-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/9bd9cb847a3c0c6ee2d920c628f48f46.pdf
bb978037c5fb20f0c95030172437a35a
PDF Text
Text
NLWJC - KAGAN
EMAILS RECEIVED
ARMS - BOX 081 - FOLDER -006
[08/05/1998 - 08/06/1998]
�Page 1 of 2
\ ARMS Email System
..
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa M. Jones ( CN=Lisa M. Jones/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 17:23:36.00
SUBJECT:
See memo below
TO: Mickey Ibarra ( CN=Mickey Ibarra/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Minyon Moore ( CN=Minyon Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ann F. Lewis ( CN=Ann F. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ron Klain ( CN=Ron Klain/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Rahm I. Emanuel ( CN=Rahm I. Emanuel/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: T J. Glauthier ( CN=T J. Glauthier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Janet L. Yellen ( CN=Janet L. Yellen/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv ( CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: John Podesta ( CN=John Podesta/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sally Katzen ( CN=Sally Katzen/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Lawrence J. Stein ( CN=Lawrence J. Stein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Maria Echaveste ( CN=Maria Echaveste/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
�. ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 2
•
This memo was signed on Tuesday, August 4th.
MEMORANDUM FOR ERSKINE BOWLES
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jack Lew
Donald R. Arbuckle
Heads-up Consumer Confidence Rule
EPA will issue by the statutory deadline of August 6th a final
rule requiring all community drinking water systems to provide their
customers with D&consumer confidenceD8 reports. These reports must
contain information on contaminant levels detected in the systemsD,
drinking water, as well as on the EPA standards against which the detected
levels are compared to determine if they pose a health risk.
The reports
must also contain various health warnings and information on the potential
sources of detected contaminants.
In this final rule, EPA has added a number of requirements in
response to criticisms at the proposed stage by the environmental
community. These changes include additional mandatory health warnings and
a requirement to report the range of detection levels as well as the
annual average (the average is generally used to determine compliance with
the standards). We understand that environmental groups have held press
conferences today (Tuesday) in more than 20 cities heralding the as yet
unpublished final ~ule but describing it as weak, and urging states and
local governments to go beyond the minimum requirements.
We concluded review yesterday so that EPA could meet its statutory
deadline. The rule is a high priority of Administrator Browner who was
personally involved in its development, and is tentatively scheduled as
the subject for next SaturdayD,s radio address.
cc:
Maria Echaveste
Rahm Emanuel
Larry Stein
Ron Klain
Thurgood Marshall, Jr.
Ann Lewis
Sally Katzen
Minyon Moore
John Podesta
Bruce Reed
Gene Sperling
Katy McGinty
Elena Kagan
Barry Toiv
Michael waldman
Janet Yellen
Mickey Ibarra
T. J. Glauthier
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Christa Robinson ( CN=Christa Robinson/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 16:35:01.00
SUBJECT:
LA Message Event
TO: Cynthia A. Rice ( CN=Cynthia A. Rice/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Neera Tanden ( CN=Neera Tanden/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer L. Klein ( CN=Jennifer L. Klein/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Cynthia Dailard ( CN=Cynthia Dailard/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole R. Rabner ( CN=Nicole R. Rabner/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Gray Davis did not want to endorse the Reiner/tobacco initiative in Los
Angeles. The President will make a clean water announcement instead.
(Bruce, they took your suggestion and moved the Radio Address
announcement.
Thanks.)
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Julie A. Fernandes ( CN=Julie A. Fernandes/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 20:12:22.00
SUBJECT:
INS reform
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
FYI. According to Alan Erenbaurn from INS, Hyde became convinced that the
INS reform bill would be too controversial to mark-up, so it did not
happen.
julie
�I. .
Page 1 of 1
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Julie A. Fernandes ( CN=Julie A. Fernandes/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 12:49:52.00
SUBJECT:
H-1B -- q&a
TO: Elena Kagan
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ] )
CC: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO]
READ:UNKNOWN
)
TEXT:
Elena,
The press office has been receiving some calls on the status of the Rep.
H-1B compromise and our reaction to it. Attached are some draft q&a for
them.
julie
==================== ATTACHMENT
1 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:
0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT: [ATTACH.D90]MAIL459710120.226 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
FF57504370040000010A02010000000205000000820F0000000200000D74976EDFA7D43FD7684C
10507A9B3BCID8141317DACF7B360EA8A6B8DE921D7A26C82FC2163828C953D56C32469E2DE4Cl
�"
.,)
·.
Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
H-IB Legislation
August 5, 1998
Q:
Why has the Administration not embraced the Republican compromise on H-IB
legislation?
A:
Although the Republican agreement includes a training provision and limited protections
for U.S. workers, it falls short in several respects. The attestations are weak and too
many employers are exempt from their obligations. Also, the training provision would
not generate sufficient funds.
Q:
Some Republicans and hi-tech executives claim that the Administration keeps
moving the bar on what it would consider an acceptable bill. What has been going
on?
A:
Our position on this issue is unchanged: in order for the President to sign a bill that
increases the cap on H-lB visas, it must contain both a significant training component
and meaningful reform to the H-IB program to ensure that American companies recruit
U.S. workers and not lay-off U.S. workers in order to replace them with H-IB workers.
The Republican agreement that was unveiled late last week falls short in several respects.
It would generate inadequate training funds and would exempt large numbers of
employers from the attestation obligations. We have had a series of detailed discussions
with the sponsors of the bill and have suggested changes that would increase the funding
for training and strengthen the protections for U.S. workers.
Q:
The House leadership is threatening to bring their bill to a vote tomorrow. Will
you veto it?
A:
It is unclear at this point whether this bill is scheduled for tomorrow. However, if the
Congress passes this.bill and it is presented to the President, his senior advisors will
recommend that he veto it. While the President is willing to sign a bill to raise the caps,
he also wants to make sure that we protect and provide training for U.S. workers. We
want to work with the Congress to develop a balanced bill that addresses the growing
demand for highly skilled workers.
�·~
Page 1 of 2
. ARMS Email System
•
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Melissa N. Benton ( CN=Melissa N. Benton/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 12:10:20.00
SUBJECT:
Reminder--comments on LRM MNB217--Transportation testimony on PLAs--are du
TO: Jonathan Orszag ( CN=Jonathan Orszag/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Robert G. Damus ( CN=Robert G. Damus/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer E. Brown ( CN=Jennifer E. Brown/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Forbes ( CN=Jeffrey A. Forbes/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Larry R. Matlack ("CN=Larry R. Matlack/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kenneth L. Schwartz ( CN=Kenneth L. Schwartz/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Richard C. Loeb ( CN=Richard C. Loeb/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sandra Yamin ( CN=Sandra Yamin/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Martha Foley ( CN=Martha Foley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kate P. Donovan ( CN=Kate P. Donovan/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David E. Tornquist ( CN=David E. Tornquist/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Barry White ( CN=Barry White/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Allan E. Brown ( CN=Allan E. Brown/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: TheodoreWartell ( CN=Theodore Wartell/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Janet R. Forsgren ( CN=Janet R. Forsgren/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
�Page 2 of 2
" • ARMS Email System
This is a reminder that your comments on the subject testimony are due.
please provide all comments no later than 2 p.m. today.
If I do not hear
from you, I will assume you have no comments and will clear the document.
Please call (5-7887) if you have any comments or questions.
Thanks!
�Page 1 of 2
• ARMS Email System
'.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 18:39:58.00
SUBJECT:
Debate on Federalism Exec Order is underway; Hefley should be next
TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth Gore ( CN=Elizabeth Gore/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Craig T. Smith ( CN=Craig T. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Minyon Moore ( CN=Minyon Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Tracey E. Thornton ( CN=Tracey E. Thornton/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Dario J. Gomez ( CN=Dario J. Gomez/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Charles E. Kieffer ( CN=Charles E. Kieffer/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith ( CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Michael Deich ( CN=Michael Deich/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Robert N. Weiner ( CN=Robert N. Weiner/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv ( CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sylvia M. Mathews ( CN=Sylvia M. Mathews/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( 'CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP
READ: UNKNOWN
@
EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: Martha Foley ( CN=Martha Foley/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
�ARMS Email System
"."
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Vicginia Apuzzo ( CN=Virginia Apuzzo/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Janet Murguia ( CN=Janet Murguia/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua Gotbaum ( CN=Joshua Gotbaum/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Charles M. Brain ( CN=Charles M. Brain/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Phillip Caplan ( CN=Phillip Caplan/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Page 2 of 2
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 19:17:08.00
SUBJECT:
TO: ELENA (Pager)
READ: UNKNOWN
#KAGAN ( ELENA (Pager)
#KAGAN [ UNKNOWN 1 )
TEXT:
Press Office is anxious for you to call Gannet reporter on Native
Americans ASAP
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: l1ary L. Smith ( CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 16:23:39.00
SUBJECT:
one-pager and Q&A to review
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ]
READ: UNKNOWN
i
CC: Jeanne Lambrew ( CN=Jeanne Lambrew/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Julie A. Fernandes ( CN=Julie A. Fernandes/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Christopher C. Jennings ( CN=Christopher C. Jennings/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ]
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Here is the one-pager and Q&A to review.==================== ATTACHMENT
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:
0 00:00:00.00
1 ========
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT: [ATTACH.D69]MAIL472825126.226 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
FF57504316050000010A020100000002050000005A250000000200004613512FA7672A6F66CA9A
�Draft
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
NATIVE AMERICAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
August 6, 1998
Q:
What did the President announce at the Native American economic development
conference?
A:
The President announced several initiatives aimed at improving economic
self-sufficiency, increasing educational opportunities, and providing health care to Native
Americans. The President issued a directive which: (1) called for the Department of
Commerce, in collaboration with the Department of the Interior and tribal governments,
to issue a report within 9 months on the infrastructure technology needs in Indian country;
(2) required the Departments of the Interior and Commerce and the Small Business
Administration to develop, within 90 days, a strategic plan, in consultation with all
interested parties, including tribal governments, to coordinate existing federal economic
development programs for Native Americans; and (3) called for the Department of
Treasury and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in partnership
with local tribal governments and in cooperation with other federal agencies, to create a
one-stop mortgage center in Indian country to streamline the mortgage process. The
President also announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will provide $70
million to create technology-based jobs in Indian country.
Because the building blocks of economic opportunity lie in obtaining a good education,
the President signed an executive order at the conference which seeks to improve
achievement in reading and math for American Indian and Alaska Native students in
grades K-12. In order to improve the provision of health care to Native Americans, the
President announced that the state funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program
(CHIP) would be adjusted to accurately reflect states' populations of Native American
children. Finally, the President called on Congress to pass legislation to elevate the
Director of the Indian Health Service to an Assistant Secretary.
Native American Education Executive Order
Q:
What is the Native American education executive order?
A:
This executive order is designed to improve the academic performance of American
Indian and Alaska Native students in grades K-12. The order focuses special
attention on the following five goals: (1) improving student achievement in reading
and mathematics; (2) increasing high school completion and post-secondary
attendance rates; (3) reducing the influence of long-standing factors that impede
educational performance, such as poverty and substance abuse; (4) creating strong,
safe, and drug-free school environments conducive to learning; and (5) expanding
the use of science and educational technology. This order is structured to address
1
�Automated .=1ecljrd~ Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
Indian educational needs through participation at the federal, state, and local levels.
At the federal level, the order establishes an Interagency Task Force which will
plan initiatives, develop an education resource guide, and assist in implementing a
comprehensive research agenda on Indian education. At the regional level, the
order mandates a series of regional forums to be convened to identify promising
practices. Finally, at the local level, this executive order sets up pilot sites which
will receive comprehensive technical assistance in support of the goals of the order.
Economic Development Initiatives
Q:
What did the President direct several federal agencies to do with respect to
economic development in American Indian and Alaska Native communities?
A:
The President announced a directive with the following three components:
•
•
Strategic Plan to Coordinate Economic Development. The President also directed
the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, and the Small
Business Administration to develop, within 90 days, a strategic plan that will
coordinate existing economic development initiatives across agencies for Native
American and Alaska Native communities. In developing this strategic plan, the
agencies should consult with all interested parties, including tribal governments.
The plan will build upon current efforts in the agencies and detail future efforts on
such matters as providing technical assistance, enhancing infrastructure, and
developing software.
•
Q:
Technology Infrastructure Study. The President directed the Department of
Commerce, in collaboration with the Department of the Interior and tribal
governments, to issue a report within 9 months on the technology infrastructure
needs within Indian country, including distance learning facilities,
telecommunications capabilities, and manufacturing facilities.
One-Stop Mortgage Center. The President also directed the Departments of
Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, in partnership with local tribal
governments and in cooperation with other federal agencies, to initiate a project to
help streamline the mortgage lending process in Indian country in order to
improve access to mortgage loans on Indian reservations. The agencies will
initiate this effort through a year-long pilot program on the Navajo Nation and in
at least one other location.
What did the President announce with respect to creating technology-based jobs in
Indian country?
2
�Auronlo·t: '0cords Management System
Hex-Oump Conversion
A:
The President announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through its
Bringing Rural America Venture Opportunities (BRAVO) initiative, will direct $70
million of its contracting dollars through Fiscal Year 2000 to assist seven American
Indian and Alaska Native tribes in establishing small start-up technology companies.
Through the 8(a) program, USDA, large technology companies doing business with
USDA, and the Tribal Colleges and other land-grant educational institutions will work
with these newly-established companies to assist them in obtaining government contracts.
Q:
What is the status of technology infrastructure in Indian country?
A:
A recent report, prepared by the Department of Commerce, shows that although many
more Americans now own computers, minorities and low-income households are still far
less likely to have personal computers or access to the Internet than white or more
affluent households. Even more alarming, this study reveals that this "digital divide"
between households of different races and income levels is growing. The report
concluded that significant segments of the population, particularly in rural areas, remain
unconnected by telephone or computer. Because reservations are often in remote areas
and the income levels are low, this report supports the conclusion that more must be done
to build a technology infrastructure in Indian country.
Q:
What difficulties does a resident of an Indian reservation face in obtaining a
mortgage?
A:
There are unique issues facing prospective home buyers in Indian country such as trust
land status (where the United States holds the land in trust for a tribe or an individual),
tribal sovereignty issues, and limited availability of services such as appraisals and title
insurance. Because of these issues, obtaining a mortgage in Indian country is often much
more time consuming and complicated than a comparable transaction off the reservation.
Q:
How long does the mortgage lending process in Indian country take?
A:
The length of time to obtain a mortgage varies by Indian reservation and Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) area office. In most parts of Indian country, the process can
take anywhere from several months to several years. Unfortunately, these delays
sometimes result in problems for lenders who cannot hold open an extension of
credit over such a long time period without closing the loan.
Q:
When will the mortgage pilot programs be operational?
A:
Treasury and HUD have already identified a local partner for the first pilot on the
Navajo Nation called the Navajo Partnership for Housing (NPH). This
organization currently provides home buyer education services, which include
hosting home buyer orientation and home ownership counseling programs. Despite
3
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
its success at preparing residents of the reservation for home ownership, NPH has
not reached its projected number of mortgage closings because of the systemic
problems in the residential mortgage approval process. This pilot will
demonstrate, over the course of the year, ways to streamline and consolidate the
process to shorten significantly the approval time.
Over the year of the pilot, as the federal and tribal governments streamline and
consolidate their processes, the length of the mortgage process should shorten
significantly.
Health Care Initiatives for Native Americans
Q:
What did the President say with respect to the Director of the Indian Health Service
at HHS?
A:
The President called on Congress to pass legislation to elevate the Director of the Indian
Health Service to an Assistant Secretary. Elevating the IHS Director to the position of
Assistant Secretary will strengthen the government-to-government relationship; facilitate
communication and consultation with the Tribes on matters ofIndian health; and raise
awareness of Indian health concerns throughout HHS and the entire federal government.
Q:
What did the President announce with respect to the CHIP program?
A:
The President announced a change in the state-by-state allocation of the $24 billion in the
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to appropriately count Native American
children. States receive a share of CHIP funds based on their proportion of uninsured
children below 200 percent of poverty. When the Census Bureau produced these counts
last September, it did not include Native American children with access to the Indian
Health Service as "uninsured." Thus, even though such children are eligible for CHIP
coverage, the states with a large number of Native American children did not receive a
larger share of funds. The President announced that both the Census Bureau and the
Administration recognize that this was inequitable and thus will revise the allotments.
These revised allotments will be published in October with the preliminary 1999
allotments. This effort builds upon the Department of Interior's Bureau ofIndian Affairs
and HHS's Indian Health Service proposed actions to increase enrollment of uninsured
Native American and Alaska Native children which include developing and distributing
culturally relevant referral information (e.g., brochure, poster, supplementary packets of
information) to Native American families through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, especially
focusing on tribal schools, colleges and social services agencies.
Q:
What are the new state allotments with this adjustment?
A:
Because states' CHIP allotments will change with the annual Census update in the
4
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump ConversIOn
number of uninsured children in October, we will publish both the correction to include
Native American children and the new uninsured children counts at that time. We
believe that this change will result in an increase in funding to states with a large number
of Native American children of about $15 million.
Background on the Conference and American Indians and Alaska Natives
Q:
What is the Native American economic development conference?
A:
This conference is sponsored by the White House (Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs and the Domestic Policy Council), the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and
Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury,
and the Comptroller of the Currency and the Small Business Administration.
Secretary Babbitt, Secretary Daley, Secretary Glickman, Secretary Herman,
Attorney General Reno, and Administrator Alvarez were speakers at the
conference.
The conference had approximately 800 participants including tribal leaders and
members, businesses, and federal agency personnel. This conference was attended
by over 100 tribes from over 20 states and by over 150 businesses, both
Native-owned and non-Native-owned. This conference covered topics such as
commerce in Indian country; building infrastructure and positive climate for
business; tribal self-government and economic self-determination; agriculture and
economic development; rural business; community development in Indian country;
electronic commerce; welfare to work initiatives; and tourism.
Q:
What are some demographics on American Indians and Alaska Natives?
A:
Indian America is made up of more than 550 tribes, with a total population of
approximately 2.4 million. Nearly half of the American Indian and Alaska Native
population resides on 314 reservations, Indian lands, and in Alaska Villages that
make up Indian country.
Q:
What are the economic conditions in Indian country?
A:
While economic conditions in Indian country have improved in recent years,
American Indian and Alaska Native communities continue to lag behind the rest of
the United States with respect to social, economic, and educational attainment levels.
Income levels of American Indians and Alaska Natives are substantially below
those of all other Americans, and about 34 percent continue to live below the
poverty level. In comparison, the national poverty level is about 14 percent.
Complicating factors such as geographical isolation, under-developed
infrastructures, and demographics add to the challenges confronting tribes as they
5
�nUIOm&'2~ Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
work toward a better standard of living and quality of life for tribal peoples.
Q:
What are the educational attainment levels for Native Americans?
A:
In 1990, approximately 66 percent of Native Americans 25 years or older were high
school graduates compared with approximately 75 percent of the total population. About
9 percent of Native Americans completed a bachelor's degree or higher compared with 20
percent of the total population.
Q:
Is this conference part of the Race Initiative?
A:
This conference addresses many of the same issues that have been addressed by the Race
Initiative. However, this conference also addresses issues unique to American Indian
and Alaska Native communities such as tribal self-government and economic
self-determination. Members of the President's Initiative on Race are actively
participating in this conference.
6
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES INITIATIVES FOR
NATIVE AMERICANS RELATED TO ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH CARE, AND EDUCATION
August 6, 1998
Draft
Today, the President will attend a conference, sponsored by the White House and fifteen federal
agencies, entitled "Building Economic Self-Determination in Indian Communities," and will
announce several initiatives aimed at improving economic self-sufficiency, increasing
educational opportunities, and providing health care to Native Americans. The initiatives focus
on: improving student achievement in reading and math for grades K-12; assessing the
technology infrastructure needs of Indian country; coordinating existing federal economic
development programs for Native Americans; creating a one-stop mortgage center in Indian
country to streamline the mortgage process; creating technology-based jobs in Indian country;
and adjusting the state funding from the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to
accurately reflect states' populations of Native American children. In addition, the President
called on Congress to pass legislation to elevate the Director of the Indian Health Service to an
Assistant Secretary.
Creating Educational Opportunities for Native American Students
Native American Education Executive Order. The President signed an executive order at
the conference which is designed to improve the academic performance of American Indian
and Alaska Native students in grades K-12. The order focuses special attention on the
following five goals: (1) improving student achievement in reading and mathematics; (2)
increasing high school completion and post-secondary attendance rates; (3) reducing the
influence of long-standing factors that impede educational performance, such as poverty
and substance abuse; (4) creating strong, safe, and drug-free school environments
conducive to learning; and (5) expanding the use of science and educational technology.
This order is structured to address Indian educational needs through participation at the
federal, regional, and local levels. At the federal level, the order establishes an
Interagency Task Force which will plan initiatives, develop an education resource guide,
and assist in implementing a comprehensive research agenda on Indian education. At the
regional level, the order mandates a series of regional forums to be convened to identify
promising practices. Finally, at the local level, this executive order sets up pilot sites which
will receive comprehensive technical assistance in support of the goals of the order.
Expanding Economic Development in Indian Country
Executive Directive for Economic Development in American Indian and Alaska Native
Communities. The President announced the following directive which has the following three
components:
•
Technology Infrastructure Study. The President directed the Department of
Commerce, in collaboration with the Department of the Interior and tribal
governments, to issue a report within 9 months on the technology infrastructure
needs within Indian country, including distance learning facilities,
�Autom~ted
Records Management Systefl"
Hex-Dump ConversIOn
telecommunications capabilities, and manufacturing facilities.
•
Strategic Plan to Coordinate Economic Development. The President also directed
the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, and the Small
Business Administration to develop, within 90 days, a strategic plan that will
coordinate existing economic development initiatives across agencies for Native
American and Alaska Native communities. The plan will build upon current
efforts in the agencies and detail future efforts on matters such as providing
technical assistance, enhancing infrastructure, and developing software.
•
One-Stop Mortgage Center. The President also directed the Departments of
Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, in partnership with local tribal
governments and in cooperation with other federal agencies, to initiate a project to
help streamline the mortgage lending process in Indian country in order to
improve access to mortgage loans on Indian reservations. The agencies will
initiate this effort through a year-long pilot program on the Navajo Nation and in
at least one other location.
Providing $70 Million to Create Technology-Based Jobs in Indian Country. The President
announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through its Bringing Rural America
Venture Opportunities (BRAVO) initiative, will direct $70 million of its contracting dollars
through Fiscal Year 2000 to assist seven American Indian and Alaska Native tribes in
establishing small start-up technology companies in order to obtain government contracts.
Improving Health Care for Native Americans
Legislation to Elevate the Director of the Indian Health Service to an Assistant Secretary.
The President called on Congress to pass legislation to elevate the Director of the Indian Health
Service to an Assistant Secretary. Elevating the IHS Director to the position of Assistant
Secretary will strengthen the government-to-government relationship; facilitate communication
and consultation with the Tribes on matters ofIndian health; and raise awareness ofIndian health
concerns throughout HHS and the entire federal government.
Correct state CHIP allotments for undercount of Native American children. The
President announced a change in the state-by-state allocation of the $24 billion in the Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to appropriately count Native American children. States
receive a share of CHIP funds based on their proportion of uninsured children below 200 percent
of poverty. When the Census Bureau produced these counts last September, it did not include
Native American children with access to the Indian Health Service as "uninsured." Thus, even
though such children are eligible for CHIP coverage, the states with a large number of Native
American children did not receive a larger share of funds. The President announced that both
the Census Bureau and Administration recognize that this was inequitable and thus will revise
the allotments. These revised allotments will be published in October with the preliminary 1999
allotments. This effort will build upon both the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian
Affairs and HHS's Indian Health Service proposed actions to increase enrollment of
uninsured Native American and Alaska Native children including developing and
�Autol11a!ed Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
distributing culturally relevant referral information.
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Mary L. Smith ( CN=M8ry L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 10:27:22.00
SUBJECT:
Native American Education exec order
TO: Michael Cohen ( CN=Michael Cohen/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
You should have a copy of the order.
I'm meeting with Mac Reed at 11:15
to have a final review of the order. Let me know if you have changes.
We're going to try to get this in to Phil Caplan by the early afternoon
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREA'rOR: Jennifer M, Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M, Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 09:21:42,00
SUBJECT:
Trip next week
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I spoke with Counselor Sosnik, Chief of Staff for next week's trip, and he
thinks that it would be an excellent idea for you to travel as the DPC rep
on the trip,
You should e-mail your request to be placed on the manifest
to Chris Wayne in the Advance Office,
�• ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1. of 6
(NOTES MAIL)
CREA'I'OR: Ingrid t·l, Schroeder ( CN=Ingrid M. Schroeder/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 09:36:59.00
SUBJECT:
LRM #IMS398 - REVISED Statement of Administration Policy on HR3736 Workfor
TO: James J. Jukes ( CN=James J. Jukes/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa Zweig ( CN=Lisa Zweig/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca M. Blank ( CN=Rebecca M. Blank/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Michelle Peterson ( CN=Michelle Peterson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Emil E. Parker ( CN=Emil E. Parker/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Tracey E. Thornton ( CN=Tracey E. Thornton/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Broderick Johnson ( CN=Broderick Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Peter G. Jacoby ( CN=Peter G. Jacoby/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sally Katzen ( CN=Sally Katzen/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: David W. Beier ( CN=David W. Beier/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas A. Kalil ( CN=Thomas A. Kalil/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Julie A. Fernandes ( CN=Julie A. Fernandes/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie S. Mustain ( CN=Leslie S. Mustain/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Charles W. Fox ( CN=Charles W. Fox/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Mary Jo Siclari ( CN=Mary Jo Siclari/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Louisa Koch ( CN=Louisa Koch/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph G. Pipan ( CN=Joseph G. Pipan/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
�, ARMS Email System
Page 2 of6
TO: Daniel J. Chenok ( CN=Daniel J. Chenok/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Steven M. Mertens ( CN=Steven M. Mertens/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP
READ: UNKNOWN
Ot1B
1
TO: Sandra Yamin ( CN=Sandra Yamin/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Larry R. Matlack ( CN=Larry R. Matlack/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Charles Konigsberg ( CN=Charles Konigsberg/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kate P. Donovan ( CN=Kate P. Donovan/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Robert N. Weiner ( CN=Robert N. Weiner/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Maria Echaveste ( CN=Maria Echaveste/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Charles M. Brain ( CN=Charles M. Brain/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Janet Murguia ( CN=Janet Murguia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Cecilia E. Rouse ( CN=Cecilia E. Rouse/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jim Kohlenberger ( CN=Jim Kohlenberger/O=OVP@Ovp [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jack A. Smalligan ( CN=Jack A. Smalligan/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Katherine M. Tyer ( CN=Katherine M. Tyer/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Gregory G. Henry ( CN=Gregory G. Henry/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Richard J. Turman ( CN=Richard J. Turman/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ronald L. Silberman ( CN=Ronald L. Silberman/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
�· ARMS Email System
Page 30f6
TO: Evan T. Farley ( CN=Evan T. Farley/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: David J. Haun ( CN=David J. Haun/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP
READ: UNKNOWN
L
OMB
TO: Barbara Chow ( CN=Barbara Chow/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Barry White ( CN=Barry White/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Debra J. Bond ( CN=Debra J. Bond/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Rachel E. Levinson ( CN=Raehel E. Levinson/OU=OSTP/O=EOP@EOP [ OSTP 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: dodlrs ( dodlrs @ osdge.osd.mil [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: oge_legislation ( ogc_legislation @ ed.gov @inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: clrm ( clrm @ doc. gOY @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1 ).
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: dol-sol-leg ( dol-sol-leg @ dol.gov @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Darlene O. Gaymon ( CN=Darlene O. Gaymon/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: lrm ( lrm @ nsf.gov @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: lrm ( lrm @ os.dhhs.gov @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: US@2=TELEMAIL@3=GOV+TREAS@5=DO@4=MS01@7=LLR@6=TREASURY@mrx@lngtwy ( 1=US@2=TELEM
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: mjtaylor ( mjtaylor @ dol.gov @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: US@2=TELEMAIL@5=JMD@7=Deborah@6=Clifton@mrx@lngtwy ( 1=US@2=TELEMAIL@5=JMD@7=Deb
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Ronald E. Jones ( CN=Ronald E. Jones/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Total Pages: ____
LRM ID: IMS398
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
�, ARMS Email System
Page 4 af6
Wednesday, August 5, 1998
LEGISLA'rIVE REFERRAL MEMOPJ'.NDUM
TO:
Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below
FROM:
OMB CONTACT:
Ronald E. Jones (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
Ingrid M. Schroeder
PHONE: (202) 395-3883 FAX: (202) 395-3109
SUBJECT:
REVISED
Statement of Administration Policy on HR3736
Workforce Improvement and Protection Act of 1998
DEADLINE:
2pm
Wednesday, August 5, 1998
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your
agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship to the
program of the President.
please advise us if this item will affect
direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions
of Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
COMMENTS: HR 3736 is scheduled for House floor action on Thursday, August
6th. Therefore the above deadline is firm.
The attached SAP comments on
the version of H.R. 3736 which was circulated on July 30th and is
identical to the SAP circulated on July 30th.
Please note the senior
advisors veto recommendation in the first paragraph.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
61-JUSTICE - L. Anthony Sutin - (202) 514-2141
62-LABOR - Robert A. Shapiro - (202) 219-8201
25-COMMERCE - Michael A. Levitt - (202) 482-3151
128-US Trade Representative - Fred Montgomery - (202) 395-3475
118-TREASURY - Richard S. Carro - (202) 622-0650
30-EDUCATION - Jack Kristy - (202) 401-8313
52-HHS - Sondra S. Wallace - (202) 690-7760
29-DEFENSE - Samuel T. Brick Jr. - (703) 697-1305
84-National Science Foundation - Lawrence Rudolph - (703) 306-1060
95-0ffice of Science and Technology Policy - Jeff Smith - (202) 456-6047
114-STATE - Paul Rademacher - (202) 647-4463
76-National Economic Council - Sonyia Matthews - (202) 456-6630
Council of Economic Advisers - Liaison Officer - (202) 395-5084
EOP:
Debra J. Bond
Larry R. Matlack
Barry White
Sandra Yamin
Barbara Chow
Steven M. Mertens
David J. Haun
Daniel J. Chenok
Evan T. Farley
Joseph G. Pipan
Ronald L. Silberman
Louisa Koch
Richard J. Turman
Mary Jo Siclari
Gregory G. Henry
Charles W. Fox
Katherine M. Tyer
�, ARMS Email System
Page 5 of 6
Leslie S. Mustain
Jack A. Smalligan
Julie A. Fe.cnandes
Elena Kagan
Thomas A. Kalil
Jim Kohlenberger
David W. Beier
Cecilia E. Rouse
Sally Katzen
Gene B. Sperling
Peter G. Jacoby
Janet Murguia
Broderick Johnson
Charles M. Brain
Tracey E. Thornton
Maria Echaveste
Emil E. Parker
Robert N. Weiner
Michelle Peterson
Karen Tramontano
Rebecca M. Blank
Kate P. Donovan
Lisa Zweig
Charles Konigsberg
James J. Jukes
LRM ID: IMS398 SUBJECT:
REVISED
Statement of Administration Policy on
HR3736 Workforce Improvement and Protection Act of 1998
RESPONSE TO
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM
If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no
comment), we prefer that you respond bye-mail or by faxing us this
response sheet.
If the response is short and you prefer to call, please
call the branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a
message with a legislative assistant.
You may also respond by:
(1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be
connected to voice mail if the analyst does not answer); or
(2) sending us a memo or letter
please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.
TO:
FROM:
Ingrid M. Schroeder Phone:
395-3883
Fax:
395-3109
Office of Management and Budget
Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant): 395-3454
(Date)
(Name)
(Agency)
(Telephone)
The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on
�• ARMS Email System
Page 6 of 6
the above-captioned subject:
Concur
No Objection
No Comment
See proposed edits on pages
Other:
FAX RETURN of _____ pages, attached to this response sheet
DRAFT -- NOT FOR RELEASE
August 5, 1998
(House)
H.R. 3736 - Workforce Improvement and Protection Act of 1998
(Smith (R) Texas and 3 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage H.R. 3736, the
Improvement and Protection Act of 1998,08 as amended.
If this
bill is presented to the president, his senior advisors will recommend
that he veto it.
~&Workforce
This bill is intended to respond to a skills shortage in the information
technology industry by increasing the annual cap on the number of
temporary visas for foreign 0&specialtyD8 workers under the H-1B program.
Regrettably, H.R. 3736, as amended, emphasizes providing opportunities for
foreign workers rather than providing opportunities for and protecting
U.S. workers.
The Administration supports sound and balanced legislative efforts to
address shortages of skilled workers within certain sectors of our
economy.
The most important way to increase the availability of skilled
workers must be to improve the skills of U.S. workers and ensure that
employers seek U.S. workers first. While it may be necessary in the
short-term to increase the number of visas for temporary foreign workers,
this must only be done in conjunction with additional efforts to increase
the skill level of U.S. workers and meaningful reforms to the H-1B program.
Although this bill provides for certain employers to attest to recruitment
and lay-off provisions, the attestations are too weak to adequately
protect U.S. workers and far too many employers are exempt from their
obligations. Moreover, the bill, as structured, will not generate
sufficient funds for increased training opportunities for U.S. workers.
Finally, rather than strengthening enforcement to prevent employer abuses
of the H-1B program, H.R. 3736, as amended, undermines some of the
programD,s important enforcement provisions.
The Administration wants to work with the Congress to develop a bill that
addresses the growing demand for highly skilled workers, while effectively
protecting and promoting the interests of U.S. workers and enhancing the
international competitiveness of important U.S. industries.
* * * * * * *
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Cynthia A. Rice ( CN=Cynthia A. Rice/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 12:29:04.00
SUBJECT:
Those Ed Dept folks are persistent!
TO: Andrea Kane ( CN=Andrea Kane/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
They've proposed to add the following language to the conferee letter:
"The Administration strongly supports the goal of providing educational
opportunities to enable enabling more welfare recipients to move from
welfare to work."
I plan to say no -- I assume you agree?
Here is how the whole paragraph would read.
The Senate bill contains a provision amending the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program
(TANF).
It would expand the type and length of
education programs that may be counted toward a
State's "work activity" participation rate.
The
provision would also extend the FY98 and FY99
exclusion of teen parents from the cap on education
programs that may be counted toward a State's "work
activity" participation rate to FY2000 and beyond.
The Administration strongly supports the goal of
providing educational opportunities to
enable enabling more welfare recipients to
move from welfare to work. We look forward to working
with conferees to ensure that the final legislation
keeps the doors of college open to all Americans
while still maintaining the welfare law's strong work
requirements.
�\
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 3
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: "Christopher Edley, Jr."
("Christopher Edley, Jr."
[UNKNOWN 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 19:47:35.00
SUBJECT:
Re: next steps
TO: Judith A. Winston ( CN=Judith A. Winston/OU=PIR/O=EOP [ PIR 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Maria Echaveste ( CN=Maria Echaveste/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
Jacinta Ma ( CN=Jacinta Ma/OU=PIR/O=EOP [ PIR 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC:
Charles F. Ruff ( CN=Charles F. Ruff/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC:
TEXT:
Fabulous notes. Geez.
Small comments, in no particular order:
a.
I would say that MAYBE these need elevation to POTUS. I favor
developing the memo (with all the work that entails) and dropping out or
adding as that process indicates. In other words, this shouldn't be viewed
as a final list.
b. We really are killing four birds with one stone, and it makes sense to
bear that in mind. The birds are: (1) updating POTUS on a few items; (2)
plotting Administration priorities for the next two years and getting the
needed policy signals to accomplish that; (3) flagging anything that has
budget implications for FY 2000; (4) getting some bold thinking in front of
POTUS for his race book.
c.
In regard to the last item, b(4), we need a mini-working group not only
to help process the memo, but also to think about ideas that may not be
federal, or that may be longer range, or whatever. And, I dunno, maybe
there's something about Native Americans. Maybe discrimination in the
context of immigration enforcement. Anyway, I'd like a little working
group, with charter not only to assist with Eddie's POTUS memo, but the
broader brainstorming I need for the book.
d.
I don't want any of this morning's discussion to leave the impression
that I am anything but wildly enthusiastic about biting the bullet on 8(a)
and SDB programs -- or at least putting before POTUS the option of doing
so. I believe Maria agrees. BUT I DID NOT LEAVE THE DISCUSSION WITH A SENSE
OF WHO HAS THE LEAD IN DRIVING 8(a) REFORMS FORWARD. If not WH COUNSEL,
then who? Would be nice to get something signed off on by the time of the
book. Erskine and Cassandra designed a package of changes that are sitting
on the shelf to consider.
�· ARMS Email System
Page 2 of3
\
e. I just want to reiterate that there is serious intellectual work
involved in many of these issues. There is hard conceptual stuff that ought
to be framed in a way with the general way POTUS will discuss racial and
ethnic justice, etc. Obvious point, but when the lawyers in the basement
start arguing about everything, we'll have to remind folks to keep the big
picture in mind. (Once we paint it.)
f.
THis is a large agenda. I urge Eddie to make use of Jacinta Ma, an
attorney with a strong civil rights background, from the PIR staff. In
addition, Maria will have a White House Fellow starting in September, who
is an attorney with some civil rights experience and interest.
*********
At 04:52 PM 8/5/1998 -0400, Edward_W._Correia@who.eop.gov wrote:
>
Chris asked me to summarize my notes of our meeting this morning in
>order to review the civil rights enforcement issues we identified as
>particularly significant. I list these below, as well as my recollection
of
>the remainder of our discussion. Please let me know if you have
corrections
>or additions.
>
>
We identified the following "frontier" civil rights enforcement
issues
>as significant enough to warrant review by the President:
>
1) higher education admissions, including the use of standardized
>tests and the way we choose to articulate and support the Bakke decision;
>
2)
high stakes testing in other settings, such as elementary and
>secondary schools;
>
3) single sex schools;
>
4) magnet and charter schools, including the appropriate use of race
>by these schools in creating a diverse student body and our enforcement
>strategy if schools exclude groups in violation of the civil rights laws;
>
5) the importance of testers in civil rights enforcement, as used by
>the EEOC and other enforcement agencies;
>
6) achieving diversity in employment and ownership in the
broadcasting
>industry, including the status of the challenge to the FCC's employment
>rules and strategies to diversify ownership;
>
7) our efforts to achieve "environmental justice," i.e., challenging
>decisions of local government or other recipients of federal funds in land
>use planning decisions that have a discriminatory impact.
>
>
In addition to these issues, we may, after further review, want to
>include language discrimination by employers and religious discrimination.
>Also, the question of reforms in the 8(a) program may warrant review, both
>as a legal matter based on our need to comply with Adarand and as a policy
>matter, based on the desire to make the program more effective.
>
>
In regard to policy issues that Chuck and I contemplated including in
>a memo to the President, particularly pipeline strategies for higher
>education, there was a strong recommendation to include these as a part of
>the regular budget process. I will convey this recommendation to Chuck and
>discuss with Elena and Mike Cohen how that would be done. Finally, there
>was a consensus that we need some kind of regular White House review of
�., ARMS Email System
>civil rights enforcement policy and strategies. One possibility is a
>meeting every month (perhaps 6 weeks) involving DPC, Counsel's Office,
>other wIlite House staff where appropriate, the heads of the enforcement
>agencies and some agency staff.
>
>
>
Page 3 of 3
�Page 1 of 1
ARMS Email System
,
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: MaLY L. Smith ( CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-AUG-1998 19:25:46.00
SUBJECT:
accomplishment doc
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Julie A. Fernandes ( CN=Julie A. Fernandes/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary L. Smith/OPD/EOP on 08/05/98
07:26 PM ---------------------------
Julie A. Fernandes
08/05/98 06:42:16 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Mary L. Smith/OPD/EOP
cc:
Subject: accomplishment doc
==================== ATTACHMENT
1 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:
0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT: [ATTACH.D15]MAIL49649612Q.226 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
FF575043BB150000010A02010000000205000000184600000002000048CD310A8A48BD1317B12C
�Automated Records '.~anagement System
Hex-Dump ConversIon
President Clinton
A Record of Partnership With American Indians and Alaska Natives
"My administration has worked in partnership with tribal leaders __ . to protect American
Indian religious freedom, promote tribal self-determination, preserve tribal natural resources
and provide economic opportunities for Native Americans. I look forward to continuing this
government-to-government relationship in order to build OIl the progress we have made in
Indian Country."
President Bill Clinton
On April 29, 1994, President Clinton became the first President to invite the leaders of all
federally recognized Tribes to the White House. On this historic occasion, the President pledged
that his Administration would work with Tribal leaders to establish a true
government-to-government partnership. The Clinton Administration has delivered on this
commitment by:
Strengthening the Relationship Between the Federal Government and Tribal Nations
•
In 1994, executed a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
directing agencies to consult, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by
law, with tribal governments prior to taking actions that affect federally recognized tribal
governments.
•
On May 14, 1998, issued an executive order that strengthens and makes effective across
Administrations the 1994 Govemment-to-Government memorandum. This executive order
serves to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal
governments in the development of regulatory practices on Federal matters that significantly
or uniquely affect their communities, to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon
Indian tribal governments, and to streamline the application process for and increase the
availability of waivers to Indian tribal governments.
Expanding the role ofAmerican Indians and Alaska Natives throughout his
Administration
•
Appointed 59 Native Americans to all levels of his Administration, including 10 to top
positions requiring Senate confirmation and 30 to Presidential appointment positions.
•
Created the Office of Tribal Justice to promote government-to-govemment relations with
Indian Tribes and ensure aggressive representation of tribal sovereignty in the courts.
•
Established the American Indian Environmental Office to work with Tribes to protect water
�Automa;ed Re~(1rds Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
.,-~
quality and the environment in Indian Country.
•
Created a permanent White House working group composed of all Executive Branch
Departments to advance Tribal sovereignty across the administration.
Protecting Religious Freedom
•
Signed an executive order that requires federal agencies to accommodate access to and
ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and to avoid
adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.
•
Successfully fought for passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments
and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in order to protect the right of free exercise of
Tribal religions.
•
Directed federal agencies to ensure efficient collection and distribution of available eagle
feathers and eagle parts to American Indians and Alaska Natives for traditional religious
purposes.
Promoting Tribal Self-Determination
•
Supported passage and implementation of the Indian Self-Determination Act and the Tribal
Self-Governance Act, which give Tribal governments control of most federal resources spent
within Indian Country.
•
Successfully fought attempts to penalize tribes for exercising their powers of self-governance
and allowing states to tax Tribal governments on new trust lands.
Increasing Educational Opportunities
•
Proposed a 59% increase in funding for construction and facilities improvement and
repair for Native American Schools in his FY 1999 budget.
•
Provided an 11 percent increase (from $60 million to $66 million) for the Indian
Education Act in his FY 1999 budget. Serving nearly half a million Native American
students, the Act's programs include grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs),
Indian tribes and organizations, Indian-controlled schools, and individuals to address
special educational and cultural academic needs of Native Americans.
•
Signed an executive order that aims to ensure that tribal colleges and universities are
more fully recognized as accredited institutions, have access to the opportunities
afforded other institutions, and have Federal resources committed to them on a
continuing basis.
Providing Economic Development Opportunities in Indian Country
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
•
Established an Office of Native American Programs within the Minority Business
Development Association at the Departmcnt of Commerce, with eight Native American
Business Development Centers and a business consultant, that provides management and
technical assistance to Native American businesses.
•
Signed the Community Development Banking and Regulatory Improvement Act, which
promotes more lending in Indian Country;
Protecting Tribal Natural Resources
•
Established for the first time the right of Alaska Natives to fish for subsistence purposes.
•
Requested $875 million (a $130 million increase) in his FY 1999 budget for EPA State and
Tribal Assistance Grants. As a part of this program, EPA will continue to build an support
tribal capacity to implement, operate, and enforce Federal environmental laws.
•
Supported the exercise of Northwest Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
Improving Health and Safety for American Indian and Alaska Native Families
• . Supported funding for continued implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act and tribal
consensus amendments to protect Indian families and culture.
•
Signed into law the Indian Tribal Justice Support Act to improve criminal law enforcement in
Indian Country.
•
Directed the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior to work with tribal leaders and
propose improvements for public safety and criminal justice in Indian Country. As a result
of this process, the President's FY 1999 budget contains a $182 million initiative within the
Justice and Interior Departments to raise the level oflaw enforcement in Indian country to
national standards.
•
Devoted $54 million in his FY 1999 budget to hiring police officers through the COPS
program exclusively in Indian country.
�•
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 15
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Constance J. Bowers ( CN=Constance J. Bowers/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-AUG-1998 14:53:52.00
SUBJECT:
LRM CJB269: Aug. 6th Draft of HEA Conferee Letter (HR 6)
TO: Janet R. Forsgren ( CN=Janet R. Forsgren/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Raymond P. Kogut ( CN=Raymond P. Kogut/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Arthur W. Stigile ( CN=Arthur W. Stigile/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Charles E. Kieffer ( CN=Charles E. Kieffer/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Richard P. Emery Jr.
READ: UNKNOWN
( CN=Richard P. Emery Jr./OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1
TO: Daniel I. Werfel ( CN=Daniel I. Werfel/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Cynthia A. Rice ( CN=Cynthia A. Rice/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: David Rowe ( CN=David Rowe/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry White ( CN=Barry white/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Broderick Johnson ( CN=Broderick Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan A. Kaplan ( CN=Jonathan A. Kaplan/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sandra Yamin ( CN=Sandra Yamin/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP·[ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: lori_templeman ( lori_templeman @ ed.gov @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: karen.dorsey ( karen.dorsey @ treas.sprint.com @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Constance J. Bowers ( CN=Constance J. Bowers/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: James J. Jukes ( CN=James J. Jukes/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Justin D. Sullivan ( CN=Justin D. Sullivan/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
�.ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 15
.
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Charles Konigsberg
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Charles Konigsberg/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
TO: Robert G. Damus ( CN=Robert G. Damus/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Daniel J. Chenok ( CN=Daniel J. Chenok/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Andrea Kane ( CN=Andrea Kane/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Lorenzo Rasetti ( CN=Lorenzo Rasetti/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kathryn B. Stack ( CN=Kathryn B. Stack/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kate P. Donovan ( CN=Kate P. Donovan/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Michael Cohen ( CN=Michael Cohen/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robert M. Shireman ( CN=Robert M. Shireman/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Barbara Chow ( CN=Barbara Chow/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: ogc_legislation ( ogc_legislation @ ed.gov @inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: agc.llr ( agc.llr @ treas.sprint.com @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
The attached draft letter reflects final changes proposed to the letter
and attachment.
If you identify any problems in this version, please let
me know no later than 4:30 p.m. today, Thursday, August 6, 1998.
Draft Conferee
Letter:
Attachment
to Lettter:
Total Pages: ____
LRM ID: CJB269
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
�Page 3 of 15
· ARMS Email System
Thursday, August 6, 1998
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Reference
OMB CONTACT:
Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below
Janet R. Forsgren (for) Assistant Director for Legislative
Constance J. Bowers
PHONE: (202)395-3803 FAX: (202)395-6148
SUBJECT:
August 6th version REVISED EDUCATION Conference Document
on HR6 Higher Education Amendments of 1998
DEADLINE:
5:00 p.m., today
Thursday, August 6, 1998
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your
agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship to the
program of the President.
Please advise us if this item will affect
direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions
of Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
COMMENTS: This document is proposed for transmittal to the conferees today.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
EOP:
Barbara Chow
Sandra Yamin
Robert M. Shireman
Jonathan A. Kaplan
Michael Cohen
Broderick Johnson
Bruce Reed
Elena Kagan
Kate P. Donovan
Barry White
Kathryn B. Stack
David Rowe
Rasetti Lorenzo
Cynthia A. Rice
Andrea Kane
Daniel I. Werfel
Daniel J. Chenok
Richard P. Emery Jr.
Robert G. Damus
Charles E. Kieffer
Charles Konigsberg
Arthur W. Stigile
Justin D. Sullivan
Raymond P. Kogut
James J. Jukes
Janet R. Forsgren
LRM ID: CJB269 SUBJECT:
August 6th version REVISED EDUCATION
Document on HR6 Higher Education Amendments of 1998
Conference
�Page 4 of 15
, ARMS Email System
RESPONSE TO
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM
If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no
comment), we prefer that you respond bye-mail or by faxing us this
response sheet.
If the response is short and you prefer to call, please
call the branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a
message with a legislative assistant.
You may also respond by:
(1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be
connected to voice mail if the analyst does not answer); or
(2) sending us a memo or letter
please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.
TO:
Constance J. Bowers Phone:
395-3803
Fax:
395-6148
Office of Management and Budget
Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant): 395-7362
FROM:
(Date)
(Name)
(Agency)
(Telephone)
The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on
the above-captioned subject:
Concur
No Objection
No Comment
See proposed edits on pages
Other:
FAX RETURN of _____ pages, attached to this response sheet
ATTACHMENT
1 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:
0 00:00:00.00
====================
TEXT:
WPCB
2B4J-DZlxTimes New Roman
2?DKphoenix#C\
P6QP#
(TT)Arial
(TT)Courier New (TT)C\
P6QPJ2PQP"d6X@DQ@
ATTACHMENT
Jennifer KronLori G. Tern
pleman
P6QP#heading 2heading 2>4#XX2P
P6QXP#DD#C\
2' (heading 1heading 1F<#XP\
QXP##C\ P6QP#heading 3heading 3F<#XP\
P6QXP#DD#C\
P6QP#Default Paragraph FoD
P6QXP##C\
efault paragraph Font11#XP\
P6QP#2Vheaderheader;1#XX2PQXP##C\
#StyleOStyleO;1#XX2PQXP##C\
P6QP#Emphasis1Emphasis1>4#XX2PQXP##C\
P6QP#footer
hp x (#2L
4
footerX'
hp x (#!!X'
m
page numberpage number
11#XP\
P6QXP##C\
P6QP#TitleTitle
�Page 5 of 15
· ARMS Email System
>4#XP\
P6QXP#DO#C\
P6QP#Body TextBody TextA7#XP\
P6QXP#D
~I
#C\
P6QP#Body Te
xt 2Body Text 2D;1#XP\
P6QXP##C\
P6QP#2
-Body Text 2Body Text 2
;l#XP\
P6QXP
##C\
P6QP#DXXDDDheader#XX2PQXP#DDRAFTD
header#C\
P6QP#D
2/1/5
8:$9 0
footerX'
hp x (#!#XP\
P6QXP# page number#XP\
footer!4
~J<DL
P6QXP##C\
P6QP#" page
!
Title#XP\
P6QXP#DATTACHMENT
TitleADDITIONAL VIEWS ON ISSUES IN H.R. 60
In addition to the concerns outlined in Secretary Rileys letter,
t expresses the Administrations views on other important issues
nce on the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The issues are
he order in which they appear in the current law or, in the case
s, in the passed versions of the bill.
this attachmen
in the confere
discussed in t
of new program
DAlcohol and drug abuseD
Both the House and Senate versions of the bill would authorize the Department t
o offer grants and recognition awards to combat the illegal use of drugs and al
cohol on campus. The Secretary would be authorized to make grants to or enter
into contracts with institutions for alcohol, drug and violence prevention prog
ramming.
This authority is similar to a program that already exists in the Saf
e and DrugFree Schools program. While we believe this activity is very importa
nt, we do not believe that it needs to be authorized in both the Higher Educati
on Act and the Safe and DrugFree Schools Act.
We recommend maintaining the aut
horization in Safe and DrugFree Schools.
DInstitutional aidD
Both versions of the bill make several positive changes to the institutional ai
d provisions that the Administration has recommended.
Both versions of the bil
I allow institutions participating in Title III programs and HispanicServing In
stitutions (HSIs) to use up to 20% of their grant funds to establish or expand
an endowment fund and expand allowable activities to encourage institutions to
use technology.
Both versions would provide the HSI program more visibility by
moving the program to a separate part in a different title, and simplifying th
e definition of HSI.
Both the Senate and the House versions authorize grants f
or Tribal Colleges, as proposed by the Administration.
We prefer the House language on the changed funding formula for Historically Bl
ack Graduate Institutions (HBGIs) with the addition of the substance of the des
criptive factors in the Senate provision for a competition; this will provide a
more equitable distribution than either provision by itself. We also support
the Senate provision for a minimum grant of $1,000,000 to institutions before m
atching is required and the $28,000,000 threshold for the use of the funding fo
rmula.
DPell Grants]
We appreciate the strong support for the Pell Grant program that is evident in
both versions of the bill, and are very pleased to see that many of the Adminis
trations proposals for the Pell Grant program have been included in either one
version or the other.
header#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#
headerWe support the House provision to extend the cohort default rate cutoff t
�, ARMS Email System
Page 6 of 15
o Pell Grant eligibility. This extension will increase institutional accountab
ility and better protect students from unscrupulous schools. 0 OWe believe that
the mitigating circumstance provisions that the Department has adopted in regu
lation for the student loan programs protect those institutions in which only a
few students borrow, and we would like to work with the conferees to incorpora
te mitigating circumstances directly into the statute for purposes of instituti
onal eligibility to participate in the Pell Grant program.
header#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#
headerStyleO#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#We support the Senate version of the bills in
lusion of the 150% time limit on student eligibility for Pell Grants, the new r
equirements for standalone English as a Second Language (ESL) programs, the tui
tionsensitive award rule, and the extension of Pell Grant eligibility to colleg
e graduates enrolled in a nongraduate teacher training program. The Administrat
ions proposal to limit·Pell Grant eligibility to 150% of the time normally requ
ired to complete the course of instruction, with adjustments for students atten
ding parttime and exemptions for students with disabilities, would prevent abus
e of the program. We urge that the Administrations proposal to impose a total
time limit of eight academic years of full time study, or the equivalent period
of parttime study, be added to the 150% limit in the final version of the bill
StyleO
The Senate provision that students in standalone ESL programs may receive Pell
Grants only if a minimum percentage of the programs students pass an English pr
oficiency exam will also increase program integrity.
The Senate version also i
ncludes the Administrations proposal to clarify that tuition includes fees req
uired for attendance, and that the institution may determine the dependent care
Idisability allowance.
Finally, the Senate version includes a provision that would allow college gradu
ates to receive Pell Grants on a casebycase basis for a fifth year if they are
enrolled in a teacher training program.
This program would provide new assista
nce to encourage college students to become welltrained, motivated teachers.
H
ow ever , we need to ensure that it is administratively workable.
We look forwar
d to working with you in conference to refine this provision.
o
TRIO programsD
Current law provides for grants of both four and five years in the TRIO program
s. The House version of the bill adopts the Administrations proposal to standa
rdize grant duration in the Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Servic
es, Postbaccalaureate Achievement, and Educational Opportunity Centers Programs
at four years; the Senate version of the bill does not change current statutor
y provisions. We strongly support the Houses changes, since current law is con
fusing to the community, presents little or no practical benefit and is adminis
tratively complex.
The House version of the bill would eliminate the current administrative setasi
de of 0.5% of appropriations for the TRIO Programs.
The Senate version of the
bill retains the setaside.
Eliminating the setaside would have a significant a
nd negative impact on the Departments ability to administer the TRIO Programs e
ffectively.
We support the Senate version.
CCampusbased programsD
The Administration proposed modifying the campusbased aid formula to gradually
distribute a larger share of the program appropriation on the basis of measured
institutional need for funds.
The House version would eliminate the pro rata
step.
However, this change could lead to some institutions allocations being
reduced too quickly, rather than the gradual shifts proposed by the Administrat
ion.
The Senate version has n·o comparable change, and, thus, fails to respond
to changes in institutional need.
We urge the conferees to adopt the Administr
at ions proposal.
�· ARMS Email System
Page 7 of 15
College awarenes~~
Neither passed version of H.R. 6 would authorize the college awareness program
proposed by the Administration. Recent studies have shown that lowincome stude
nts attend college at significantly lower rates than individuals from high and
middleincome families, not because of financial inability to attend college but
because of a lack of information about the requisite steps to prepare for, app
ly for, finance, and enroll in college. A college awareness program is a cruci
al element in our efforts to increase college attendance among lowincome studen
ts, and would complement well the High Hopes program, which received support in
both versions of the bill.
OGuaranty agencies and voluntary flexible agreementsO
Both versions of the bill authorize up to six guaranty agencies to enter into v
oluntary flexible agreements with the Department. Guaranty agency arrangements
need to focus more heavily on preventing defaults, and voluntary flexible agre
ements could help promote greater administrative efficiency and improved servic
e for students.
The Administration supports components of both the House and Senate versions of
the guaranty agency reform, including the House provisions to allow the Secret
ary to regulate the operating fund when monies are owed to the Federal fund and
to allow the Secretary to waive or modify any statutory requirements for agenc
ies that enter into voluntary flexible agreements. The Administration supports
the provision in the Senate version that specifies that voluntary flexible agr
eements cannot restrict borrowers from selecting the lender of their choice. T
he Administration also supports the Senate provisions to prohibit agencies that
fail to make scheduled payments from receiving additional Federal funds, to re
quire the Secretarys approval before agencies may support other student aid act
ivities,
to prohibit agencies from depositing interest earned on the Federal f
und in the operating fund, and to reduce the loan processing and retention allo
wance fee.
The Administration opposes the Senate provisions that would add bur
densome notice requirements regarding voluntary flexible agreements.
StyleO#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#The Administration also supports the provision of th
e House version that requires guaranty agencies to invest funds deposited into
their operating funds in accordance with prudent investor standards, rather tha
n the Senate provision which permits investment of the fund at the sole discret
ion of the guaranty agency.
StyleOD
heading l#XP\
P6QXP#OFFEL repaymentO
heading lOWe support the Senate provision to offer extended repayment plans 0
f up to 25 years to FFEL borrowers with loans in excess of $30,000. We also su
pport the House provision that allows FFEL borrowers to retain their interest s
ubsidies when they consolidate their loans.
These changes would benefit FFEL b
orrowers with heavy debt burdens and would help level the playing field between
the two loan programs.
In addition, we support consideration of efforts to ex
tend incomecontingent repayment plans to FFEL borrowers.
OOrigination and insurance feesD
Unfortunately, neither version would lower the upfront loan fees for students.
Reducing the origination fees for Direct Loans and the insurance fees for FFEL
loans would reduce students cost of borrowing. The Administration proposed to
lower the fees by one percentage point for all borrowers, and to phase them ou
t entirely for borrowers of subsidized loans. These fee reductions could be inc
luded in the conference agreement if their costs are appropriately offset.D
heading 3#XP\
P6QXP#DLoan forgivenessD
heading 3 DBoth the House and Senate include programs to forgive loans for tea
chers in highpoverty schools. We support encouraging students to teach in the
�· ARMS Email System
Page 8 of 15
schools where their talents are needed most.
However, changes are neededO Oto
the program as currently written to make the program more effective and its adm
inistration, by the Department, institutions, guaranty agencies, and lenders, m
ore workable.
For example, because of the need to track student loans separQte
ly under the loan forgiveness provisions as currently structured, a student see
king loan forgiveness would be unable to consolidate his or her student loans.
This is inequitable because it would limit the students repayment options.
In
addition, the House and Senate versions of the bill also contain provisions fo
r loan forgiveness for child care workers.
In lieu of these proposals, the Adm
inistration supports its Child Care Provider Scholarship Fund, which would prov
ide more than $300 million in scholarships over five years to up to 50,000 chil
d care providers annually
header#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#
headerWe would like to work with you on making the loan forgiveness provisions
more equitable and effective.
Options to consider include: treating all Feder
al student loans equally, regardless of the year in which they were received; 0
ffering loan forgiveness from the first year of teaching, or explicitly providi
ng forbearance for the first years of teaching; changing the percentage of loan
s that may be forgiven each year; and creating a simpler administrative and fin
ancing mechanism for for both teachers and child care workers.
StyleO#XX2PQXP#
StyleO
Body Text 2#XP\ P6QXP#Finally, under both versions of the bill, borrowe
rs who have their remaining outstanding loan balance forgiven after 25 years of
incomecontingent repayment must continue to pay taxes on the amount forgiven.
Saddling borrowers with additional tax liability is neither appropriate nor wa
s it ever intended. The Administration supports adding a provision to exempt t
he amount forgiven from Federal income taxation.
Body Text 2"0
Lending from proceeds of taxexempt obligationsO
Under current law, secondary markets using taxexempt funds must file a plan for
doing business with the Department. This provision includes substantive restr
ictions on discrimination and on payment of premiums exceeding one percent for
loans. The House version of the bill would eliminate both the filing requiremen
t and the restrictions. The Senate version eliminates the filing requirement a
nd the payment of premiums restriction, retaining only the nondiscrimination pr
ovision. The Administration supports elimination of the filing requirement but
retention of both substantive restrictions.
[ICommuni ty service defermentD
Neither version would permit the Secretary to pay the interest that accrues on
an unsubsidized FFEL or Direct Loan while the borrower is receiving an economic
hardship deferment on the loan and performing community service. This importa
nt proposal is part of the President's call to action to all Americans to serve
their communities, and would allow individuals with student loans who qualify
for economic hardship deferments to take up to three years to serve their commu
nities without accruing additional interest on their loans. This would remove a
financial obstacle to community service for borrowers who already satisfy econ
omic hardship criteria, such as Peace Corps volunteers.
OMarketbased mechanismsD
The Administration continues to support an objective, marketbased determination
of appropriate rates of return for lenders on student loans. A number of diff
erent market mechanisms have the potential to achieve this outcome, and we are
eager to work with Congress to find the right approach. We also support obtaini
ng financial information from FFEL lenders as part of a new study that could be
tter guide the Congress regarding the profitability of lenders and the forrnulat
ion of policy on student loans.O
�· ARMS Email System
Page 9 of 15
heading l#XP\
P6QXP#DWorkstudy community serviceD
heading 1
Body Text 2#XP\ P6QXP#1'he House version of the bill would add seve
ral burdensome requirements.
First, it would add a requirement that at least t
wo percent of an institution's allocation (in addition to the current five perc
ent community service requirement) be spent on early childhood reading tutors.
The House version of the bill would also require institutions to give priority
in workstudy funds to students tutoring in schools that meet certain criteria,
a requirement which would unnecessarily complicate institutions' administratio
n of the program. The Department has had great success with its voluntary part
nerships with America Reads tutors, and prefers to continue with that approach.
Body Text 2"
DPerkins LoansD
Body Text 2#XP\ P6QXP#Both the House and Senate version of the bills would el
iminate the Federal Perkins Loan revolving fund account; the House would do so
explicitly in order to subsidize loan forgiveness for teachers in the FFEL and
Direct Loan programs. We oppose this elimination. Without this fund, Congress
would need to provide an increase in discretionary appropriations for Perkins
Loan Federal Capital Contributions in order to avoid reducing loan volume.
In
addition, the House version of the bill includes forbearance provisions, inc Iud
ing mandatory forbearance for Perkins Loans recipients during a term of nationa
I service, that should be expanded to be comparable with FFEL and Direct Lendin
g.
Body Text 2"
heading 3#XP\
P6QXP#DNeed analysisD
heading 3 StyleO#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#We are pleased with the House provisions
to combine parent and dependent student assets to eliminate the differential as
sessment rates and to increase the income protection allowances significantly.
These changes will protect more of the earnings of needy students, will restor
e Pell Grant eligibility to many nontraditional students, and are a step in the
right direction toward encouraging saving, increasing fairness, and simplifyin
g the financial. aid process for students and families, as proposed by the Admin
istration. However, we note this change would increase discretionary spending,
and thus the funding of these provisions would need to be examined during the a
nnual appropriations process.
StyleD
StyleO#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#We are also pleased that both the Senate and House v
ersion of the bills would add an offset for dependent students in the amount of
the parents negative available income. This offset would exclude from need an
alysis calculation the income of a student whose earnings are necessary for the
familys living expenses.
The Administration supports the House version of thi
s offset since it allows for the use of "adjusted" available income as an offse
t against dependent student income. This means that any negative amount remain
ing after first offsetting any contribution from parental assets would then be
used to offset dependent student income. The Senate version, on the other hand
, would allow the full unadjusted negative available income to offset both pare
ntal assets and the same amount again to offset dependent student income.
In a
sense, the Senate proposal would inappropriately provide a double counting adv
antage.
StyleD
Neither the House nor the Senate included language clarifying that financial ai
d administrators may adjust need determination to assist dislocated workers.
T
he Administration has requested this change in recent letters to Congress, and
will continue to seek to include it in the final version of the bill. DO
DMultiyear promissory note; formsD
�ARMS Email System
Page 10 of 15
The House version of the bill would require a multiyear promissory note within
180 days of the enactment of the reauthorization bill. The Senate version woul
d L·equire the Secretary to develop a master promissory note for use beginning J
uly 1, 2000. We agree that a multiyear promissory note will simplify the proces
s by which students and their families apply for and receive federal student 10
ans.
In fact, we are currently in the final stages of developing the procedure
s and notes for the introduction of a master promissory note with a multiyear 1
oan renewal process in both the FFEL and Direct Loan programs. We expect the n
ew notes to be available for the 19992000 academic year, with borrowers who app
ly for loans for the 20002001 year being the first who would benefit from the #
Xx6X@DQX@#A#XP\ P6QXP#multiyear functionality,#Xx6X@DQX@#@#XP\ P6QXP# since t
hey would have signed the master note during the prior year. With these target
s in mind, and in order to ensure that the processes work properly and effectiv
ely, we would prefer that the law not include a specific timeframe.
The Administration is also disappointed that neither version of H.R. 6 would pr
ovide the Secretary with the authority to approve alternative forms to determin
e need and eligibility for student aid that contain the same information as the
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) as long as the entire form is
provided free of charge, as was proposed by the Administration.
The use of a
Iternative free versions of the FAFSA, especially electronic versions, could re
duce burden for students and families while streamlining the aid award process
·and maintaining the integrity of the delivery system.
heading l#XP\
P6QXP#OIRS and information sharingO
heading 1 header#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#The House version of the bill would autho
rize the Secretary to confirm with the IRS each aid applicant's adjusted gross
income, Federal income taxes paid, tax filing status, and number of exemptions.
The Senate version of the bill would require the Secretary to verify aid appl
icant's tax return information with the IRS. The Administration has several con
cerns regarding the income verification proposals in both the House and Senate
versions, including confidentiality of taxpayer information, and IRS resource a
nd systems capacity issues (particularly in light of the Year 2000 conversion u
nderway). The Administration would like to work with the conferees to determin
e whether an approach can be developed to address these issues, while still acc
omplishing the Members' objectives.
header
DDrug offendersO
We oppose the language in both versions of the bill suspending aid eligibility
for students who have been convicted of any drug offense under Federal or State
law. This provision would largely duplicate existing law denying Federal benef
its to individuals convicted of a drug offense under Federal or State law. Curr
ent law also contains important judicial discretion provisions that are lacking
in both versions.
CFreely Associated StatesD
Under current law, citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic
of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau attending any eligible inst
itutions may be eligible for Pell Grants and certain other forms of student fin
ancial aid.
(Students who are permanent residents of the Freely Associated Sta
tes may be eligible for such aid to attend institutions in the Freely Associate
d States.) The Senate version makes no change to these provisions. The House v
ersion would terminate the eligibility of students who are citizens or permanen
t residents of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, or Palau on October 1, 2001, a
·nd,
until then, they would be eligible only if they attend an institution in G
uam, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, or Palau. We strongly oppose the House
provisions. The united States has a special relationship with these countries,
as well as a responsibility to assist them in nationbuilding, and the State De
partment has raised questions about the international significance of curtailin
g Federal student aid and its potential impact on the negotiation of future com
�· ARMS Email System
Page 11 of 15
pacts with the Freely Associated States. Finally, it would be useful if the fin
al version of H.R.6 were to include a clearer expression of congressional inten
t that the eligibility of these students from the FAS was not affected by the e
nactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996.
~
heading 3#XP\
P6QXP#DRefundsD
heading 3 DAlthough we are pleased that the Senate adopted the Administration'
s general approach for calculating refunds, we have strong concerns about allow
ing schools to retain all Title IV funds for students who withdraw from an inst
itution without going through an official withdrawal process. This policy woul
d create a huge loophole that would encourage abuse in reporting withdrawals an
d recouping appropriate funds.
It would reward institutions for unofficial wit
hdrawals by students by giving those students the same amount of student aid as
is given to students who complete the term. We also have some drafting concer
ns regarding this provision. We hope to work with you to adopt the Senate appr
oach with some changes.
OProgram integrityO
The Administration opposes a variety of provisions in the House version that wo
uld weaken program integrity. The House provision to allow proprietary institu
tions to include revenues from job training contracts as part of the requisite
15% of revenues from nonTitle IV sources would seriously undermine the intent 0
f the 8515 rule, which was to ensure that eligible institutions are not primari
ly dependent on public monies to exist.
The House version also would vitiate the antiinjunction provision in current la
w.
This provision prohibits injunctions against the Secretary that interfere w
ith the Secretarys responsibilities in the loan programs. An institution with a
n official cohort default rate that would remove it from the loan programs stil
1 may receive loan funds during the course of its administrative appeal of its
loss of eligibility, but if the institution loses its administrative appeal, it
s participation ends. The antiinjunction provision has prevented institutions
whose loan eligibility has been terminated on the basis of high cohort default
rates from receiving loan funds while they sue the Secretary over the terminati
on.
An institution still may receive loan funds during the course of its admin
istrative appeal of its loss of eligibility, but if the institution loses its a
dministrative appeal, its participation ends. We strongly believe that the ins
titution should not be able to enjoin the Secretary to restore its participatio
n during the course of a lawsuit. Without the current antiinjunction provision
, these lawsuits could be used as a delaying tactic by unscrupulous institution
s merely to obtain more loan funds. The antiinjunction provision has prevented
millions of dollars of loan funds from going to high default schools that were
properly terminated from the loan programs.
It would undermine program integri
ty to undo this wellestablished precedent.
Body Text#XP\
P6QXP#D
o
The Senate version provides that schools with default
rates of over 50 percent for three consecutive years would not be eligible to p
articipate in the Perkins program. We believe this provision would be too leni
ent, and prefer a provision that would end participation for an institution wit
h default rates of 25% or higher for three consecutive years. This change woul
d standardize the cohort default rate cap across Federal student loan programs.
Body Text
Finally, we oppose the provision in the Senate version of the bill that require
s the Department to calculate a program participation rate index for each insti
tution subject to loan eligibility termination on the basis of high cohort defa
ult rates.
The participation rate index is currently used in the mitigating ci
�· ARMS Email System
Page 12 of 15
rcumstances appeals process, where the calculation is performed by the institut
ion. The Department does not have data on the number of 'loaneligible students
at each institution, and therefore cannot calculate the participation rate inde
x for all institutions without imposing significant new reporting requirements
on institutions for no substantial benefit.
Electronic exit counselingO
The Senate version of the bill would allow institutions to provide personalized
electronic exit counseling for borrowers. While we believe that current statut
ory language allows the use of technology for exit (and entrance) counseling, a
nd the Department has been moving in this direction, we support this clarificat
ion.
::J
Campus securityO
The Administration generally supports most of the changes made by the House and
Senate versions of the bill. Both versions would require institutions to mai
ntain open crime logs and expand the number of crimes that must be reported; we
support these changes.
They also contain language permitting disclosure of ca
mpus disciplinary records.
Both versions have drafting flaws that would underm
ine their effectiveness and compromise legitimate privacy interests. We look f
orward to working with the conferees to develop more acceptable language.
The Senate version of the bill clarifies and expands the definition of campus,
so that institutions have to report crimes that take place on public property c
ontiguo~s to the campus, e.g. sidewalks, and in any building owned by the insti
tution or a student organization. This information is critical for students to
know and will help provide a more accurate picture of crime on campus.
OViolence against women on campusO
We support the language in both the House and Senate versions of the bill that
would authorize a grant program to prevent violence against women on campus. V
iolence against women is a serious issue, and this program would help female st
udents feel safer on their campuses. The Senate also authorizes a study of cam
pus sexual assault policies, which would shed new light on the controversial is
sue of how campus authorities handle sexual assaults.
OQuality assurance (QA) and experimental sites programsO
The House version of the bill would effectively end these two programs, replaci
ng them with a "Regulatory Simplification Program" that would not allow for wai
ver of statutory requirements, or provide for alternatives for administering th
e programs. The Senate version of the bill does attempt to expand the areas in
cluded in the QA program, but then undermines that expansion by specifically Ii
miting waivers to verification, as is now the case in the current QA program.
The Administration supports the inclusion of the waivers necessary to give effe
ct to the expanded scope of the QA program included in the Senate version.
Body Text#XP\
o
P6QXP#O
The Senate version of the bill would make less drastic
changes to the experimental sites program than the House version. The Senate
version includes requirements that the Secretary review all projects and report
to Congress his recommendations to streamline and improve student aid programs
based on the projects (these reporting requirements would also be applicable t
o the QA program).
It is important that the experimental sites program be cont
inued, as it has provided administrative relief to institutions with strong per
formance managing the student financial assistance programs and has supported i
mportant research into alternatives to current law and regulation.
The provisi
ons in the Senate bill for both programs are preferable to those in the House v
ersion of the bill.
Body Text
�ARMS Email System
Page 13 of 15
DNegotiated rulemakingO
The House and Senate version of the bills are overly broad in scope and include
unrealistic time requirements that would actually impede effective negotiated
rulemaking. The Administration strongly opposes the requirement that all futur
e Title IV regulations be subject to negotiated rulemaking regardless of their
technicality or urgency, skewing resources away from the most important issues
and generating unnecessary litigation, delay, and expense. We hope to work wit
h Congress to develop a workable process for fashioning more focused and flexib
Ie regulations. That process should include the ability to negotiate with the
higher education community to identify the issues to be subject to negotiated r
ulemaking.
1"1
Loan prorationD
We support the House versions language on loan proration. The House provisions
move in the direction of the Administration proposal and would simplify prorat
ion by allowing it to be done proportionally for all types of loans affected.
OAbility to implement regulations earlierO
The Senate version of the bill includes the Administrations proposal to authori
ze the Secretary to designate regulatory provisions that institutions or other
entities may choose to implement before the otherwise applicable effective date
which, as required by the Master Calendar, includes a delay of at least seven
months. These changes would provide the Secretary and program participants with
greater flexibility.
OBiennial review of regulationsD
The House version of the bill would require the Secretary to conduct reviews of
regulations every two years. The Senate version also requires the Secretary t
o review regulations, but does not specify frequency.
The Department already r
eviews its regulations regularly, and feels that either version of this provisi
on would be an unnecessary and inappropriate intrusion upon the Secretarys auth
ority and responsibility to manage the Department.
heading 3#XP\
P6QXP#DFinancial responsibilityD
heading 3 StyleO#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#The House version of the bill contains co
nfusing language that could be read to undermine the wellreceived financial res
ponsibility regulations that the Department recently developed in close coopera
tion with the higher education community and to establish a dangerously low sta
ndard for the financial health of institutions participating in student financi
al aid programs. We oppose these provisions
StyleO#C\
P6QP#
#XP\
P6QXP#DProgram review criteriaD
x'
hp x (#!The Administration opposes the provision in both versions of the bil
1 that would require the Department to prioritize program reviews based on crit
eria in statute, such as high default or withdrawal rates, or large fluctuation
s in Pell Grant and loan volume.
This is unwarranted micromanagement.
The Dep
artment selects its program review sites based on a probabilistic risk analysis
model. While this model incorporates many of the criteria listed in the Senat
e provision, strict adherence to the provision would require the development of
a new model and would remove all flexibility for the Department. We are confi
dent that the current program review selection model effectively targets proble
m institutions while maintaining an element of randomness to promote broad prog
ram compliance.
!4
D<DL!
DStudent loan ombudsmanD
Body Text 2#XP\ P6QXP#The Senate version of the bill would establish a Studen
t Loan Ombudsman Office to assist borrowers with problems with their student 10
ans. We understand the desire to provide a place for students to go, if they ha
�ARMS Email System
Page 14 of 15
ve particularly complex student loan problems, or have been frustrated by other
attempts to resolve these problems.
This is the kind of customeroriented acti
vity that we would want a PBO to address, and we would prefer for the new Chief
Operating Officer (COO) to determine its structure and mission. However, if t
he conferees intend to include statutory language regarding an Ombudsman, we wo
uld seek changes to the Senate provisions. For example, the relationships betw
een the Secretary, the COO, and the ombudsman are very unclear, which would res
ult in a substantial danger of poor coordination in providing services to stude
nts. We hope to work with Congress to look at the role and function of an ombu
dsman and to relate any such office appropriately to the PBO.
Body Text 2"heading 2#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#
heading 2 heading 3#XP\
P6QXP#OGraduate educationO
heading 3 StyleD#XX2PQXP##XP\
P6QXP#The House version would eliminate the Jav
its, Faculty Development, and Legal Training for the Disadvantaged programs, re
taining only a modified Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) p
rogram. The Senate version authorizes all of these programs with some changes:
Javits and GAANN eligibility would be limited to students who demonstrate fina
ncial need; forwardfunding of Javits would be permitted; the Fa'culty Developmen
t Fellowship program would be redesigned; and Assistance for Training in the Le
gal Profession would be replaced by the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opp
ortunity Program. The Administration supports the House approach to consolidate
all graduate programs into one, which is closer to the approach proposed by th
e Administration, with the addition of the Administrations provisions for stude
nts from underrepresented groups.
StyleD
OTeaching students with disabilitiesO
We support the Senate version of the bills new program to provide competitive g
rants to colleges to improve teaching for students with disabilities. The gran
ts would support technical assistance and training for faculty and administrato
rs to enable them to .effectively teach students with disabilities. Many more s
tudents with disabilities are now benefiting from higher education; the grants
would help faculty members better reach these students.
heading 3#XP\
P6QXP#OAdvanced placementO
heading 3 OWe are pleased that both versions of the bill would reauthorize the
current Advanced Placement Fee Payment Program, the Senate with significant mo
difications. We prefer the Senate version of the bill; however, we recommend t
hat the final bill clarify that any State in which all lowincome individuals ar
e required to pay no more than a nominal fee to take advanced placement test sO
Dmay use any remaining funds to increase the participation of lowincome student
s in Advanced Placement courses and exams through activities such as informatio
n dissemination, teacher training, and curriculum development.
The Senate version of the bill attempts to accommodate this recommendation in p
art, by permitting States to use up to 5 percent of grant funds to disseminate
information about the program and by providing an exception to the supplement,
not supplant rules when funds are used to increase the participation of lowinc
orne individuals in advanced placement courses through teacher training and othe
r activities directly related to increasing the availability of Advanced Placem
ent courses. However, the supplanting language isO Overy difficult to understa
nd andO Oinconsistent with the Senate committee reports description of the prog
ram.
Another problem with the Senate language concerns the provision that notwithsta
nding an appropriation, the Secretary shall award grants for this program only
if the College Board funds its fee assistance program at no less than the level
of the previous year. It is inappropriate for the behavior of a private organi
zation to determine whether a nationwide Federal program, for which funds have
been appropriated, can be carried out. We recommend that this language be elimi
�· ARMS Email System
Page 15 of 15
nated, and that the conferees instead include report language recommending that
members of the appropriations committees should consider whether the College B
oaL'd and other private efforts are continuing their support.
L
Education of the Deaf ActO
Body Text 2#XP\ P6QXP#The provisions in the House version that would reauthor
ize the Education of the Deaf Act include a provision to eliminate the 10 perce
nt cap on enrollment of international deaf students. The current tuition charg
es for these students cover less than onethird of the educational costs related
to their attendance, and the Administration is concerned about the high Federa
1 cost of subsidizing these students. Elimination of the cap, without a corres
ponding increase in the tuition surcharge for international students, would res
ult in resources being diverted from other university level programs to support
these students. We support the provisions in the Senate version, which retain
current law and add language clarifying that no qualified United States citize
n shall be denied admission because of the admission of an international studen
t.O
Body Text 2"
Proprietary school liaisonO
The Senate version of the bill would establish a Liaison for Proprietary Instit
utions of Higher Education within the Department. The need for such a liaison
has not been demonstrated. The Department works with many different kinds of s
chools, all with their own specific interests. To single out the proprietary s
ector for special representation is inappropriate and opens the door to a multi
tude of liaisons.
en================== END ATTACHMENT 1 ==================
==================== ATTACHMENT 2 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:
0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT: [ATTACH.D86)MAIL41845422G.226 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
FF57504324250000010A0201000000020500000063770000000200002CE894F20812CD57935211
72F4F47BC3B3D1C258A030667108D4740A66DC5EBD735D85E924FD7AC2799433F502016BDEDCE4
�DRAFT
Automated Rec·--"· "c "",ment System
Hex-DUIlip Conversron
3/l0jlfJ
to:()()
AM
Dear Conferee:
I am pleased that versions of H.R. 6, a bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act of
1965 (HEA), have passed both the Senate and the House, and I greatly appreciate the
hard work that you and your staff have devoted to this important legislation. I am
especially pleased that both versions of H.R. 6 have adopted the student interest rate on
new loans at the level proposed by the Vice President last winter. This will help students
better manage their postsecondary education debt and thus make college more affordable.
We now have the opportunity to work together during the conference deliberations to
enact a strong bipartisan bill that will help more Americans prepare for and gain access to
college, improve teacher recruitment and preparation, and promote better program
management. In this work, we must all keep our focus on the goal of producing
legislation that is grounded in sound educational and fiscal policy to provide maximum
benefits to students. That is the ultimate purpose of the Higher Education Act.
The Administration is working with the Congress to resolve OMB/CBO cost estimating
differences and develop mutually agreeable legislative language that would eliminate the
risk of a Government-wide sequester as a result of its passage. However, there remain a
number of other extremely serious issues which must be resolved in order for me to be
able to recommend that the President approve the conference bill. These include ensuring
that there are no reductions in the student aid administrative funds available to the
Department to administer both the Federal Family Education Loan and Federal Direct
Loan programs; and offering borrowers the same low interest rates on FFEL and Direct
Consolidation loans.
I am confident that these and the other important issues presented by the the bills now in
conference, and explained further in this letter and attachment, can be resolved in a
manner that serves students well by our working together in good faith. This letter and its
attachment highlight the issues in the HEA reauthorization that are of particular
importance to the Administration.
�Automated Rev nent System
HeX-OUlllfJ \..ullll.;[sion
DRAFT
3/l0/l0 10:00 AM
Interest rates
I am pleased that both the Senate and House versions would lower the interest rates that
students pay on new loans by .8 of a percent, as the Administration proposed. This
reduction is a major accomplishment that will provide substantial savings for students.
I am concerned, however, that many current borrowers are struggling with excessive debt,
and need to have access to the lower interest rates as well. The final version ofH.R. 6
should reduce the interest rate on FFEL Consolidation Loans so that it is the same as the
rate applicable to Direct and FFEL student loans and Direct Consolidation Loans. This
policy is consistent with our HEA reauthorization proposal to have the same low
consolidation rates in both loan programs.
In order to provide the low consolidation rate for students in the FFEL program, it may be
necessary to maintain current subsidies or adjust the offset fee to ensure that loans
continue to be sufficiently profitable. At the same time, however, subsidies that both the
House and Senate versions of the bill would provide to lenders in the Stafford and PLUS
loan programs are too high, and I urge you to reduce or eliminate them.
Section 458
I remain adamantly opposed to any cuts in the student aid administrative funds available
to the Department under section 458 of the HEA beyond those agreed to in last year=s
balanced budget package. Both the House and Senate versions include such further
decreases, and the House version would decrease section 458 funds even more
substantially than the Senate version. Decreases in section 458 funds would impair the
Department's ability to administer effectively the FFEL and Direct Loan programs by
threatening the Department's ability to manage such activities as student aid application
processing, student loan default collection, and the urgently needed modernization of
student aid delivery systems.
Both the Senate and House versions would create a new loan processing and issuance fee
to be paid to guaranty agencies from section 458 funds. I strongly support the Senate=s
provision to cap this fee to better ensure sufficient funding for the efficient administration
of the loan programs.
However, the Senate=s decision to offset the amendment
regarding need analysis determinations for veterans receiving G!. Bill benefits with funds
from section 458 undermines the Department=s ability to manage the loan programs. I
hope to work with you to find a more suitable offset for this provision.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
While I understand that the language in H.R. 6 on the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards will be satisfactorily resolved, I want to reiterate my strong opposition
to the House language, which would prohibit Federal funds from being made available to
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. By defining standards of
excellence for experienced teachers, the National Board helps to focus and upgrade
�Automated Rp~·-' "''lqement System
HeX-lil'" \...vnversion
I"
DRAFT
3/l0/l0 10:00 AM
teacher training, recognize and reward outstanding teachers, and kt:ep our best teachers in
the classroom, where they are needed most. As both Houses have recognized in the
teacher recruitment and preparation provisions of the HEA, attracting and keeping
well-trained teachers in the classroom is a national priority and an essential step to
increase student achievement.
More than half the States and a growing number of
school districts offer incentives to teachers to seek Board certification, and have made
Board certification an integral part of their overall efforts to strengthen teacher quality.
By ending Federal support for the Board's research and development, the House
provision jeopardizes completion of the remaining professional standards and assessments,
and undermines these vital State and local efforts. This is the wrong step to take at
precisely the time when we must do everything possible to set the highest standards for
our teachers.
High Hopes
I am very pleased that both versions address the importance of early outreach to at-risk
youth. The House version includes the Administration=s proposal for High Hopes for
College, while the Senate created a new AConnections@ program that incorporates certain
elements of High Hopes and the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership
(NEISP) program. I look forward to working with the conferees to ensure that the final
version of the program encourages colleges to partner with high-poverty middle schools,
offers comprehensive services to all students at these middle schools, and is
administratively feasible.
Teacher training and recruitment
Both the House and Senate versions would authorize grants to States and local
partnerships to reform and improve teacher training. The Senate version, which would
divide funding equally between States and partnerships and would focus the partnerships
on improving teacher education, offers a better chance at meaningful change than the
House version, which limits partnerships= share of funding to 33 percent. Partnerships
that involve colleges, teacher training programs, K-12 schools, and other entities will
encourage more interaction among practicing teachers, aspiring teachers, and professors
of education to better prepare teachers for 21 st century classrooms than will State-level
efforts.
I am pleased that the Senate version includes the Administration=s program to recruit
new teachers for underserved areas through partnerships between colleges and
underserved school districts. The House version fails to include sufficient efforts to
recruit new teachers in order to address the pressing need for teachers in disadvantaged
urban and rural areas. I urge the conferees to adopt the Senate=s program for teacher
recruitment.
�Automated Recorr4 - •• - 0 - - ment System
Hex-DumfJ vL""cISlon
DRAFI'
3/l0/l0 10:00 AM
Both versions include accountability provisions that require State and institutional .I\report
cards@ on the quality of teacher education. While I endorse reporting requirements that
will provide more information about the teacher training process, I am concerned about
eliminating students from student aid eligibility for some programs based on the
inadequate performance of others.
Distance Jearning
We have made significant progress on the issue of distance learning, and I am pleased
that both the House and Senate versions include demonstration programs to
accommodate the new technologies and innovations that can greatly increase access to
postsecondary education. The House provisions, which would allow the Secretary to
waive any need analysis or general provisions for a representative sample of institutions
(or consortia of institutions), would provide more flexibility and opportunity than the
Senate provisions. The Senate version would authorize the waiver only of particular
statutory provisions and any need analysis or general provisions regulations for 15
institutions or consortia initially, to be expanded to up to 50 in the third year of the
program. I urge the conferees to provide sufficient flexibility in the demonstration
projects to allow for the development and support of high-quality distance education
programs, as contained in the House version.
I am also pleased that the Senate version authorizes the Administration=s Learning
Anytime Anywhere Partnership (LMP) program, which would encourage partnerships
to develop innovative ways of delivering education, ensuring quality, and measuring
student achievement that are appropriate to distance education. I urge the conferees to
adopt LAAP.
PBO
I am glad that provisions that would create a Performance Based Organization (PBO) for
the administration of the student aid programs were included in both passed versions of
H.R. 6. I prefer the PBO provisions in the Senate version, in part because these
provisions explicitly provide for personnel and procurement flexibilities necessary for the
successful operation of the PBO. I also ask that the conferees provide the PBO with
buyout authority, comparable to that which the Congress previously provided to
non-Defense agencies, to assist in transforming the organization to the new PBO
structure.
�Automated ReCOid< ~n8nagement System
Hex-Dump Conversion
DRAFT
3/10/10 10:00 AM
Year 2000
It is anticipated that all Department systems needed to deliver Federal student aid will be
fully compliant with Year 2000 requirements no later than March 1999. However, the
Department is still concerned that all of its partners and customers, particularly institutions
of higher education, may not be able to ensure that all their data systems related to the
delivery of aid are also compliant. In light of that concern, it is important that the final
version of the bill authorize the Secretary to delay implementation of those provisions
with significant systems implications if earlier implementation would jeopardize the ability
of the Department, or its partners or customers, to ensure that their data systems are Year
2000 compliant. In utilizing such discretion, the Department would work in close
consultation with the Office of Management and Budget and the House and Senate
authorizing committees.
Program integrity
There are numerous House and Senate provisions pertaining to program integrity, that,
taken together, the Administration would regard as a serious weakening of current
program integrity protections. These provisions include changes regarding program
review criteria, financial responsibility, the anti-injunction provision and the A8S-1S@ rule.
Our concerns with these provisions are described in more detail in the attachment.
I.&:JE
The Senate version contains a provision amending the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program (TANF). It would expand the type and length of education programs
that may be counted toward a State's "work activity" participation rate. The provision
would also extend the FY98 and FY99 exclusion of teen parents from the cap on
education programs that may be counted toward a State's "work activity" participation rate
to FY2000 and beyond. The Administration strongly supports the goals of enabling
more welfare recipients to move from welfare to work and providing educational
opportunities for those who do. We look forward to working with conferees to ensure
that the final legislation keeps the doors of college open to all Americans while still
maintaining the welfare law's strong work requirements.
Pav-As- You-Go Scoring
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 requires that all revenue and direct
spending legislation meet a pay-as-you-go requirement. That is, no such bill should
result in an increase in net budget costs, and, if it does, it will trigger a sequester if not
fully offset. Statements of Administration Policy on the two versions of the bill as reported
out of committee indicated that each version had significant net costs. . The
Administration will estimate the costs and savings in the conference bill as reported at the
appropriate time.
�Automated Record< ~~anagement System
Hex-Dump Conversion
DRAFT
3/l0/l0 10:00 AM
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the
submission of this report to the Congress.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
Attachment
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: CyTIthia A. Rice ( CN=Cynthia A. Rice/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-AUG-1998 17:44:16.00
SUBJECT:
Our "offer" on Dept Labor Performance Bonus isn't flying ... yet
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Andrea Kane ( CN=Andrea Kane/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Chow is "elevating to the Director"
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Cynthia A. Rice ( CN=Cynthia A. Rice/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-AUG-1998 09:28:14.00
SUBJECT:
Fax of new languge from Dept of Ed re: Wellstone amendment
TO: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Cathy R. Mays ( CN=Cathy R. Mays/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Bruce, Pauline Abernathy left me a message saying you and Mike Smith spoke
last night, and that they have faxed new language that they think
accomodates both our and their concerns.
Bruce
would you call me about this?
Cathy
would you fax me what they sent?
�Page 1 of 1
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Cynthia A. Rice ( CN=Cynthia A. Rice/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-AUG-1998 12:07:51.00
SUBJECT:
NYT welfare caseloads by race in weekly
TO: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
It looks like you didn't include our item reo racial/ethnic composition of
the welfare caseloads in the weekly last week.
Do you want us to wait.
until we have more definitive answers (we're pulling all the eggheads
together tomorrow). Here's what we submitted last week.
==================== ATTACHMENT
1 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:
0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT: [ATTACH.D90]MAIL45950322G.226 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
FF57504368050000010A020100000002050000001517000000020000F18A1B76EDC6C63D8FF949
�,
•
Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
Weekly Report -- Welfare Reform Team
7/30/98
Welfare Reform -- Minorities on Welfare Reform Caseload: The New York Times
report on the increasing share of minorities on the welfare caseloads highlights some important
trends and issues that we will explore further. In the meantime, it's helpful to put the
information in context.
First, the racial/ethnic composition of welfare caseloads has been changing gradually
over the last 25 years: whites rose from 38 percent in 1973 to a peak of 42 percent in 1983 and
have dropped steadily to 35 percent in 1997. The proportion of blacks has generally declined,
from 46 percent in 1973 to 37 percent in 1997. As the New York Times points out, the most
significant trend is the increase in the Hispanic portion of the caseload, from 13 percent in 1973
to 23 percent in 1997. However, this is not too surprising given the rapid increase in the
Hispanic population overall. The question is how welfare reform may be affecting these historic
trends. National data on the racial/ethnic characteristics of welfare recipients are only available
through June 1997, so it is hard to gauge the impact of the past year when welfare reform efforts
accelerated so rapidly. Some states have more recent data which they shared with the Times, and
which may reveal more significant trends. It is also worth noting that the caseload data only
tells who is currently on the rolls; it does not tell the rate at which different groups are entering
and exiting.
Second, the number of white, black and Hispanic families receiving welfare have all
dropped since 1994 (when caseloads peaked), but the rate of decline has been greater for whites
than blacks, with an even slower decline for Hispanics.
% Change
-26%
1.4 M
Whites 1.9M
-18%
1.5M
Blacks
1.8M
-9%
1.0M
.9M
Hispanics
Third, the changes are more dramatic than the actual mix of who is left on the caseloads,
at least on a national basis. While the story pointed out important trends, the conclusion that the
composition of the caseload has changed dramatically seems unwarranted.
94
.
97
Whites 37%
35%
Blacks
36%
37%
23%
Hispanics
20%
Fourth, there is some encouraging evidence from Census data that the employment rates
offormer welfare recipients are increasing even faster for minorities than for whites (although
the actual rates and the disparity between groups remains disturbing). Between 1996 and 1997,
the percentage of all prior year welfare recipients who were employed in the next year increased
by 28%. The increase was highest for blacks (33%), followed by Hispanics (22%) and whites
(21%).
�'.
Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
Finally, there is longstanding evidence that minorities on welfare disproportionately share
characteristics that may make it harder to leave the roils: lower education levels, lower marriage
rates, larger families, employment and housing discrimination, and isolation from areas with
jobs.
�
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
Elena Kagan
Description
An account of the resource
<div>
<p>Elena Kagan worked as Associate White House Counsel from 1995-1996 and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) from 1997-1999.</p>
<p>During her work at the White House Justice Kagan worked on many topics including, but not limited to: AIDS, budget appropriations, campaign finance reform, education, health, labor, race, tobacco, Native Americans, and welfare.</p>
<p>In 1999 President Clinton nominated Kagan to the U.S. District Court of Appeals, no hearing was ever scheduled and she was thereby never confirmed.</p>
<p>Note: These records were made available in response to a <a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/freedom-of-information-act-requests">Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)</a> request, FOIA 2009-1006-F. This collection contains both records created by Elena Kagan and records concerning Elena Kagan. </p>
<p><strong>Descriptions of the Sub Collections:</strong></p>
<ul><li><strong><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=70&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Elena+Kagan%27s+White+House+Counsel+Files&range=&collection=&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">White House Counsel Files</a></strong><br /> These records consist of files created and received by Elena Kagan when she served as Associate Counsel to President Clinton from 1995 to 1996. The files include but are not limited to records concerning Amtrak, campaign finance reform, gaming/gambling (especially as it relates to Native Americans), timber, regulatory reform, and welfare. The records include memoranda, notes, correspondence, articles, reports, executive orders, bills, and directives.</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=70&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Elena+Kagan%27s+Domestic+Policy+Council+Files&range=&collection=&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">Domestic Policy Council Files</a></strong><br />These records contain files created and received by Elena Kagan when she served as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) from 1997-1999. The files include records concerning domestic policy topics such as AIDS, budget appropriations, campaign finance reform, education, health, labor, race, tobacco, and welfare. The records include memoranda, correspondence, articles, and reports.</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=70&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=White+House+Staff+%26+Office+Files+re+Elena+Kagan&range=&collection=&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">White House Staff Files re Elena Kagan</a></strong><br />These records are compiled from a variety of staff office files including the Chief of Staff, Personnel, Office of First Lady, Counsel, and DPC and include correspondence, memorandum, forms, and reports all concerning or having to do with Elena Kagan.</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=70&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=White+House+Office+of+Records+Management+Files+re+Elena+Kagan&range=&collection=&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">White House Office of Records Management Files (WHORM)</a></strong><br />These records are from the White House Office of Records Management (WHORM) subject file series. The Clinton Presidential Library inherited a document-level index maintained by WHORM during the Clinton Administration which tracked some incoming correspondence and other documents as they were circulated throughout the White House and filed by WHORM. The records contain files created and received by Elena Kagan that were tracked by the WHORM Subject File index. The files include records related to a variety of topics such as memoranda, correspondence, and Domestic Policy Council weekly reports. The records are tracked by an alpha/numeric code, and are listed as such.</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=70&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Elena+Kagan%27s+1999+Nomination+to+U.S.+Court+of+Appeals&range=&collection=&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">Elena Kagan's 1999 Nomination to U.S. Court of Appeals</a></strong><br />After serving as the Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Elena Kagan was nominated to serve on the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) in1999. Her nomination expired in 2000 without Senate action. The files in this opening contain records from the White House Staff and Office Files, Counsel’s Office and Presidential Personnel, concerning her nomination. The records consist of Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaires, correspondence, law review files, news articles, briefs, and press briefings.</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=70&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Email+Received+by+Elena+Kagan&range=&collection=&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">Email Received by Elena Kagan</a></strong><br />These records consist of email received by Elena Kagan during her time as Associate White House Counsel from 1995-1996 and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) from 1997-1999. In addition to the email proper, these messages include forwards, reply chains, and attachments. The attached documents include notes, memorandum, articles, reports, executive orders, bills, and directives. These email concern a myriad of topics including but not limited to Amtrak, campaign finance reform, gaming/gambling (especially as it relates to Native Americans), timber, regulatory reform, welfare and domestic policy topics such as AIDS, budget appropriations, education, health, labor, race, and tobacco.</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=70&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Email+Sent+by+Elena+Kagan&range=&collection=&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">Email Sent by Elena Kagan</a></strong><br />These records consist of email sent by Elena Kagan during her time as Associate White House Counsel from 1995-1996 and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) from 1997-1999. In addition to the email proper, these messages include forwards, reply chains, and attachments. The attached documents include notes, memorandum, articles, reports, executive orders, bills, and directives. These email concern a myriad of topics including but not limited to Amtrak, campaign finance reform, gaming/gambling (especially as it relates to Native Americans), timber, regulatory reform, welfare and domestic policy topics such as AIDS, budget appropriations, education, health, labor, race, and tobacco.</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=70&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Elena+Kagan%27s+Records+re+Native+Americans&range=&collection=&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">Elena Kagan's Records re Native Americans</a></strong><br />These records were created or received by Elena Kagan during her service as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1997-99). These ten folders were previously opened as part of a Freedom of Information Act request related to Native Americans (FOIA case <a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0197-F%28seg%203%29.pdf" target="_blank">2006-0197-F</a>).These records consist of memoranda, emails, reports, notes, and clippings.</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=70&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Additional+Materials+re+Elena+Kagan&range=&collection=&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">Additional Materials re Elena Kagan</a></strong><br />These records were taken from the files of Elena Kagan. They include memos to, from, and relating to Elena Kagan’s work on Domestic Policy issues. The records include some memos from Elena Kagan to President Clinton.</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=70&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Federal+Email+re+Elena+Kagan&range=&collection=&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">Federal Email re Elena Kagan</a></strong><br />The federal email re: Elena Kagan consists of 114 email messages that were part of the Federal side of the Clinton White House. The email generally consists of summaries of meetings or telephone conversations in which Elena Kagan was a participant.</li>
</ul></div>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2009-1006-F
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
Clinton Presidential Records: Automated Records Management System
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of the Counsel to the President
Domestic Policy Council
First Lady's Office
White House Office of Records Management
Chief of Staff
White House Office for Women's Initiative and Outreach
Automated Records Management System
Tape Restoration Project
Security Office
Presidential Personnel
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995-1999
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
2945 folders
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Magnetic Disk: Hard Drive
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
[08/05/1998 – 08/06/1998]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
WHO
Automated Records Management System
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2009-1006-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Email Received by Elena Kagan
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/574745" 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: Automated Records Management System
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.
6/18/2010
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
ARMS - Box 081 - Folder 006
574745