Welfare
to Work fund you wop. in the balanced budget agreement. The welfare to work: regulation should
arouse little commeIit. The TANF regulation, by contrast, may provoke exte~ive reaction from
both Governors and advocates. ,As we told you in a prior weekly report, we worked extensively
with HHS ort this regulation. In the end, we were able to resolve all issues in a way that we think,
reinforces the importance of the law's work requirements while giving states flexibility to design
welfare reform programs and a fair opportunity to correct any failures.
Under the TANF regu~ations, states that fail the work rates will be levied a penalty based
on performance --'how close they came to meeting the rates .. States will have the opportunity to
correct or eliminate violations through a corrective compliance plan, and states that make
substantial progress during their corrective compliance period will be eligible for a reduced or
"'" eliminated penalty. To protect states from unreasonable risk, the penalty for failing to meet the
"lw.o-parent participation rate will be proportional to the size of the two-parent caseload in the
state.
•'
.
r
The regulation creates a system of disincentives to prevent states from gaming the work
requirements, either by placing hard-to-employ individuais In state maintenance-of-effort programs
(where the work rates do not apply) or by reclassifying the benefits received by these individuals
as child-only (so that the individuals do not figure in the state's calculation of work rates). If the
Secretary finds that a state has divertect recipients into a state program or recl~ssified beIiefitsas
child-only to evade the work requirements, she will refuse to reduce or liJp,it the size of any
penalties levied for failing to meet the work rates or time limits. The same disincentives apply
when a state places individuals receiving child support payments in its state maintenance-of-effort
program so as to prevent the, federal government from gaining a share of these payments.
The regulation, like the law, allows states to reduce the required work participation rate
,
by the percent the caseload has declined since 1995, so long as the lower caseloads are not due
~<l-~ to new eligibility restrictions. HHS initially proposed, that states should not get a credit for
~ ~eload reductions attributable to'enforcement measures like fmgerprinting, b,..t ultimately agreed
to change this position.
'
,
,
addr~sses Sen.Mu~ay's
"vThe regulation also
concerns about victims of domestic violence
without threatening the integrity of the work rules. Under the regulation, a state will not be
, penalized for failing to meet work rates or time ,limits if its failure to do so is attributable to
granting w,aivers to victims ofdomestic violence -- provided that the waivers are temporary and
that they are accompanied by services to help the individual prepare for work and self-sufficiency .
. ' Sen. Murray may think that the regulation does not go far enough, but we think it represents the
best accommodation of the full range of interests.
.
~~
4
�I'
THE PRESmiJ~t K~S Sf-EN
,
'
"
I
I \ -1'1- ~1
. " ' ... Immigration -- CentraIAmericanslHaitians: The D.C. appropriations hill, as finally
provisions to (1) give amnesty to certain Nicaraguans and Cubans, (2) ensure
application of the old immigration law's standards to certain Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and East
Europeans, and (3) reduce the number of uns'killed ~orker visas and diversity vi~as. Although the
bill provides no relief to Haitians, we were able to secure commitments from the Republican
leadershiP to consider legislation on this issue e.arly next session. These co.mmitments allowed the
Attorney General to announye that the Department ofJustice would suspend the deportation of any
,.
Haitians covered by the proposed legislation for approximately six months.'
enacted~cludes
~
~1. Crime -
Crime Statistics: The Justice Department released new crim~ data on Saturday
from the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The highlights of the survey were
included in this week's radio address. Crime victimization rates are today at their lowest level since
the inception of the NCVS in 1973. The murder and violent crime rates fell! 0 percent and property
crime rates fell ,8 percent in 1996. The decreases are even more significant when viewed over time:
" sjnce 1993, violent anq property crime rates dro.pped 16 percent and 17 percen~respectively, and
~urder rates dropped a stunning 22 percent. Equally notable, these reductions were felt by all
Americans -- by men and women alike, and by individuaJs from every racial group' and income leveL
~ 17.
12. Crime - Juvenile Crime: The final Commerce/Justice/Stateappropriations bill
ontains significant new fund'
...
'oritie . The bill authorizes and funds
new
ml Ion uvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant, 45 percent ($113 million) of
which must be spent on prosecutors, probation officers, and juvenile gun and drug court programs.
Our budget contained $150 million in direct funding for the same purposes. In addition, the Labor
~
HHS approp'riations bill provides substantjal new funding ($40 million) f~r afterschool programs
'ul_ t~o~gh the 21~t Century Schoo~s Program at the Department o( EducatIOn. Y"e proposed $63
.J. .~ mtlhon for afterschool programs III our budget.
.
:
~
<Do ~
,SS
~ . " ' - 13. Race/Education - Ur";n E~ucation Initiatives: DPC staffmet Ilili week with senior
~
~
representatives ofseveral national organizations interested in urban education, including the Council
of Great City Schools, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Urban League, the Rainbow,
Coalition, the AFT and NEA, and MALDEF. Our staff provided a broad overview of.education
proposals under consideration for FY 1999, including (1) the College-School Partnership initiative
to increase college enrollment among low income and J11inority students by providing mentoring and
other support services and (2) the Education' Opportunity Zone· initiative to provide incre~ed'
educational assistance to high-poverty districts that agree to adopt a standards-based reform agenda
involving the end, ofsocial promotions, the removal of bad teachers, and the recofl!5titution of failing ,
. schools. The groups generally liked these proposals, but expressed a wide range of views about
student accountability provisions. The AFT felt strongly that even the mentoring initiative should
include a requirement that students meet certain academic standards, while the civil rights groups
expressed opposition to any performance requirements.
14. RacelEducation -- California Bilingual Ed~cation Ballot Initiative: Opponents of
bilingual education in California have collected enough signatures to 'place an ini~iative on .the June
5
�1998 ballot to, require that Limited English Proficient (LEP) children be taught iIi English
'(specifically, in "sheltered English immersion" classes for one year and then in ordinary English
language classes) unless a parent requests bilingual instruction. Arecent Los ¥geles Times poll
found that over 80 percent of Californians supported such an initiative, including 84 percent of
Latino voters. Most Hispanic groups have come out against the initiative, a') has the California'
Teachers Association and Sen. Boxer. Other education groups and most public .officials (Gov.
Wilson, Lt. Gov. Davis, Attorney General Lungren, and Sen. Feinstein) have not yet taken positions
on the initiative. The DPC.has convened a working group with representation from the Department,
of Education and other White House offices to review the educational, legal, and ,political issues this
initiative raises and provide you with appropriate analysis and advice. At this early stage, everyone
in the group agrees that you should refrain from taking a fonnal position on the initiative. ~ .~
15. Race -- Service Initiatives: We are working with the Corporation for National Service :
and the PIR onsevera.1 race-related service' initiatives that. you might want to take a part in
-¥v r.~:~i:Ci~:~i;~~e~~~01~9:r~!e~~;n:1s~~::d_~~at~a~:,i:o~~~:r ~~~_~~;er:i~~ti;~ngry: ,
.!Gng's belief in servIce activities. _ e NS will award $225,000 in mini-grants: to 70 communities
. to organize local days of service in observance of Martin Luther King Day. In addition, Harris
Wofford wants to promote .sof!1ething called the "Kindness and Justice Curriculum," which is the'
brainchild of a youth service group involving Dexter King. The group ~s encouraging schools and
students to do acts of"kindness and justice" in the two weeks'leading up to Martin Luther King Day,
to discuss them in class, and to post them on the Web. Finally, we are exploring ways to encourage
interracial dialogue in the Corporation's service-learnin ro rams where children serv together
eriCorps
and then reflect on at experience in school. These efforts can .
servtceproJec s,
e tty ear program, that focus on diversity issues as part of the service
experience. - - - - . - - - - - - - -.. . . .
6
�Pa e 1
June 20, 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Bruce Reed
SUBJECT:
Bilingual Education
The House Education and the Workforce Committee recently passed the English Fluency
Act, introduced by Rep. Frank Riggs, on a straight party-line vote. The purpose of this memo is
to update you on both the status of the Riggs proposal and the development of an Administration
alternative, and to present you with options for how to proceed.
I.
Overview of Riggs Bill and Administration Alternative
The Riggs bill would eliminate the existing Bilingual Education and Ern;ergency
Immigrant Education programs and replace it with a block grant program that ~ould require
participating school districts to have a strategy for placing Limited English Proficient (LEP)
students in regular English~language classes within two years and that would deny funding to
districts for any children who remain in bilingual classes after
years. The bill would
eliminate professional development programs designed to prepare qualified ESL and bilingual
education teachers. It also would curtail the enforcement powers of the Education Department's
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) by voiding existing voluntary compliance agreements between
OCR and local school districts on educating LEP students and by requiring Congress to ratify any
new guidelines and' compliance standards on this subject.
.
We are finalizing an alternative bill based on the principles you and Secretary Riley
articulated in opposing the Unz Initiative. (We are also working long-term on possible changes
to Title 1 to help LEP students, but these changes will not be ready this year.) Our alternative
bill would amend (rather than replace entirely) the existing bilingual education program.
Specifically, it would require participating school districts to (1) establish a goal of preparing
LEP students to enter regular English classrooms within three years; (2) conduct annual
as~essments of students' English proficiency; (3) provide additional help for students not on track
to English proficiency; and (4) develop a corrective action plan, to' be approved by the Secretary,
if a significant percentage of students do not meet the three~year goal.
To ensure accountability for results, districts that fail to make adequate progress after
implementing a correctiv(:! action plan would not receive continued funding. pistricts that make
outstanding progress toward the three-year goal would receive additional funding. In addition,
. the bill would guarantee local flexibility by removing the existing cap on funding for programs
that do not use students'native languages and by removing the competitive priority currently
�given to programs designed to maintain native language while helping students learn English.
We also have been working on other measures to help LEP students, which we could
announce either together with or independently of our bilingual reform bill. Though we still have
work to do on this package, and some parts of it will cost money, we expect it to include: (1)
proposals to strengthen the recruitment, preparation, and continued training of bilingual andESL
teachers, including additional incentives to attract teachers to the field and mentoring programs
for new teachers; (2) an initiative to promote community-based efforts to provide extra help for
LEP students to learn English through, for example, after-school tutoring and Saturday programs;
(3) a directive to the Secretary of Education to report on best practices, both. in the U.S. and in
other countries, to assist students to become proficient in the national language as quickly as
. possible; (4) a research program in how best to strengthen education for LEP students, including
studies on the uses of technology; and (5) a proposal to help English-speaking students learn
foreign languages, including new incentives and support for schools to offer foreign language
classes in early grades.
.
II.
Congressional Dynamic
The Riggs bill probably will proceed in the House on two parallel tracks: as a rider to the
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill and as a free-standing bill. There is no analogue to
r
the bill in the Senate and no hint of activity on this issue.
The House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee will markup a bill this
week and probably include Riggs in it. . Subcommittee Democrats view the appropriations bill as
so fundamentally flawed that they do not plan to offer any amendments. (The bill will provide
about $2 billion less than you requested for education spending; make significant cuts in
Administration priorities such as Goals 2000; and contain a number of unacceptable riders
including a prohibition on national testing and the creation of block grants out of existing
programs.) House Democrats have not yet finalized a strategy for dealing with this bill in the full
committee and when it comes to the floor. It appears likely thatany amendments offered will be
designed to promote a unified Democratic message rather than to improve the bill in material
ways. We do not expect the Hispanic Caucus to make an effort to strip Riggs from the bill.
In addition, the Riggs bill probably will come to the floor as a free-standidg measure
shortly after the recess. Few Members have focused on this prospect yet, and we do not know
whether they will want the cover of an alternative bIll to reform bilingual education. Committee
Democrats (including moderate Reps. Roemer and Kind) felt no need for an alternative bill
during markup. Rep. Roemer, however, believes that Democrats will need an alternative on the
floor. So far, members of the Hispanic Caucus, including Reps. Becerra and Hinojosa, have
opposed a floor alternative (as do bilingual advocates), although they acknowledge that the:
Democratic Caucus as a whole might eventually want one.
III.
Legislative Options
We must determine when and under what.conditions to transmit legislation to reform
�bilingual education. There are two basic options: to defer to Congressional Democrats, or to
send a bill to Congress this summer, even if we have not obtained the agreement of House
Democrats.
Option 1.
Defer to the Congressional Democrats
One approach is essentially to leave this decision to House Democrats. We would
consult with members of the Hispanic Caucus and other Democrats on our bill, incorporating
their suggestions to the extent we could, but insisting that our three-year goal and strengthened
accountability measures remain part of the legislation. If the Democrats decide that they want an
alternative bill as Riggs proceeds -- and if they can live with the Administration's version -- we
would introduce the bill. Alternatively, if they do not want an alternative -- or do not want our
alternative (i.e., a bill with a three-year goal and strong accountability provisions) -- we would
continue to articulate our principles on bilingual education, and announce other initiatives to help
LEP students, but postpone transmittal of actual legislation until the Bilingual Act comes up for
reauthorization next year.
The principal advantage of this approach is that it stands the best chance of keeping
Democrats united -- on bilingual education in particular, but also on our overall education
strategy. The approach will enable us to take as strong and united a base as possible into our
many fights with Republicans on education programs. It also will enable"us to d~aw as clear a
line as possible between Republican and Democratic approaches to education issues.
The downside of this approach is that it places control over your bilingual reform
proposal in the hands of Members who may not share your views -- and thereby minimizes your
. ability to take a leadership role on this issue. The chances are high that the Democratic Caucus
either will not want an altenlative bill, or will not want the kind of bill that we support.
Accordingly, deferring to the Caucus probably means deferring transmittal of a bill until next
year. In this event, you would have to make the case against Riggs without a specific proposal of
your own.
Option 2.
Transmit An Administration Bill This Summer
The alternative approach is to send up a bill this summer, even if it cannot get the support
of the entire Democratic Caucus. We of course would consult with the Hispanic Caucus and
other Democrats in an effort to get their backing, but if these discussions proved fruitless, we
would send up a bill regardless. We then would define our opposition to Riggs on this basis.
This approach would demonstrate your clear commitment to refonning bilingual
education and would position you in the reasonable center of the emerging national debate
between those who are defending the status quo and those who are proposing extreme and
punitive approaches. The approach would strengthen your ability to oppose Riggs (because you
too would have a reform proposal). It also would give you the best chance of framing the
bilingual refonn issue and ensuring that Y0ll!S is a preeminent voice in the debate as it goes
forward.
�The approach, however, has significant legislative downsides. If you send up a bill
against the wishes of the Hispanic Caucus, not only they but probably the Black Caucus and
liberal Democrats as well would oppose the measure. In the worst case scenario, the proposal
would not find a Democratic sponsor, leaving you appearing wholly isolated on this issue. Even
if the bill were introduced, it probably would not command much·support; the same coalition
could form against it as formed against our national testing initiative. Opposition by the
Hispanic and Black Caucuses also could spill over into other legislative battles (although the
prospects of support from the two caucuses on the testing issue is in any event very slim).
In assessing these pros and cons, you also should note an outside chance that Riggs will
respond to your bill by offering a compromise. Riggs has indicated privately that he does not see
large differences between his approach arid the principles you articulated when opposing Unz.
He also has hinted that he is prepared to drop the civil rights enforcement provisions in his bill.
If Riggs were to modifY his bill in order to look more like ours, we might be able to pass good
bilingual reform legislation, but we would infuriate many House Democrats in our effort to do
so.
Recommendation: Your advisors are split on this issue. I favor Option 2 as the best way to
make progress on this issue, but recognize that your final determination may depend more upon
political than upon policy calculations. Secretary Riley favors Option 1 because he wants more
time to develop a bill and because he does not want to introduce a bill in the face of resistance
from the Hispanic Caucus. Larry Stein, Maria Echeveste, Janet Murguia, Mickey Ibarra also
recommend Option 1, principally on the latter ground.
___Option 1
___Option 2
- - -Discuss
�DRAFT
June 18, 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
BRUCE REED
LARRY STEIN (DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE HIM ON THIS MEMO AS
REQUESTED BY JANET?)
SUBJECT:
Bilingual Education
On June 4, the House Education and Workforce Committee reported H.R. 3982, the English
Fluency Act, introduced by Rep. Frank Riggs. This bill raises many of the same programmatic
issues and political dynamics as the Unz Initiative in'California. The purpose of this memo is to
update you on this proposal and the development of an Administration alternative, and to present you
with options for how to proceed.
I.
Overview of Riggs Bill
The bill would eliminate the existing Bilingual Education and Emergency Immigrant
Education programs and would (l) distribute funds through a block grant that is not targeted toward
school districts with the highest quality programs and greatest funding need; (2) require states to
withdraw funding from local programs in cases where students do not master English within two
years and set a 3-year limit for serving any individual student, though it would not provide any extra
help for students or corrective action for programs that need it; (3) not require States to maintain
their own efforts; and (4) eliminate professional development programs designed to prepared
qualified ESL and bilingual education teachers. The bill also seeks to sharply curtail the
enforcement powers of the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights by voiding existing
voluntary compliance agreements between OCR and lo~al school districts with regard to educating
LEP students and by requiring OCR to publish -- and the Congress to ratify -- new guidelines and
compliance standards for Title VI enforcement. These provisions would weaken enforcement of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and result in increased litigation.
II.
Development of Administration Alternative
We are on track to have an alternative bill based on the principles you approved and Secretary
Riley articulated in his statement of opposition to the Unz Initiative completed and ready for
transmittal to Congress by the end of this week. This bill would amend (rather than replace entirely)
the existing bilingual education program. Specifically, it would require participating school districts
to (l) establish a goal of preparing LEP students to enter successfully regular English classrooms in
1
�,
not more than three years, (2) conduct annual assessments of student's English proficiency; (3)
provide additional help for students not on track to English proficiency; (4) develop a corrective
action plan, to be approved by the Secretary, if a significant percentage of students do not meet the
3-year goal. If student performance does not improve after a year, no additional funding would be
provided. The bill would also provide incentives for districts that make outstanding progress toward
.the three year goal, by providing them with an additional 2-4 years of funding. In addition, the bill
would guarantee local flexibility by removing the existing cap on fUnding for programs that do not
use the students native language, and would remove the competitive priority currently given to
programs designed to maintain native language while helping students learn English.
This bill would be a solid first step to reform federal programs to help students become proficient
in English. The Education Department is working on a more thorough approach as part of its
planning for the reauthorization of ESEA. This approach would include a more thorough overall of
the bilingual education program, as well as an effort to make Title 1 a more effective tool for helping
LEP students learn English.
III.
Conl:ressional Dynamic
H.R. 3892 was reported out of committee on a straight party line vote (22-17). While the bill
will certainly move in the House, there is no hint of movement on the Riggs bill in the Senate .
.Barring unforseen developments, we do not expect either the Senate authorizing or appropriations
committees to take up this issue.
The Republicans will include the Riggs bill as a rider to the Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill when it is marked up in subcommittee on June 2x. Subcommittee Democrats
view this bill as so fundamentally flawed that they do not plan on offering any amendments to try
and improve it. The bill will provide approximately $2 [CK] billion less than you have requested
for overall education spending; it will make significant cuts in Administration priorities such as
Goals 2000, and will contain a number of unacceptable riders including a prohibition on national
testing and the creation of one or, more block grants out of existing programs.
House Democrats have not yet fmalized a strategy for this bill at the full committee and when
it comes to the floor. They presume that you will issue a veto threat as the bill moves forward. It
appears likely that any am~ndments offered will be designed to promote a unified Democratic
message rather than to materially improve a bill will be still be fundamentally flawed. We do not
expect the Hispanic Caucus to mount an effort to strip Riggs from the bill. Consequently, it is
. entirely possible that there will not be a vote or significant debate on bilingual education on the .
House floor.
It seems unlikely that the Republicans will completely pass up the opportunity to push a
debate on this popular issue,and we cannot rule out the possibility that Riggs will come to the floor
as a free-standing measure.
Notwithstanding the success of the Unz Initi\itive, Committee
Democrats did not feel compelled to offer an alternative to Riggs's bill during committee markup.
2
�Moderate Committee Democrats (e.g., Reps. Roemer and Kind) as well as the four Members of the
Hispanic Caucus on the Committee' (Reps. Martinez, Romero-Barcelo, Hinojosa and Sanchez)
decided to vote against the Riggs bill even without a Democratic alternative.
However, it is quite possible that House Democrats will feel compelled to offer an
alternative if and when the bill hits the floor so that they can vote for reform of bilingual education.
Leaders of the Hispanic Caucus, including Caucus Chairman Becerra and Education Committee
Member Hinojosa, have quietly acknowledged that, for the greater good of the Democratic Caucus,
such a floor alternative might become necessary. However, up until now they hav~ been adamantly
opposed to a floor alternative, and remain to be convinced that one is necessary for a successful floor
strategy. In addition to their own apprehensions, Hispanic Caucus members are under substantial
political pressure from bilingual advocates to steer clear of an alternative. While moderate
Democrats themselves were not clear at the time of committee mark-up if they would need an
alternative, there are now growing' signs of interest in one among moderates, and ongoing
discussions about this with the Hispanic Caucus members.
IV.
Options for Leadership
Regardless of how the Riggs bill moves forward over the coming weeks and months, the
national debate over bilingual education will continue. We believe that you must be an active player
in that debate, in order to shape Congressional action on the federal program, as well as the broader
debate that will affect state and local actions throughout the nation.
We see three options for how you can proceed. Any ofthese options could be carried out
shortly after you return from China.
'
Option 1.
Transmit An Administration Bill
Sending up a bill in the near future would demonstrate your clear committment to reforming
bilingual education, and would position you in the reasonable center of the-emerging national debate,
between those such as Unz and Riggs who are proposing extreme ang punative approaches on the
one hand, and those who are defending the status quo that was rejected by a large margin of the
public, at least in California. From this point ofview, it will be importantto transmit the bill as soon
as possible in the event that the Riggs bill captures press attention as it moves forward. It will
provide House Democrats with a ready-made alternative to Riggs if they feel the need for one. Even
if this bill is not introduced or does not gamer much support among Democrats, by staking out a
clear and independent Administration position now, you can have a significant impact on next year's
debate, when legislation to reform bilingual education is more likely to reach your desk.
There are significant legislative downsides. to introducing an Administration bill now, if
House Democrats have otherwise concluded that they neither want nor need an alternative bill. In
particular, introducing an alternative at this time would be perceived by the Hispanic Caucus as
jumping the gun strategically, and preempting meaningful consultation regarding the substance of
3
�a
an alternative. It would generate hostile reaction from the Caucus,'and is likely to recreate the
same divisions among House, Democrats we saw last year on national testing. The prospects that the
Black Caucus would ally itself with the Hispanic Caucus and Republicans in opposition to your bill
are high. Under these circumstances, there is a good chance that your proposal would not find a
Democratic sponsor, or if introduced and allowed to corne up on the floor as an alternative to Riggs,
would be defeated by a large, bipartisan margin. Opposition by the Hispanic and Black Caucus
would almost certainly spillover into renewed opposition to continued funding for the national test
(though the prospects of support from the two caucuses is slim at best in any event), and perhaps to
other legislative battles as well.
Further, there is the outside chance that sending up an Administration alternative that lacks
support from Democrats could push Riggs to seek to narrow the differences between his approach
and 'yours. He has indicated privately that he does not see large differences between his approach
and the principles outlined in the Administration's opposition to Unz, and that he is ultimately ,
prepared to drop the civil rights enforcement provisions in his bill. If Riggs were to modifY his bill
in order to more closely reflect the principles in ours, we would have a difficult time opposing his
bill and would risk infuriating Democrats if we cut a deal with him~
,
Option 2.
Defer to the Congressional Democrats on the Timing of Transmittal
An alternative course of action would be to proceed immediately to consult with members
of the Hispanic Caucus and other Democrats on the shape of an alternative bill, using the
Administration bill as the starting point, and making our 3-year goal and strengthened accountability
nonnegotiable principles which must be incorporated into any legislation we would support.
While there is no guarantee that Democrats in general and the Members of the aispanic Caucus in
particular will endorse our approach, we can gain leverage in these negotiations by making clear that
a veto threat to Riggs remains dependent upon the introduction of an alternative consistent with our
principles. We can also make clear that we will transmit a reauthorization bill next year that is fully
consistent with these principles.
'
as
If we determine together with House Democrats that an alternative is strategically' necessary
when the bill comes to the floor or is taken up by the appropriations committee, we could then
introduce a bill consistent with our principles that would unite, rather than divide Democrats.
Alternatively, if House Democrats either do not want an alternative whi:m the Riggs bill or the
Appropriations bill reaches the floor, or will not support an approach based on our principles, we can
reassess our position at that time and either send up our' own alternative or choose to wait until next
year's reauthorization.
'
This approach is more likely to unite the Democrats over a potentially divisive issue, keep
them united for the larger education and other battles over the coming months, and enable those of
us in the Administration to focus our time and energy on fights with Republiyans rather than on
infighting within the Democratic Caucus.
,
'
4
�There are clear downsides to this approach as well. It places a large measure of control over
the timing and, to some extent the content, of your own proposal in the'hands of Members who do
not share your'views about the need or way to reform bilingual education. Consequently, the
chances are high that you would not transmit legislation at all this year, and you would therefore be
unable to position yourself or to effectively define the debate.
Option 3.
Announce a Comprehensive Plan to Help Students Learn English, with
Legislation ,to be Sent up Next Year
A third alternative would be to announce a package of steps~ designed' to advance a
comprehensive approach to helping LEP students receive a world-class education and become
proficient in English. The idea is to broaden the debate beyond the design of the bilingual education
program, and focus instead on a range of steps that would support the goal of helping students learn
English within three years. This package is still under development and may not be ready until
several weeks after you return from China. It would include:
•
A Proposal to Overhaul the Federal Bilingual, Education Program and Related
Programs. You would announce that next year you will send Congress legislation that
would complete overhaul federal efforts to help LEP kids learn English. The overhaul would
set 3 year goal for students to become proficient in English, hold school~ accountable for
results, provide communities with the flexibility to determine how best to meet the goal, and
give parents greater choice. Legislation sent to Congress next year would be more sweeping
than the package of amendments available at present. It would also address how the Title
1 program--which serves far more students than the bilingual education program--will also
be redesigned to help LEP students become proficient in English, according to the same
principles outlined above.
a
•
A Directive to Identity National and International Models of Best Practice. You would
direct the Secretary of Education to produce a report by next Fall that would identifY places
in the U.S. and in other countries with sizeable immigrant populations (e.g., Canada and
Israel) that help students become proficient in English (or another 2nd language as
appropriate) within 3 years, The purpose of the directive would be to inform the
development of our legislative proposal and to focus the attention of the public and educators
on effective ways to help students more rapidly become proficient in English.
•
An Initiative to Strengthen Teaching for LEP Students. The existing bilingual education
program provides strong support for the recruitment, preparation and continued training of
bilingual 'and ESL teachers. We are exploring ways to better highlight and strengthen this
component. In addition to further expanding our investments in this area, options under
discussion include creating mentoring programs to help beginning teachers, providing
additional incentives to recruit well prepared teachers, and strengthening the provisions in
Title 1.
5
�•
An Initiative to Promote SchooVCollege Partnerships, Tutoring, and Other
Community-Based Support for Helping Students Learn English. We are exploring how
best to use existing programs, including America Reads, the 21 st Century Learning Program,
and High Hopes as the foundation for promoting grass roots efforts to mobilize extra help
for LEP students to learn English through after-school tutoring, Saturday pr~grams, and other
mechanisms to recruit adults, particularly bilingual adults, to help students learn English.
•
An R&D and Technology Initiative. We can strengthen efforts to help students learn
English with an R&D initiative targeted to areas that have the potential for high impact.
These might include continued studies and demonstrations ofbest practices, the development
of technology-based assessments of language proficit'mcy, and the 'development of
programming to promo'te English language acquisition, for use as digital TV comes into
widespread use. It might also include demonstration programs focused on the best ways of
helping young adult (18-24) recent immigrants, who have not completed high school in their
country of origin, do not enroll in high school in the U.S., learn English.
•
A Proposal to Help English Speaking Students Learn Foreign Languages. This package
provides an important opportunity to broaden the debate about bilingual education by
recognizing the value of bilingualism in a global economy. In particular, we could propose
an initiative to expand the existing $5 million program that promotes foreign language
instruction, and focus it on encouraging more schools to provide foreign language instruction'
in the early grades, when students are best equipped to learn a second language.
This more comprehensive approach would give you a strong basis for leading the national
debate about bilingual education, while providing the time to fully develop 'a comprehensive
Administration package as part of the FY 2000 budget process. By not transmitting legislation now,
it avoids the prospect of creating a rift with and among Congressional Democrats. However, if there
was agreement among Congressional Democrats that an alternative to Riggs was necessary in the
short run, the package of amendments we have already drafted could be used. i
The primary downside to this approach is that it could be seen by the press as an effort to
delay changing the bilingual education program, because legislation would not be sent until next
year, while Riggs is in play right now.
i
Recommendation: Elena-we'd need to circulate this, though I suspect that most oft/lOse
involved in the deliberations to date wouldfavor option 3.
___Option 1
Send Now
___Option 3
___Option 2
Discuss
-----'-
Announce a
Defer to House
Comprehensive
Democrats on Timing
Plan
6
�Hispanic and Black Caucus would almost certainly spill over into renewed opposition to continued
funding for the national test (though the prospects of support from the two caucuses is slim at best
in any event), and perhaps to other legislative battles as well.
Further, there is the outside chance that sending up an Administration alternative that lacks
support from Democrats could push Riggs to seek to narrow the differences between his approach
and yours. He has indicated privately that he does not see large differences between his approach
and the principles outlined in the .Administration's opposition to Unz, and that he is ultimately
prepared to drop the civil rights enforcement provisions in his bill. If Riggs were to modify his bill
in order to more closely reflect the principles in ours, we would have a difficult time opposing his
bill and would risk infuriating Democrats if we cut a deal with him.
'
Option 2.
Defer to the Congressional Democrats on the Timing of Transmittal
An alternative course of action would be to proceed immediately to consult with members
of the Hispanic Caucus and other Democrats on the shape of an alternative bill, using the.
Adininistration bili as the starting point, and making our 3-year goal and strengthened accountability
as nonnegotiable principles which must be incorporated into any legislation we would support.
While there is no.guarantee that Democrats in general and the Members of the Hispanic Caucus in
particular will endorse our approach, we can gain leverage in these negotiations by making clear that
a veto threat remains dependent upon the introduction of an alternative consistent with our
principles. Since no bilingual education bill is likely to pass this year, we can also make clear that
we will transmit a reauthorization bill next year that is fully consistent with these principles.
If we determine together with House Democrats that an alternative is strategically necessary
when the bill comes to the floor or is taken up by the appropriations committe~, we could then
introduce a bill consistent with our principles that would unite, rather than divide Democrats.
Alternatively, if House Democrats either do not want an alternative when the Riggs bill or the
Appropriations bill reaches the floor, or will not support an approach qased on our principles, we can
reassess our position at that time and either send up our own alternative or choose to wait until next
year's reauthorization.
.
This approach is more likely to unite the Democrats over a potentially divisive issue, keep
them united for. the larger education and other battles over the coming months, and enable those of
us in the Administration tO'focus our time and energy on fights with Republicans rather than on
infighting within the Democratic Caucus.
There are clear downsides to this approach as well. It places a large measure of control over
the timing and, to some extent the content, of your own proposal in the hands of Members who do
not share your views about the need or way to reform bilingual education. ~onsequently, the
. chances are high that you would not transmit legislation at all this year, and you would therefore be
unable to position yourself or to effectively define the debate.
4
�Option 3.
Announce a Comprehensive Plan to· Help Students Learn English, with
Legislation to be Sent up Next Year
A third alternative would be to. announce a package of steps, designed to advance a
comprehensive approach to. helping LEP students receive a world-class education and become
proficient in English. The idea is to broaden the debate beyond the design of the bilingual education
,program, and focus instead on a range of steps that would support the goal of helping students learn
English within three years. This package is still under development and may not be ready until
several weeks after you return from China. It would include:
•
A Proposal to Overhaul the Federal Bilingual Education Program and Related
Programs. You would, announce that next year you will send Congress legislation that
would complete overhaul federal efforts to help LEP kids leam English. The overhaul would
set a 3 year goal for students to become proficient in English, hold schools accountable for
results, provide communities with the flexibility to detemiine how best to m:eet the goal, and
give parents greater choice. Legislation sent to Congress next year would be more sweeping
than the package of amendments available at present. It would also address how the Title
1 program--which serves far more students than the bilingual education program--will also
be redesigned to help LEP students become proficient in English,· according to the same
principles outlined above.
•
A Directive to Identify National and International Models of Best Practice. You would
direct the Secretary of Education to produce a report by next Fall that would identify places
in the U.S. and in other countries with sizeable immigrant populations (e.g., Canada and
Israel) that help students become proficient in English (or another 2nd language as
appropriate) within 3 years. The purpose of the directive would be to inform the
development of our legislative proposal and to focus the attention ofthe public and educators
on effective ways to help students more rapidly become proficient in English.
•
An Initiative to Strengthen Teaching for LEP Students. The existing bilingual education
program provides strong support for the recruitment, preparation and continued training of
bilingual and ESL teachers. We are exploring ways to better highlight and strengthen this
component. In addition to further expanding our investments in this area, options under
discussion include creating mentoring programs to help beginning teachers, providing
additional incentives to recruit well prepared teachers, and strengthening the provisions in
Title 1.
'
•
An Initiative to Promote SchooUCollege Partnerships, Tutoring, and Other
Community-Based Support for Helping Students Learn English. We;are exploring how
best to use existing programs, including America Reads, the 21st Century Learning Program,
and High Hopes as the foundation for promoting grass roots efforts to mobilize extra help
forLEP students to learn Englishthrough after-school tutoring, Saturday programs, and other
mechanisms to recruit adults, particularly bilingual adults, to help students learn English.
5
�','
"
•
An R&D and Technology Initiative. We can strengthen efforts to help students learn
. English with an R&D initiative targeted to areas that have the potential for high impact.
These might include continued studies and demonstrations of best practices, the development
of technology-based assessments of language proficiency, and the development of
programming to promote English language acquisition, for use as digital TV comes into
widespread use. It might also include demonstration programs focused on: the best ways of
he1pingyoung adult (18-24) recent immigrants, who have not completed high school in their
country oforigin, do not enroll in high school in the U.S., learn English. This population
accounts for a significant part of the large Hispanic dropout rate; helping them learn English
would improve their-own chances and increase the ability of their children to learn English ..
•
A Proposal to Help English Speaking Students Learn Foreign Languages. This package
provides an important opportunity to broaden the debate about bilingual education by
recognizing the value of bilingualism in a global economy. In particular, we could propose
an initiative to expand the existirig $5 million program that promotes foreign language
instruction, and focus it on encouraging more schools to provide foreign language instruction
in the early grades, when students are best equipped t? learn a second language.
This more comprehensive approach would give you a strong basis for leading the national
debate about bilingual education, while providing the time to fully develop a comprehensive
Administration package as part ofthe FY 2000 budget process. By not transmitting legislation now,
it avoids the prospect of creating a rift with and among Congressional Democrats. However, if there
was agreement among Congressional Democrats that an alternative to Riggs was necessary in the
short run, the package of amendments we have already drafted could be used.
The primary downside to this approach is that it could be seen by the press as an effort to
delay changing the bilingual education program, because legislation would not be sent until next
year, while Riggs is in play right now.
.
Recommendation: Elena-we'd need to circulate this, though I suspect that most ofthose
involved in the deliberations to date wouldfavor option 3.
_ _ _Option 1
Send Now
___Option 2
___Option 3
Discuss
----'---'
Announce a
Defer to House
Democrats on Timing
Comprehensive
Plan
6
�DRAFT
June 5, 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
'FROM:
SUBJECT:
Bilingual Education
,
-
On Jun.e 4, the House Education and Workforce Committee reported H.R. 3982, the English
Fluency Act, introduced by Rep. Frank Riggs. This bill raises many ofthe same programmatic issues
and political dynamics as the Unz Initiative in California. The purpose of this mem9 is to update
you on our strategy for addr~ssing this bill.
I.
Overview of Riggs Bill
The bill would eliminate the existing BilingUal Education and Emergency Immigrant
Education programs and would (1) distribute funds through a block grant that is not targeted toward
school districts with the highest quality programs and greatest funding need; (2)1 require states to
withdraw funding from local programs in cases where students do. not master Eriglish within two
years and set a 3-year limit for serving any individual student, though it would not provide any extra
help for students or corrective action for programs that need it; (3) not require States to maintain'
their own efforts; and (4) eliminate professional development programs designed to prepared
quali;fied ESL and bilingual education teachers. The bill also seeks to shirrply curtail the
enforcement powers of the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights by 'voiding existing
voluntary compliance agreemynts between OCR and local school districts with regard to educating
LEP students and by requiring OCR to publish -- and the Congress to ratify -- ne:w guidelines and
compliance standards for Title VI enforcement. These provisions would weake~ enforcement of
Title VI of ~he Civil Rights Act of 1964 and result in increased litigation.
! ,
II.
Development of Administration Alternative
We are on track to have an alternative bill based on the principles you approyed and Secretary
Riley articulated in his statement of opposition to the Unz Initiative completed and ready for
transmittal to Congress by the end ·of this week. This bill would amend (rather that?- replace entirely)
the existing bilingual education program. Specifically, it would require (1) school districts to
establish a goal of preparing LEP students to enter successfully regular English classrooms in not
more than three years, (2) annual assessments of student's English proficiency; (3) additional help
for students not on track to English proficiency; (4) a corrective action :pl,an, to be approved by the
J
�.
.
Secretary, from programs in which a significant pert~ntage of students do not mee~ the 3-year goal.
The bill would also guarantee local flexibility by removing the existing cap on programs that do not
. ' ,
use the students native language.
III.
Congressional Dynamic
H.R. 3892 was reported out of committee on a ~traight party line vote (22-17).
Notwithstanding the success of the Unz Initiative, Committee Democrats did not feel compelled to
offer an alternative to Riggs's bill during committee m~kup. Moderate Committee, Democrats (e.g.;
Reps. Romer and .Kind) as well as the four Members ofthe Hispanic Caucus on the Committee (reps.
Martinez, Romero-Barcelo, Hinojosa and Sanchez) decided to vote against the Riggs bill even
. ;
without a Democratic alternative.
.
1
It is not clear when thebill will be scheduled for House floor consideration, ialthough it could
. well be scheduled before the end of June. There is no hint of movement in the S:enate. It is quite
possible that House Democrats will feel compelled to offer an alternative when the:bill hits the fl09r:
so that they can-vote for reform of bilingual education. Leaders of the Hispanic Caucus, including
Caucus Chairman Becerra and Education Committee Member Hinojosa, have quietly acknowledged
that, for the greater good ofthe Democratic Caucus, such a floor alternative might b~come necessary.
However, up until now they have been adamantly opposed to a floor alternative, 'and remain to be
convinced that one is necessary for a successful floor strategy. Moderate Democrats themselves are
not yet clear if one is needed. In addition to their own apprehensions, Hispanic Caucus members are
under substantial political p~essure from bilingual advocates to steer clear of an alternative.
We could be ready to transmit an Administration alternative to Riggs ill! concert with the
Portland State commencement address or any time thereafter. While announcing your own
legislation in this short time frame would clearly demonstrate your commitment to reforming
bilingual education, we believe such an 3.-pproach would. have very serious qrawbacks in the
Congressional arena.
In particular, introducing an alternative within the next week or so would be perceived by the
Hispanic Caucus as jUmping the gun strategically, and preempting meaningful conshltation regarding
the substance of an alternative. It would generate a hostile reaction from the Caucus, and is likely
to recreate the same divisions among House Democrats we saw last year on national testing. The
prospects that the Black Caucus would ally itself with the Hispanic Caucus and Republicans in
opposition to your bill are high
.
The alternative course of action, which we recommend, would be to proceed immediately
to consult with members ofthe Hispanic Caucus and other Democrats on the shap~ of an alternative
bill, using the Administration bill as the starting point, and making our 3-year goal' and strengthened
accountability as nonnegotiable principles which must be incorporated into any legislation we would
support. While there is no guarantee that Democrats in general and the Members of the Hispanic
•
,I
2
�till
.:
Caucus in particular will endorse our approach, we can gain leverage in these negotiations by making
clear that a veto threat remains dependent upon the introduction of an alternative consistent with our
principles. Since no bilingual education bill is likely to pass this year, we can also make clear that
we will transmit a reauthorization bill next year that is fully consistent with theseytinciples.
Ifwe detetminetogether with House Deniocrats that an alternative is strategically necessary
when the bill comes to the floor, we could then introduce a bill consistent with o¥r principles that·
. would unite, rather than divide Democrats. If, as the,bill comes to the floor, House Democrats either
do not want an alternative, or will not support an approach based on our' principles, we can reassess
our position at that time and either send up our own alternative or choose to wait: until next year's
reauthorization.'
'
.
3
�"--, -
. ---.
<r,
WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION?
•
President Clinton and I have made education our number one domestic priority in order
to prepare all of America's children-native-born and immigrant-for th~ 21st century.
•
Nearly 20 percent of all children in our nation's schools are immigrants or children of
immigrants. These children are a source of great strength to America -- if we help
them learn English and get a high-quality education.
•
Today, there are growing questions about how to best help these young people get the
education they need. I supporta wide array of local efforts, including bilingual
education, when they truly help children 1) learn English, and 2) succeed.in the core
academic subjects. Any local effort should be designed to accomplish two goals.
•
'For bilingual education, that should mean setting goals for children to getmainstreamed
into regular classes within three years, improving teacher training, and pr<:>viding greater
flexibility and accountability for local schools to help their children succeed.
�WHY DOES THE ADMINISTRATION OPPOSE THE "UNZ" INITIATIVE THAT IS
LIKELY TO BE APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA VOTERS TODAY?
•
President Clinton and I have made education our number one domestic priority in order
to prepare all of America's children-native-born and immigrant-for,the 21st century.
•
Nearly 20 percent ,of all children in our nation's schools are immigrants 'or children of
immigrants. These children are a source of great 'strength to America --, if we, help
them learn English and get a high-quality ,education.
•
Today, there are growing questions about how to best help these young people how to
accomplish these objectives, and I know that there are many well-intentioned and
concerned citizens in California have differing views on the "Unz" initiative.
•
But let me be clear: the administration supports local efforts that can 1) help children
learn English well and 2) succeed in the core academics. We think "Unz'~ will do neither.
The one year time limit and one-size-fits-all approach in "Unz" limits the:ability oflocal
communities and schools to tailor approaches that meet the needs of their children.
•
That's why we oppose "Unz" and instead favor supporting a: wide array of community
efforts to help children succeed. For bilingual education, that should mean setting goals
for children to get mainstreamed into regular classes within three years, improving
teacher training, and providing greater flexibility and accountability for local schools to
help their children succeed.
�What is your position on legislation in Congress along the lines of the "Unz" 'initiative?
•
The President and I will work with anyone trying to find ways to help children learn
English well and make progress in the core academics. But like "Unz", legislation under
consideration in Congress would not accomplish these objectives.
I
,
"
WHAT LEGAL STEPS WILL THE ADMINISTRATION TAKE IF "UNZ'~ IS
APPROVED TODAY? WILL THE ADMINisTRATION JOIN LAWSUITS
CHALLENGING "UNZ"?
•
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on a hypothetical question about a
decision still facing the California voters today.
:
"I
�
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
Michael Cohen - Subject Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Cohen
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36062">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763316" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0160-S
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Cohen held the position of Special Assistant to the President for Education Policy within the Domestic Policy Council from 1996 to 1999. Prior to being detailed to the White House, he served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Education.</p>
<p>This series of Subject Files contains materials relating to education reform, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), America Reads initiative, bi-lingual education and the ballot initiative in California which proposed to eliminate bi-lingual instruction and limit the amount of time for bi-lingual students to transition to English only, test standards, teachers, tribal schools, school safety and school violence. The records include correspondence, reports, faxes, emails, handwritten notes, schedules, publications, and memoranda.</p>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
318 folders in 24 boxes
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.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
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
California [Ron K.] Unz Initiative - Bilingual Education [1]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Cohen
Subject Files
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0160-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 3
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2012-0160-S-Cohen.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763316" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
8/12/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2012-0160-S-california-ron-k-unz-initiative-bilingual-education-1
7763316