-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/91dd86d065b42c669c9500f9102cbeec.pdf
c56be23da0963a0f4da171c7956b3c83
PDF Text
Text
NLWJC - KAGAN
EMAILS RECEIVED
ARMS - BOX 089 - FOLDER -003
[02/06/1999 - 0210811999]
�.. ARMS Email System
Page 1 of 1
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Christopher C. Jennings ( CN=Christopher C. Jennings/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-FEB-1999 03:33:17.00
SUBJECT:
Grijalva memo
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO]
READ: UNKNOWN
)
TEXT:
This was a hard one to write short and well.
There are too many important
facts that I believe the POTUS would want to have. Elena, you always say
you would rather have more than less. Hope this gives you a good start.
I have no doubt you will improve.
I am out of here.
Page me if you need me.
cj
p.s.
Sorry for my ignorance about the law and legal process.
==================== ATTACHMENT
1 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:
0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT: [ATTACH.D70]MAIL42470404B.036 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
FF575043DE040000010A0201000000020500000099280000000200007E099E1BB657D6570A5704
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
DRAFT: February 6, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Last night, advisors from the DPC, the Counsel's office, Legislative Affairs, the VP's office, OMB
and HHS met to discuss a time- and politically-sensitive issue: the intention of the Solicitor
General (SG) and HHS to petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in Grijalva v Shalala
by Wednesday, February 10th. This petition was drafted to document the Department's and the
SG's objection to the Court's ruling that concludes Medicare managed care plans are an extension
of the government (and therefore "state" actors), thus required to provide their enrollees with
Constitutional due process. HHS also objects to the Court-defined, burdensome and sometimes
counter-productive patient protections, which it imposed via injunction on the Department (and, by
extension, all Medicare managed care plans in the nation).
Although we understand the Departments' position and sympathize with the burdens the Court's
ruling imposes, we raised serious reservations about how their petition would be received on the
Hill and by many consumer advocates. Beyond handing over a public relations gift to the
opponents ofthe Patients' Bill of Rights, we voiced our concerns about the potential impact a ruling
in the Department's favor may eventually have on current law's much weaker Medicaid entitlement
protections. The following provides you background information on this issue and a summary of
the options we are considering.
BACKGROUND
In 1997, the Ninth District Court ruled that when a Medicare HMO denies a claimed benefit
for a beneficiary, the denial is tantamount to a government action. As such, the beneficiary
would be entitled to full due process under the Constitution. The District Court also found that
the Medicare appeals rights in place in 1993 were wholly inadequate and unconstitutional, and
entered a mandatory injunction that imposed detailed new requirements. HHS appealed this
decision, and its most recent request for a rehearing at the circuit court was denied in December
1997. Thus, without any other action, this injunction will go into effect on March 4, 1999.
HHS is planning to ask the Supreme Court to. grant that the case be vacated and remanded to the
court of appeals, on two grounds. First, they argue that a case pending before the Supreme Court -American Mutual Insurance Company vs. Sullivan -- will have implications for this case, since it is
also about the issue of "state action" and the Constitutional right of due process. The Solicitor
General argues in the Sullivan case that, unless certain criteria are met, private government
contractors are not considered state actors. Because HHS believes that Medicare HMOs should not
be considered state actors and because this case has the potential to set a new standard for
determining when to apply Constitutional due process rights, it will ask the Court to allow Grijalva
to be reconsidered in light of its ruling in Sullivan. Second, HHS argues that the new Medicare
rules, passed after the injunction and implemented quite recently, dramatically expand the
�•
Automated Records Jl'fansgcmcnt System
Hex-Dump COllversion
procedural protections for Medicare beneficiaries in managed care plans, thus superseding the
defects in the Medicare program that prompted the initial petition.
DISCUSSION
HHS's primary reason for filing this petition is its concern that the court has imposed a burdensome
set of appeals process requirements inconsistent with its current policies. Its examples of these
extra requirements include the obligation for a health plan to continue providing a health care
service during the appeal, and the extensive notice requirements for changes and/or denials of
benefits. More generally, it is concerned about the court's intrusion upon the legislative and
executive branches' authority to determine Medicare's appeal processes. Privately, HHS also fears
that managed care plans will pull out of Medicare at an even greater rate than last year because of
increased regulatory burdens and the fear of lawsuits.
While HHS's concerns with the content ofthe injunction may be justifiable, it places the
Administration in an extremely awkward position. The Department is, in essence, arguing that the
extra protections the injunction requires are excessively burdensome to the program and would
needlessly raise costs without improving quality. This is virtually the same argument private health
plans are making against the Patients' Bill of Rights on the Capitol Hill. Moreover, while HMOs
might argue that an unfavorable ruling would increase regulatory burdens and expose them to more
litigation, the very patient protections they complain about would probably preclude probems
making it to the courts. It is important to note that there have been extremely few court cases to
date -- even with lesser patient protections in place.
There is also a larger question of whether private plans in Medicare -- or other Medicare contractors
or Medicaid managed care plans, for that matter -- should be considered state actors. Since the
Medicare statute contains enforceable rights to eligibility, benefits, and now an appeals process, it
can be argued that the Constitutional due process right serves as a floor or minimum that may no
longer be needed. However, it is possible that, in the future, the laws will change, leaving the
beneficiary with fewer rights than the private right of action ensures.
More dangerous is the implication of this petition for Medicaid. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid relies
solely on the private right of action; there is no other mechanism to remedy the denial of services,
eligibility or any other statutory requirement. It is this right that we fought for in the Medicaid
block grant debate in 1995, when Republicans proposed replacing it with state appeal process.
Thus, if we argue that Medicare beneficiaries in private managed care plans have no private right of
action, by extension, nor do the 50 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries in managed care plans. Thus,
the Grijalva petition could have the unintended effect of undermining the Medicaid entitlement.
OPTIONS
While HHS recognizes the risks associated with their petition, they would like to file it with a
detailed argument against considering Medicare managed care plans as state actors. At our meeting
last night, however, HHS implied that the Secretary would open to modifying their petition to
simply reference the Sullivan case rather than make extensive arguments about its applicability to
the Grijalva case. This would have the cosmetic effect of taking out controversial arguments that
will inflame advocates; it could have the real effect of decreasing the likelihood that the Sullivan
�Automated Records Management S)'~!em.
Hex-Dump Conversion
case would apply in the rehearing. Bruce, xxx, think that this would.
An alternative is to not file the petition at all, and request that the circuit court modifies its
injunction to include the new Medicare appeals process. This is a risk; if the court does not change
the injunction, HCF A will have to change its nationwide appeals system in the course of a month.
However, in the long-run it may protect a more important issue -- the private right of action in
Medicare and Medicaid. Elena, Chris, xxx.
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Sean P. Maloney ( CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-FEB-1999 13:21:49.00
SUBJECT:
Re: shalala Memo
TO: Elena Kagan
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
thanks.
( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
�-
Page 1 of 2
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: "Gomperts, John" <JGOMPERT@cns.gov> ( "Gomperts, John" <JGOMPERT@cns.gov> [
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-FEB-1999 16:38:59.00
SUBJECT:
RE: AmeriCorps Conference Call
TO: Andrew J. Mayock ( CN=Andrew J. Mayock/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Tanya E. Martin ( CN=Tanya E. Martin/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Anne E. McGuire ( CN=Anne E. McGuire/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Stacie Spector ( CN=Stacie Spector/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ann F. Lewis ( CN=Ann F. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Shirley S. Sagawa ( CN=Shirley S. Sagawa/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: MaryEllen C. McGuire ( CN=MaryEllen C. McGuire/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: "West, Tara" <TWEST@cns.gov> ( "West, Tara" <TWEST@cns.gov> [UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Cathy R. Mays ( CN=Cathy R. Mays/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Carolyn T. Wu ( CN=Carolyn T. Wu/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC:
"West, Tara" <TWEST@cns.gov> ( "West, Tara" <TWEST@cns.gov> [UNKNOWN 1 )
�ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 2
..
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I have a different thought on the visibility call for Monday. Our big
visibility effort for this week is the University of Maryland event on
Wednesday.
And all of us are focused on getting that done as well as
possible.
I wonder if we can do the following:
1.
Transform this call into a check-in call on the Wednesday event; and
2. Move it earlier in the day so that based on what gets discussed and
decided, there is an opportunity to follow-up on Monday.
Is this possible.
Let us know.
Thanks.
JG
-----Original Message----From: MaryEllen_C._McGuire@who.eop.gov
[SMTP:MaryEllen_C._McGuire@who.eop.gov)
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 11:55 AM
To: Gomperts, John; West, Tara; Shirley_S._Sagawa@who.eop.gov;
Karen_Tramontano@who.eop.gov; Ann_F._Lewis@who.eop.gov;
Stacie_Spector@who.eop.gov; Anne_E._McGuire@who.eop.gov;
Bruce_N._Reed@opd.eop.gov; Elena_Kagan@opd.eop.gov;
Tanya_E._Martin@opd.eop.gov; Thurgood_Marshall_Jr@who.eop.gov;
Thomas_L._Freedman@opd.eop.gov; Jennifer_M._Palmieri@who.eop.gov;
Andrew_J._Mayock@who.eop.gov
Cc: Carolyn_T._Wu@who.eop.gov; Ruby_Shamir@who.eop.gov;
Cathy_R._Mays@opd.eop.gov; West, Tara
Subject: AmeriCorps Conference Call
Just a reminder that our next biweekly conference call on AmeriCorps
Visibility will be this coming Monday, February 8th at 4:00pm. Call
757-2100
code 4129.
�.:ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 5
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Leanne A. Shimabukuro ( CN=Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-FEB-1999 16:45:31.00
SUBJECT:
Monday drug event -- update
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Jose Cerda III ( CN=Jose Cerda III/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:
I tried paging you earlier -- I wanted to be sure that you knew that the
President won't be attending the drug event on Monday.
The VP will do the
event in his place. We made a decision to go ahead and give the VP's
office our draft press paper to work from since they're on such short
notice.
Thanks,
Leanne
---------------------- Forwarded by Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OPD/EOP on
02/07/99 04:39 PM ---------------------------
Leanne A. Shimabukuro
02/05/99 10:53:18 PM
Record Type:
Record
Elena Kagan/OPD/EOP, Laura Emmett/WHO/EOP
To:
Jose Cerda III/OPD/EOP
cc:
Subject:
please review
One pager and Q&A attached for the drug event on Monday morning.
McCaffrey will be briefing the press corps after the event. We are off
the hook for the event brief - Cabinet Affairs/ONDCP are submitting it ..
Yipee.
Also, you should already have it, but the most recent version of the
remarks are co'pied onto the bottom of this email.
Thanks,
Leanne
Revised Draft 2/5/99 9:00pm
Tamagni
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
�:ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 5
REMARKS FOR ANTI-DRUG EVENT
THE OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC
February 8, 1999
Acknowledgments: VP Gore; AG Reno; Sec. Shalala; ONDCP Dir. Gen. McCaffrey
Jessica Hulsey [HULL-see]; Rhode Island AG Sheldon Whitehouse.
I want to start by thanking Jessica Hulsey for sharing her story.
Just finding the courage and strength to survive and even thrive in a home
where drugs -- not parents -- are in control is remarkable.
But your
commitment to make sure that no other child has to live through the fear
and uncertainty you endured is an inspiration for us all. You are a truly
exceptional young woman, and I thank you for being here today.
I know from my own experience what it feels like to have a family
member caught in the deadly grip of drugs.
My own brother nearly died of
a cocaine addiction -- and I have asked myself hundreds of times why I
didnD,t see it -- and what I could have done to stop it if I had.
I know
that my experience is not unique -- that thousands of families suffer
through that nightmare of powerlessness and frustration.
But one of the most important things that JessicaD,s story and the
ads from our media campaign teach us is that we do have the power to fight
drugs.
If eacp of us takes action, at every level of government, in every
community, in every house of faith, and in every horne ... if we reach out
to our young people -- as parents, mentors, and peers -- before drug
dealers reach them ... if we join forces, united and relentless in our
determination to win this war, we can make our nation stronger than ever
in the 21st Century.
For years, it seemed that crime was an insurmountable and ever-increasing
problem. But we put in place a tough, smart anti-crime plan, with police,
tougher punishment, and better prevention.
Six years later, we know that
our strategy is working
beyond our expectations.
Around the country,
in cities large and small, crime is down to its lowest rates in 25 years.
We are beginning to win the war against crime, and we can win the
war against drugs -- by marshaling the forces and resources of our
nation. Year after year, my administration has secured the largest
anti-drug budgets in history, with more money for drug enforcement agents,
for border and customs control, for education and outreach, for treatment
and prevention. under the leadership of General Barry McCaffrey at the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, our efforts have begun to pay
off.
Overall drug use by adults has dropped to more than half of its
highest levels in 1979.
Even drug use by our young people -- which seemed
to be getting worse every year -- has finally begun to decline.
But when drug dealers still roam our streets and rob our children
of their dreams, when drug-related crime still ravages our neighborhoods,
we know we must do more.
With our economy the strongest in a generation
and our confidence rising, we have a rare opportunity -- and an obligation
-- to redouble our efforts in the war against drugs.
We must start by recognizing that our nationO,s drug problem was
not born in isolation and does not exist in a vacuum.
It is an
interconnected problem -- so our solutions must also be interconnected.
To deal with the drug problem, we need to do more to expand opportunity
and create jobs for young people, especially in communities that have too
�·.ARMS Email System
Page 3 of 5
often been passed by in good times.
That means bringing the spark of
enterprise to inner cities, with more tax incentives for businesses and
investors, and expanded credit for low-income entrepreneurs.
It means s
trengthening the summer jobs programs that help so many young people build
a brighter future.
To deal with the drug problem, we need to do more to improve our schools
and help all of our students to reach high standards.
We need more
afterschool and summer school programs to keep young people learning in
the classroom in the hours between when school lets out and parents come
home from work -- the hours when young people are more likely to fall prey
to drugs.
And to deal with the drug problem, we need a comprehensive anti-drug
effort that fights drugs on every front and uses every weapon we possess.
That is why I am so pleased to release our 1999 National Drug
Control Strategy.
This is not a short-term plan designed to produce
short-lived results.
It is a comprehensive, long-term strategy, with more
money for drug testing and treatment ... better drug-law enforcement in
our communities and better drug control on our borders ... and better
anti-drug education for young people, including our media campaign.
And our plan is backed by the largest anti-drug budget ever
presented to the Congress: My balanced budget for 2000 -- the first budget
of the 21st Century -- includes nearly $18 billion to keep drugs away from
our borders, off of our streets, and out of our childrenD,s reach.
I want to say a special word about our National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign. We launched this campaign last year because we knew that when
it comes to fighting drugs, attitudes drive actions.
Young people who
understand the damage drugs can do to their lives -- and the lives of the
people they love -- are simply less likely to use them.
Since we kicked off the campaign in July, we have reached
literally millions of young people with a powerful message: drugs are
illegal, drugs are wrong, and drugs can kill you. Although it is too
early to fully measure our success, we are seeing evidence that our
anti-drug message is getting through.
And with ads in 10 languages, we
are reaching young people of every ethnicity and national origin.
One big reason for this success is the remarkable response of the private
sector to my challenge to join our fight against drugs.
In six months,
our campaign has generated more than $165 million in matching
contributions for paid anti-drug ads.
Virtually every major network has
produced high profile anti-drug public service announcements with their
best known celebrities -- you just saw a few of those -- and donated air
time to scores of non-profit organizations for their own anti-drug PSAs.
I am very proud of everything we are doing -- especially at the
ONDCP -- to fight drugs.
But making our anti-drug strategy work is not a
job for just one agency, but for every agency, 365 days of the year.
That
is why I have called on my Cabinet to redouble their efforts in our fight
against drugs.
I have asked Education Secretary Riley to build on our efforts to keep
our schools safe, by strengthening the Safe and Drug Free Schools
initiative, and encouraging more school districts to start afterschool
programs.
�·.ARMS Email System
Page 4 of 5
I have asked Health and Human Services Secretary Shalala to help our
young people stay off of drugs by increasing our efforts to promote drug
treatment and prevention programs around the country.
I have asked Attorney General Reno to push forward with more drug testing
of prisoners and parolees, and more police on the streets of our
communities, to break the deadly cycle between crime and drugs.
I have
also asked her to redouble our efforts against drug trafficking by
organized crime groups.
I have asked Transportation Secretary Slater to maintain the vigorous
maritime interdiction operations against drug traffickers that are such an
important part of our supply-side anti-drug strategy.
I have asked Treasury Secretary Rubin to step up anti-money laundering
efforts and work harder than ever, along with the Justice Department, to
keep drugs from crossing our borders.
I have asked Defense Secretary Cohen to intensify his on-going efforts to
use the unique capabilities of our military to support our drug law
enforcement efforts, especially along our Southwest border.
And I have asked Secretary of State Albright to continue our partnership
with other nations -- particularly in the Western Hemisphere Drug Alliance
-- to fight the global drug problem.
Next week, I will travel to Mexico, one of our strongest and most
important partners in the fight against drugs.
A major portion of the
drugs that corne into our country corne through Mexico, across the 2,000
mile border we share.
This illegal drug trade endangers Mexicans and
Americans -- and it is in our nationsD, mutual interest to work together
to shut it down.
The Alliance Against Drugs that President Zedillo and I adopted
together in 1997 is beginning to make progress -- and I am committed to
building on that progress, sharing resources, information, and
experience.
I am very pleased that last Thursday, the Mexican government
announced it will be spending $400 to $500 million over three years to buy
new planes, ships, radar and law enforcement equipment.
I look forward to
discussing ways we can extend our cooperation when I meet with President
zedillo.
Our battle against drugs is a fight to the finish -- and it is not
a job for government alone. It will take all of our efforts and energy,
all of our courage and compassion.
It will take everyone of us, looking
ahead to a day when the scourge of drugs no longer threaten our children,
our communities, or our collective future.
I believe that we will reach
that day, working together, and I look forward to working with all of you
to build a stronger nation for the 21st Century.
Thank you.
###
==================== ATTACHMENT 1 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:
0 00:00:00.00
�·.ARMS Email System
Page 5 of 5
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT: [ATTACH.D96)MAIL47521604N.036 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
FF575043500AOOOOOIOA02010000000205000000E227000000020000974B3E50B6A363F1783EBE
IBF8ADFEF20A17A2E77312F7D6140C5DB6F9FAB67D2A5F846C087DEC044C4ED4A2A9BE76A7AEE5
2D3B99AI060COEA096DC577EB69E6BBDBEFB3A85A51B76F2D3EA7E0210D47DID3E31CFD464AF35
40F902FB171DA0;73A0249A8762BCD798F6FIC594F993EB4B846DEDl74A3EA50AD9637B8D74A7D8
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
1999 National Drug Control Strategy
Questions and Answers
February 8, 19998
Q.
What is the President announcing today?
A.
President Clinton will release the 1999 National Drug Control Strategy. The ONDCP
Reauthorization Act of 1998 requires the President to submit a long-term plan to reduce
illegal drug use and availability and its consequences. Within the Strategy is a detailed
report on the nation's drug abuse profile and a comprehensive plan to cut drug use by
50% by 2007.
The President will also highlight the extraordinary efforts of the private sector to join
forces with the successful Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to get the right message to
kids, parents, and teachers on drugs. In just six months, the private sector has committed
$165 million in matching contributions to our media campaign.
Q.
What are the highlights of the new Strategy?
A.
The 1999 Strategy builds on the President's previous national strategies. It refines the
mid- and long-term targets presented last year for reducing drug use and availability by 50
percent by the year 2007. It also sets the target of reducing the criminal consequences of
drug abuse by 30 percent and the health and social consequences by 25 percent by 2007.
The 1999 Strategy will serve as a strong guide in our national drug control efforts for the
next five years.
Q.
Why isn't the Strategy more ambitious? Can't we do better than cut drug abuse by
50 percent by 20017
A.
Reducing and stopping drug use requires fundamental changes in the attitudes of millions
of Americans, and that shift in attitude is more gradual than we would wish. The
Strategy promotes a steady pressure against drug use and underscores why drug control
must be lifted out of partisan conflict. The Administration's long-term plan to reduce
drug use by 50 percent to the lowest levels ever in our national experience is based on an
historical perspective that is essential in the campaign against drug abuse -- not on
simplistic solutions and sound bites that won't impact this difficult problem.
�..
Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
Q.
Doesn't your budget fall short of what is needed to implement your strategy and the
corresponding performance measures?
A.
No. The President's FY 2000 budget supports the goals and objectives of the National
Drug Control Strategy through increases in areas identified as funding priorities. The
proposed FY2000 anti-drug budget is $17.8 billion-- $735 million (+4.3 ) over FY 1999
regular, non-emergency appropriations. Our budget provides increases of $210 million
(+3.6 in FY 2000 over FY 1999 regular appropriations) to support drug education,
prevention and treatment, and increases supply reduction programs by $524.8 million
(+4.7 in FY 2000 over FY 1999 regular appropriations). Interdiction resources, mostly
for one-time capital acquisitions, will increase significantly in 1999 as the result of a
Congressional appropriation of $870 million for international drug-control and
interdiction spending.
Q.
Isn't this Strategy deferring accountability to future years? Why not issue an
annual report card?
A.
The 1999 Strategy provides a detailed annual update on progress in reducing drug abuse
and its consequences. Among the 1999 report's principal conclusions are that drug use
among the general population remained statistically unchanged between 1996 and 1997.
Drug use among 12-17 year olds declined slightly in 1997 and 1998. In 1996,
drug-related deaths leveled off at about 9,300 after climbing throughout the 1990s.
Drug-related medical emergencies remained near historic highs but were statistically
constant in 1997. The costs of illegal drug abuse were estimated $110 billion in 1995, 64
percent higher than in 1990.
And consumer spending on drugs declined by 37.3
percent from $91.4 billion in 1988 to $57.3 billion in 1995.
Q.
Can the federal government really accomplish these long-term targets established by
this Strategy?
A.
We can, but to do so, we will need the support of the fifty states and four U.S. territories
as well as the thousands of city, county, and local governments threatened by illegal
drugs. State governments, for example, have enormous potential for addressing the drug
problem. They administer the school systems, exercise far-reaching jurisdictional power,
channel money and resources to specific needs, and educate citizens about the dangers of
illegal drugs. States' funds account for much of the spending on drug prevention and
treatment, providing funds to thousands of community-based treatment programs and
prevention providers. Counties and cities play an equally important role, providing
essential services such as emergency medical care, education, and law enforcement. All
levels of government must become partners with the federal government in countering
illegal drugs.
�".
Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
Q.
What makes you think you can cut drug use in half by 2007? Did you pick a ten
yea~ marker since President Clinton will no longer be in office by that time?
A.
After much research and consultation, General McCaffrey recommended the goal of
cutting drug use in half over ten years as a tough, but attainable goal. From 1979 to
1996, the number of people using drugs dropped by 49 percent, and the number using
cocaine dropped by 70 percent. The critical part of meeting this goal is preventing the
next generation of young people from ever starting to use drugs. If we can do this, we will
achieve the goal. That is why the Strategy reflects the need for an enduring
commitment. The long-term marker reflects the fact that there is no quick fix to
America's drug problem. Studies show that drug use patterns occur within generational
cycles -- drug use falls off, and unless there is ongoing education, young people forget the
dangers of drugs. To help us chart these drug use patterns this Strategy includes -- as
did the 1998 Strategy -- a report on the nation's drug abuse profile.
Q.
Why doesn't the spending match the rhetoric? The Strategy identifies demand
reduction as the priority, yet doesn't it invest more in supply reduction?
A.
No. We hope that Congress will support this record drug-control budget. If enacted,
spending on prevention will have increased by 53 percent since FY1996 while spending
on treatment will have increased by 26 percent. Overall, spending on demand reduction
will have increased by 36 percent and outpaced the growth of spending on supply
reduction, which will have increased by 30 percent.
Q.
Why are congressional critics saying that your drug-control budget doesn't invest
sufficiently in supply reduction? And what about the charges that this failure is
the reason why youth drug use increased during the 1990's?
A.
Weare continuing to seek increased funding to reduce the supply of drugs -- our FY 2000
request for supply reduction is over 30% more than in FY 1996. And though we have
sought even greater increases during that same period for prevention -- our Strategy's top
priority -- we believe that our proposal for supply reduction is more than sufficient. For
instance, our Western Hemisphere cocaine control efforts have been extremely
successful. Cocaine production in South America has plummeted by 280 metric tons
(MTs) since 1995. Coca cultivation has declined by 56 percent in Peru. Expanded
Colombian cultivation slightly offset significant reductions in Bolivia and Peru. In 1997,
an estimated 289 MTs of cocaine were available in the U.S., the lowest amount since the
1980s and far below the peak of 529 MTs in 1992. And in 1998, 145 MTs of cocaine
were seized en route to the U.S.
However, if you really believe that the ready availability of drugs fueled the 1992-1996
�Automated Records Management Syslem
Hl".x-Dump Conversion
increase of drug use rates among 12-17 year-oIds, you would target domestically grown
marijuana, not South American cocaine. Just 0.6 percent of seventeen-year-olds were
using cocaine in 1997, whereas marijuana usage accounts for about 90 percent of illegal
drug use among juveniles.
�/, lI{ollJatc:d R(\":()J'ds Managcmcnt Syslc1Ill
l!l:x-Dump Conversion
The 1999 National Drug Control Strategy
February 8, 1999
Today at Presidential Hall, President Clinton will release the 1999 National Drug Control
Strategy, a comprehensive long-term plan to reduce drug use and availability to historic new
lows_ The Strategy is backed by a $17_8 billion counter-drug budget -- the largest ever presented
to Congress_ The President will also highlight the extraordinary efforts of the private sector to
join forces with the successful Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to get the right message to
kids, parents, and teachers on drugs_
A long term commitment to fight drugs. Year in and year out, the Clinton Administration has
proposed the largest anti-drug budgets ever, helping to increase federal counter-drug spending by
nearly 40% between FY 93 and FY 99_ Our sustained effort is having an impact: overall drug
use is half the level it was at its peak in the 1970's; drug-related murders are down by 40 percent
since 1992; the first-ever paid anti-drug media campaign has been launched nationwide; and
youth drug use is on the decline for the second year in a row_ The 1999 National Drug Control
Strategy builds on this progress and takes the next steps to reduce drug use and availability
across the board_
Keeping kids the number one priority. If our children can make it to adulthood free of
substance abuse, the vast majority will avoid addiction for the rest of their lives_ That is why the
first goal of the Strategy is to educate and enable kids to reject drugs_ And while recent studies
show declining youth drug use in 1997 and 1998, we have more work to do_ The President's
Strategy and FY 2000 budget reflect a strong commitment to meeting this challenge:
•
$195 Million for National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign_ The President's budget
continues this unprecedented, 5-year campaign to use the full power of the mass media to
educate millions of young people, parents, teachers and mentors about the dangers of drugs_
In just six months, the private sector has joined our national effort and made over $165
million in matching contributions -- helping us to reach even more people by creating their
own anti-drug ads, producing shows about drug prevention, and giving scores of non-profit
organizations free air time to run their drug-related messages_
•
$590 Million for Safe and Drug-Free Schools_ In addition to calling for increased funds, the
President is committed to reforming the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program to make it even
more effective_ The President's proposal will require schools to adopt rigorous,
comprehensive school safety plans that include tough, but fair discipline policies; safe
passage to and from schools; effective drug and violence policies and programs; annual
school safety and drug use report cards; and links to after school programs_
Breaking the iron link between drugs and crime_ A third of state prisoners and one in five
federal prisoners commit their crimes under the influence of drugs_ Nearly 20 percent of state
prisoners and 15 percent of federal inmates commit their crimes to buy drugs_ The President's
budget provides new resources for states and localities to break crime-committing addicts of their
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
addictions and reduce recidivism:
•
$215 Million for Zero Tolerance Drug Supervision. The President proposes the most
comprehensive drug supervision ever to help keep offenders drug- and crime-free: $100
million in new funds to help states and localities to drug test, treat, and sanction prisoners,
parolees and probationers; $50 million to expand innovative drug courts; and $65 million for
residential drug treatment for prisoners with the most serious drug problems.
Strengthening law enforcement. One of the Strategy's goals is to increase the safety of
America's citizens by substantially reducing drug-related crime and violence. To help keep
crime coming down to record low levels, the President's budget includes:
•
$1.275 Billion for a 21 st Century Policing Initiative, to help communities hire, redeploy and
retain up to 50,000 law enforcement officers with an effort to target crime and drug "hot
spots"; to equip officers with the latest crime-fighting technologies; and to engage entire
communities to work together to prevent and fight crime.
•
$22 Million Increase for DEA Drug Intelligence, including $13 million to assist the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) with its efforts to automate and improve access to critical law
enforcement and intelligence information, and $9 million to support investigations to
dismantle drug trafficking organizations.
Closing the treatment gap. Dependence on drugs exacts an enormous toll in individuals, their
families, businesses, communities, and the nation. Treatment can help end dependence on
addictive drugs -- and its destructive consequences. To help make treatment available to more
Americans in need, the President's budget provides:
•
$85 Million to Increase Drug Treatment. The President's budget provides an additional $55
million in Targeted Capacity Grants to expand the availability of drug treatment to meet
existing or emerging needs, and $30 million more for the Substance Abuse Block Grant -- the
backbone of federal efforts to help states and localities redus;e the gap between those seeking
treatment and the capacity of the public treatment system.
Stopping drugs at the border and breaking foreign sources of supply. The Strategy will
help shield our borders and strengthen multinational cooperation on drugs by including:
•
$50 Million Increase for the Southwest Border. The President's budget includes additional
funds for INS to deploy "force multiplying" technology, such as infrared and color cameras
and ground sensors to aid Border Patrol enforcement and drug interdiction efforts.
•
$29 Million More for International Programs, to fund the State Department's International
Narcotics Law Enforcement Affairs' efforts in the Andean countries, and Mexico, and to
provide assistance to enhance multinational cooperation in our anti-drug efforts.
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Ann F. Lewis ( CN=Ann F. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 09:01:00.00
SUBJECT:
NAEP
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:
I see that Sec Riley will release NAEP reading scores Feb 10 --a "slight
increase " -- this is the same day as Americorps, but is there something
we should do with this ?
�-~ARMS
Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 2
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Clara J. Shin ( CN=Clara J. Shin/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 09:32:02.00
SUBJECT:
Race Report: Promising Practices
TO: Joshua Gotbaum ( CN=Joshua Gotbaum/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: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul E. Begala ( CN=Paul E. Begala/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: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sylvia M. Mathews ( CN=Sylvia M. Mathews/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sally Katzen ( CN=Sally Katzen/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Shirley S. Sagawa ( CN=Shirley S. Sagawa/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP
READ: UNKNOWN
I WHO 1 )
TO: Minyon Moore ( CN=Minyon Moore/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: Victoria A. Wachino ( CN=Victoria A. Wachino/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Shannon Mason ( CN=Shannon Mason/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Tracy Pakulniewicz ( CN=Tracy Pakulniewicz/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
�"
'''ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 2
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Joshua S. Gottheimer { CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 }
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: MaryEllen C. McGuire { CN=MaryEllen C. McGuire/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [WHO 1 }
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Jocelyn A. Bucaro { CN=Jocelyn A. Bucaro/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 }
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Cathy R. Mays { CN=Cathy R. Mays/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 }
READ: UNKNOWN
James T. Edmonds ( CN=James T. Edmonds/OU=PIR/O=EOP [ PIR 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
If you have comments on the chapter in the Race Report entitled "The
Community We Must Build," please forward them to me by the end of the
day,.
Maria circulated the chapter through Staff Secretary on February 1.
If you would like more time to review or need another copy, please let me
know.
Thank you.
�• -
•• ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 2
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: MaryEllen C. McGuire ( CN=MaryEllen C. McGuire/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 10:18:55.00
SUBJECT:
AmeriCorps Conference Call
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri
READ: UNKNOWN
( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Tanya E. Martin ( CN=Tanya E. Martin/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
TO: Stacie Spector ( CN=Stacie Spector/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Andrew J. Mayock ( CN=Andrew J. Mayock/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: JGompert ( JGompert @ cns.gov @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/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: Anne E. McGuire ( CN=Anne E. McGuire/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: Shirley S. Sagawa ( CN=Shirley S.Sagawa/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 ).
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: TWest ( TWest @ cns.gov @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Cathy R. Mays ( CN=Cathy R. Mays/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Carolyn T. Wu ( CN=Carolyn T. Wu/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
�c,.ARMS Email System
Today's AmeriCorps Conference call scheduled for 4:00pm has been moved to
1:00pm. The focus of today's call will be Wednesday's event at the
University of Maryland. please join us at 1:00pm at 757-2100 x4129.
Page 2 of 2
�.•. ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 14
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: "Jason H. Schechter"@lngate3.eop.gov
"Jason H. Schechter"@lngate3.eop.gov
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 10:26:15.00
SUBJECT:
Fact Sheet: Vice President Gore unveils 1999 National Drug
C~nt
TO: Lorrie McHugh ( CN=Lorrie McHugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: "Jordan D. Matyas"@lngate4.eop.gov ( "Jordan D. Matyas"@lngate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOW
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=news.wsj.com/U=bob.davis/FFN=bob.davis/"@mr.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Simeona F. Pasquil ( CN=Simeona F. Pasquil/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Craig Hughes ( CN=Craig Hughes/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Bridget T. Leininger ( CN=Bridget T. Leininger/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Orson C. Porter ( CN=Orson C. Porter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Linda L. Moore ( CN=Linda L. Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=elsoldetexas.com/U=info/FFN=info/"@mr.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=efeamerica.com/U=mpena/FFN=mpena/"@mr.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey L. Farrow ( CN=Jeffrey L. Farrow/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Neal Sharma ( CN=Neal Sharma/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: David Y. Stevens ( CN=David Y. Stevens/OU=OSTP/O=EOP [ OSTP 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/OU=OSTP/O=EOP [ OSTP 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Eli P. Joseph ( CN=Eli P. Joseph/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO:
" ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=ccMail.census.gov/U=kenneth.prewitt/FFN=kenneth.prewit
�· ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 14
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David R. Goodfriend ( CN=David R. Goodfriend/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew W. Pitcher ( CN=Matthew W. Pitcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Marty J. Hoffmann ( CN=Marty J. Hoffmann/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph C. Fanaroff ( CN=Joseph C. Fanaroff/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Stacie Spector ( CN=Stacie Spector/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Brian S. Mason ( CN=Brian S. Mason/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Evan Ryan ( CN=Evan Ryan/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=usia.gov/U=IGCP/FFN=IGCP/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Matt Gobush
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Matt Gobush/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC 1 )
TO: Matthew J. Bianco ( CN=Matthew J. Bianco/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson ( CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Samuel O. Spencer ( CN=Samuel O. Spencer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff ( CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Skye S. Philbrick ( CN=Skye S. Philbrick/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan A. Kaplan ( CN=Jonathan A. Kaplan/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=aol.com/U=Deborin/FFN=Deborin/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Mindy E. Myers ( CN=Mindy E. Myers/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=ost.dot.gov/U=kara.gerhardt/FFN=kara.gerhardt/"@mr.eop
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Christopher K. Scully ( CN=Christopher K. Scully/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�· ARMS Email System
Page 3 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Maria E. So to ( CN=Maria E. Soto/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Paul D. Glastris
READ: UNKNOWN
( CN=Paul D. Glastris/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=usatoday.com/U=spage/FFN=spage/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Carrie A. Street ( CN=Carrie A. Street/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Maya Seiden ( CN=Maya Seiden/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Charles H. Cole ( CN=Charles H. Cole/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jon P. Jennings ( CN=Jon P. Jennings/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Robert B. Johnson ( CN=Robert B. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jackson T. Dunn ( CN=Jackson T. Dunn/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Young ( CN=Jonathan M. Young/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kelley L. O'Dell ( CN=Kelley L. O'Dell/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jocelyn A. Bucaro ( CN=Jocelyn A. Bucaro/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Cheryl M. Carter ( CN=Cheryl M. Carter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jena V. Roscoe ( CN=Jena V. Roscoe/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria A. Lynch ( CN=Victoria A. Lynch/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ilia V. Velez ( CN=Ilia V. Velez/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maritza Rivera ( CN=Maritza Rivera/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Tania I. Lopez ( CN=Tania I. Lopez/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�ARMS Email System
Page 4 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sondra L. Seba ( CN=Sondra L. Seba/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Deborah B. Mohile ( CN=Deborah B. Mohile/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin Leeds ( CN=Robin Leeds/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Rajiv Y. Mody ( CN=Rajiv Y. Mody/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Christopher Ferris ( CN=Christopher Ferris/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Edward F. Hughes ( CN=Edward F. Hughes/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Gregory B. Craig ( CN=Gregory B. Craig/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Carolyn T. Wu ( CN=Carolyn T. Wu/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Dario J. Gomez
READ:UNKNOWN
( CN=Dario J. Gomez/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: Charles M. Brain ( CN=Charles M. Brain/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Minyon Moore ( CN=Minyon Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: "Thomas M. Rosshirt"@lngate4.eop.gov ( "Thomas M. Rosshirt"@lngate4.eop.gov [ UN
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Roger V. Salazar ( CN=Roger V. Salazar/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Julie B. Goldberg ( CN=Julie B. Goldberg/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sheyda Jahanbani ( CN=Sheyda Jahanbani/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter ( CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William C. Haymes ( CN=William C. Haymes/OU=OA/O=EOP [ OA 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Fred DuVal ( CN=Fred DuVal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�ARMS Email System
Page 5 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Maureen T. Shea ( CN=Maureen T. Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Delia A. Cohen ( CN=Delia A. Cohen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Janelle E. Erickson ( CN=Janelle E. Erickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Chandler G. Spaulding ( CN=Chandler G. Spaulding/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: McGavock D. Reed' ( CN=McGavock D. Reed/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan E. Smith ( CN=Jonathan E. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: M.ark D. Neschis ( CN=Mark D. Neschis/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Linda Ricci ( CN=Linda Ricci/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jessica L. Gibson (CN=Jessica L. Gibson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Gino J. Del Sesto ( CN=Gino J. Del Sesto/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Marsha Scott ( CN=Marsha Scott/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney ( CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=pub.pub.whitehouse.gov/U=wh-outbox-distr/FFN=wh
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas R. Matties ( CN=Douglas R. Matties/OU=OA/O=EOP [ OA 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
·READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Phillip Caplan ( CN=Phillip Caplan/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa J. Levin ( CN=Lisa J. Levin/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: David S. Beaubaire ( CN=David S. Beaubaire/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�ARMS Email System
Page 6 of 14
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Amy Weiss ( CN=Amy Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elliot J. Diringer ( CN=Elliot J. Diringer/OU=CEQ/O=EOP [ CEQ 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael V. Terrell ( CN=Michael V. Terrell/OU=CEQ/O=EOP [ CEQ 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Glen M. Weiner ( CN=Glen M. Weiner/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Virginia Apuzzo ( CN=Virginia Apuzzo/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Walker F. Bass ( CN=Walker F. Bass/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julianne B. Corbett ( CN=Julianne B. Corbett/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Lynn G. Cutler ( CN=Lynn G. Cutler/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan Orszag ( CN=Jonathan Orszag/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Carmen B. Fowler ( CN=Carmen B. Fowler/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lana Dickey ( CN=Lana Dickey/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Maureen A. Hudson ( CN=Maureen A. Hudson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Daniel W. Burkhardt ( CN=Daniel W. Burkhardt/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Debra S. Wood ( CN=Debra S. Wood/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Patrick E. Briggs ( CN=Patrick E. Briggs/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Judithanne V. Scourfield ( CN=Judithanne V. Scourfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jeannetta P. Allen ( CN=Jeannetta P. Allen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Woyneab M. Wondwossen ( CN=Woyneab M. Wondwossen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�·ARMS Email System
Page 7 of 14
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Tracy F. Sisser ( CN=Tracy F. Sisser/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah S. Knight ( CN=Sarah S. Knight/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO:' Diane Ikemiyashiro ( CN=Diane Ikemiyashiro/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kyle M. Baker ( CN=Kyle M. Baker/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Reuben L. Musgrave Jr.
READ:UNKNOWN
( CN=Reuben L. Musgrave Jr./OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: Neera Tanden ( CN=Neera Tanden/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Brooks E. Scoville ( CN=Brooks E. Scoville/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole R. Rabner ( CN=Nicole R. Rabner/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Robin J. Bachman ( CN=Robin J. Bachman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: William W. McCathran ( CN=william W. McCathran/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sherman A. Williams ( CN=Sherman A. Williams/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Edwin R. Thomas III ( CN=Edwin R. Thomas III/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas J. Band ( CN=Douglas J. Band/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Peter A. Weissman ( CN=Peter A. Weissman/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ashley L. Raines ( CN=Ashley L. Raines/OU=OA/O=EOP [ OA 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kevin S. Moran ( CN=Kevin S. Moran/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jordan Tamagni
( CN=Jordan Tamagni/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�· ARMS Email System
Page 8 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=access.digex.com/U=usiaOl/FFN=usiaOl/"@mr.eop.g
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=wilson.ai.mit.edu/U=backup/FFN=backup/"@mr.eop.
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kim B. Widdess ( CN=Kim B. Widdess/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leanne A. Shimabukuro ( CN=Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Brian D. Smith ( CN=Brian D. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Virginia N. Rustique ( CN=Virginia N. Rustique/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Beverly J. Barnes ( CN=Beverly J. Barnes/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Andrew J. Mayock ( CN=Andrew J. Mayock/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham ( CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Cynthia M. Jasso-Rotunno ( CN=Cynthia M. Jasso-Rotunno/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jake Siewert ( CN=Jake Siewert/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Barbara D. Woolley ( CN=Barbara D. Woolley/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega ( CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Brenda M. Anders ( CN=Brenda M. Anders/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Catherine T. Kitchen ( CN=Catherine T. Kitchen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�· ARMS Email System
Page 9 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Dorian V. Weaver ( CN=Dorian V. Weaver /OU=WHO/O=EO'P [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv ( CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Todd Stern ( CN=Todd Stern/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: G. Timothy Saunders ( CN=G. Timothy Saunders/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Cheryl D. Mills ( CN=Cheryl D. Mills/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elisa Millsap ( CN=Elisa Millsap/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Julie E. Mason ( CN=Julie E. Mason/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: David E. Kalbaugh ( CN=David E. Kalbaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards ( CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Lori E. Abrams ( CN=Lori E. Abrams/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine A. Stanek ( CN=Christine A. Stanek/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: meglynn@usia.gov ( meglynn@usia.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: RUNDLET_P@al.eop.gov ( RUNDLET_p@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (WHO)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Timothy L. Newell
READ:UNKNOWN
( CN=Timothy L. Newell/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: RILEY_R@al.eop.gov ( RILEY_R@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (OA)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: WEINER_R@al.eop.gov ( WEINER_R@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
(DON)
TO: GRAY_W@al.eop.gov ( GRAY_W@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (NSC)
�. ARMS Email System
Page 10 of 14
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: SUNTUM_M@al.eop.gov ( SUNTUM_M@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (WHO)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: JOHNSON_WC@al.eop.gov ( JOHNSON_WC@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (OA)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: BARBUSCHAK_K@al.eop.gov ( BARBUSCHAK_K@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
(OA)
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=MSNBC.COM/U=patricia.peart!FFN=patricia.peart/"@mr.eop
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=news.wsj.com/U=jeanne.cummings/FFN=jeanne.cummings/"@m
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=aol.com/U=durph/FFN=durph/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOW
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=pacifica.org/U=mgarcia/FFN=mgarcia/"@mr.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=aol.com/U=marhast/FFN=marhast/"@mr.eop.gov [ UN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=krwashington.com>/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=upi.com/U=photo/FFN=photo/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
. TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY /R=aol. com/U=rsimoncol/FFN=rsimoncol/"@mr. eop. gov [ UNKNO
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=latimes.com/U=James.gerstenzang/FFN=James.gerstenzang/
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=chron.com/U=Nancy.mathis/FFN=Nancy.mathis/"@mr.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=reuters.com/U=Larry.mcquillan/FFN=Larry.mcquillan/"@mr
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=MS01.DO.treas.sprint.com/U=JOHN.LONGBRAKE/FFN=JOHN.LON
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Alejandro G. Cabrera"@lngate4.eop.gov ( "Alejandro G. Cabrera"@lngate4.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=usatoday.com/U=bnichols/FFN=bnichols/"@mr.eop.gov [ UN
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=usatoday.com/U=mhall/FFN=mhall/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=newsweek.com/U=drosen/FFN=drosen/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOW
READ: UNKNOWN
TO:
" ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=kcrw.org/U=kyle.mckinnon/FFN=kyle.mckinnon/"@mr.eop.go
�· ARMS Email System
Page 11 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=tnr.com/U=dmilbank/FFN=dmilbank/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( .. /R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=email.msn.com/U=cmbeach/FFN=cmbeach/"@mr.eop.go
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=VAXGTWY/U=Pubs_Backup/FFN=Pubs_Backup/"@mr.eop.gov [ U
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Jodi R. Sakol"@lngate4.eop.gov ( "Jodi R. Sakol"@lngate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: "Eli G. Attie"@lngate4.eop.gov ( "Eli G. Attie"@lngate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
,READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=access,digex.com/U=usnwire/FFN=usnwire/"@mr.eop
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "!R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=usnewswire.com/U=newsdesk!FFN=newsdesk/"@mr.eop
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "!R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY /R=inet/R=eln. attmail. com/U=62955104/FFN=62955104/"@mr.eo
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: BUDIG_N@a1.eop.gov ( BUDIG_N@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (NSC)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: HEMMIG_M@a1.eop.gov ( HEMMIG_M@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
(WHO)
TO: GRIBBEN_J@a1.eop.gov ( GRIBBEN_J@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: NAPLAN_S@a1.eop.gov ( NAPLAN_S@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
(WHO)
(NSC)
TO: WOZNIAK_N@a1.eop.gov ( WOZNIAK_N@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (NSC)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: SULLIVAN_M@a1.eop.gov ( SULLIVAN_M@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (WHO)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: INFOMGT@a1.eop.gov ( INFOMGT@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1
READ: UNKNOWN
(SYS)
TO: US" <" ( "l=US" <"/C=US/ADMD=WESTERN UNION/O=ATT.COM/DD.ELN=62955104/"@mrx.eop.g
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Message Creation Date was at
8-FEB-1999 10:15:00
VICE PRESIDENT GORE UNVEILS 1999 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
February 8, 1999
Today Vice President Gore will release the 1999 National Drug Control
Strategy,
a comprehensive long-term plan to reduce drug use and availability to
historic
�· ARMS Email System
Page 12 of 14
new lows.
The Strategy is backed by a $17.8 billion counter-drug budget
--the
largest ever presented to Congress. The Vice President will also
highlight the
extraordinary efforts of the private sector to join forces with the
successful
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to get the right message on drugs to kids,
parents, and teachers.
A long term commitment to fight drugs. Year in and year out, the
Clinton-Gore
Administration has proposed the largest anti-drug budgets ever, helping to
increase federal counter-drug spending by nearly 40% between FY 93 and FY
99.
Our sustained effort is having an impact: overall drug use is half the
level it
was at its peak in the 1970's; drug-related murders are down by 40 percent
since 1992; the first-ever paid anti-drug media campaign has been launched
nationwide; and youth drug use is on the decline for the second year in a
row.
The 1999 National Drug Control Strategy builds on this progress and takes
the
next steps to reduce drug use and availability across the board.
Keeping kids the number one priority.
If our children can make it to
adulthood
free of substance abuse, the vast majority will avoid addiction for the
rest of
their lives. That is why the first goal of the Strategy is to educate and
enable kids to reject drugs. And while recent studies show declining youth
drug
use in 1997 and 1998, we have more work to do. The Clinton-Gore Strategy
and FY
2000 budget ref·lect a strong commitment to meeting this challenge:
$195 Million for National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The
PresidentD! ,s
budget continues this unprecedented, 5-year campaign to use the full
power of
the mass media to educate millions of young people, parents, teachers and
mentors about the dangers of drugs.
In just six months, the private
sector has
joined our national effort and made over $165 million in matching
contributions
--helping us to reach even more people by creating their own anti-drug ads,
producing shows about drug prevention, and giving scores of non-profit
organizations free air time to run their drug-related messages.
$590 Million for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
In addition to calling for
increased funds, the President is committed to.reforming·the Safe and
Drug-Free
Schools Program to make it even more effective. The PresidentO!,s
proposal will
require schools to adopt rigorous, comprehensive school safety plans that
include tough, but fair discipline policies; safe passage to and from
schools;
effective drug and violence policies and programs; annual school safety and
drug use report cards; and links to after school programs.
Breaking the iron link between drugs and crime.
A third of state
�• ARMS Email System
Page 13 of 14
prisoners and
one in five federal prisoners commit their crimes under the influence of
drugs. Nearly 20 percent of state prisoners " and 15 percent of federal
inmates
commit their crimes to buy drugs.
The presidentD!,s budget provides new
resources for states and localities to break crime-committing addicts of
their
addictions and reduce recidivism:
$215 Million for Zero Tolerance Drug Supervision. The President
proposes the
most comprehensive drug supervision ever to help keep offenders drug-and
crime-free: $100 million in new funds to help states and localities to drug
test, treat, and sanction prisoners, parolees and probationers; $50
million to e
xpand innovative drug courts; and $65 million for residential drug
treatment
for prisoners with the most serious drug problems.
Strengthening law enforcement.
One of the StrategyD!,s goals is to
increase the
safety of AmericaD!,s citizens by substantially reducing drug-related
crime and
violence. To help keep crime coming down to record low levels, the
PresidentD!,s budget includes:
$1.275 Billion for a 21st Century Policing Initiative, to help
communities
hire, redeploy and retain up to 50,000 law enforcement
officers with an
officers with the
effort to target crime and drug "hot spots"; to equip
latest crime-fighting technologies; and to engage entire
communities to
work
together to prevent and fight crime.
$22 Million Increase for DEA Drug Intelligence,
including $13
million to
assist the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) with its efforts to
automate and
improve access to critical law enforcement and intelligence
information,
and
$9 million to support investigations to dismantle drug
trafficking organ
izations.
Closing the treatment gap.
Dependence on drugs exacts an enormous toll in
individuals, their families, businesses, communities, and the nation.
Treatment can help end dependence on addictive drugs --and its destructive
consequences. To help make treatment available to more Americans in need,
the
PresidentD!,s budget provides:
$85 Million to Increase Drug Treatment. The PresidentD!,s budget
provides an
additional $55 million in Targeted Capacity Grants to expand the
availability
of drug treatment to meet existing or emerging needs, and $30 million more
for
the Substance Abuse Block Grant --the backbone of federal efforts to help
states and localities reduce the gap between those seeking treatment and
the
capacity of the public treatment system.
�I.
ARMS Email System
Stopping drugs at the border and breaking foreign sources of supply.
Strategy will help shield our borders and strengthen multinational
cooperation
on drugs by including:
Page 14 of 14
The
$50 Million Increase for the Southwest Border. The PresidentO!,s
budget
includes additional funds for INS to deploy "force
multiplying"
technology,
such as infrared and color cameras and
ground sensors to aid Border
Patrol
enforcement and drug interdiction
efforts.
$29 Million More for International Programs. to fund the State
Departmen to! , s
International Narcotics Law Enforcement AffairsO!, efforts in the Andean
countries, and Mexico, and to provide assistance to enhance multinational
cooperation in our anti-drug efforts.
###
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Marilyn L. Scott-Perez ( CN=Marilyn L. Scott-Perez/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 10:45:23.00
SUBJECT:
Meeting on Education Themes fo G-8 Summit
TO: Elena Kagan
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
TO: Jonathan H. Schnur ( CN=Jonathan H. Schnur/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sally Katzen ( CN=Sally Katzen/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan Orszag ( CN=Jonathan Orszag/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Tanya E. Martin ( CN=Tanya E. Martin/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
This meeting will need to be rescheduled -- I will let you know as soon as
I can on the new date and time.
Thanks!
�··ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
CREATOR:
Page 1 of 14
(NOTES MAIL)
"Jason H. Schechter"@lngate3.eop.gov ( "Jason H. Schechter"@lngate3.eop.gov
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 12:17:05.00
SUBJECT:
To the Congress: 1999 National Drug Control Strategy
TO: Lorrie McHugh ( CN=Lorrie MCHugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: "Jordan D. Matyas"@lngate4.eop.gov ( "Jordan D. Matyas"@lngate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOW
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=news.wsj.com/U=bob.davis/FFN=bob.davis/"@mr.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Simeona F. Pasquil ( CN=Simeona F. Pasquil/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Craig Hughes ( CN=Craig Hughes/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Bridget T. Leininger ( CN=Bridget T. Leininger/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Orson C. Porter ( CN=Orson C. Porter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Linda L. Moore ( CN=Linda L. Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=elsoldetexas.com/U=info/FFN=info/"@mr.eop.gov
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=efeamerica.com/U=mpena/FFN=mpena/"@mr.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey L. Farrow ( CN=Jeffrey L. Farrow/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Neal Sharma ( CN=Neal Sharma/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: David Y. Stevens ( CN=David Y. Stevens/OU=OSTP/O=EOP [ OSTP 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/OU=OSTP/O=EOP [ OSTP J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Eli P. Joseph ( CN=Eli P. Joseph/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: '"
( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY /R=ccMail . census. gOY /U=kenneth. prewi t t /FFN=kenneth. prewi t
�'ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: David R. Goodfriend ( CN=David R. Goodfriend/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew W. Pitcher ( CN=Matthew W. Pitcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Marty J. Hoffmann ( CN=Marty J. Hoffmann/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph C. Fanaroff
READ: UNKNOWN
( CN=Joseph C. Fanaroff/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: Stacie Spector ( CN=Stacie Spector/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Brian S. Mason ( CN=Brian S. Mason/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Evan Ryan ( CN=Evan Ryan/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=usia.gov/U=IGCP/FFN=IGCP/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Matt Gobush ( CN=Matt Gobush/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC 1 ).
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew J. Bianco ( CN=Matthew J. Bianco/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson ( CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Samuel o. Spencer ( CN=Samuel
READ: UNKNOWN
o.
Spencer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: Toby C. Graff ( CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Skye S. Philbrick ( CN=Skye S. Philbrick/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan A. Kaplan ( CN=Jonathan A. Kaplan/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=aol.com/U=Deborin/FFN=Deborin/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Mindy E. Myers ( CN=Mindy E. Myers/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=ost.dot.gov/U=kara.gerhardt/FFN=kara.gerhardt/"@mr.eop
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Christopher K. Scully ( CN=Christopher K. Scully/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�ARMS Email System
Page 3 of 14
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maria E. Soto ( CN=Maria E. Soto/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul D. Glastris ( CN=Paul D. Glastris/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=usatoday.com/U=spage/FFN=spage/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Carrie A. Street ( CN=Carrie A. Street/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Maya Seiden ( CN=Maya Seiden/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Charles H. Cole ( CN=Charles H. Cole/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jon P. Jennings ( CN=Jon P. Jennings/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Robert B. Johnson ( CN=Robert B. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jackson T. Dunn ( CN=Jackson T. Dunn/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Young ( CN=Jonathan M. Young/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kelley L. O'Dell ( CN=Kelley L. O'Dell/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jocelyn A. Bucaro ( CN=Jocelyn A. Bucaro/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Cheryl M. Carter ( CN=Cheryl M. Carter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jena V. Roscoe ( CN=Jena V. Roscoe/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria A. Lynch ( CN=Victoria A. Lynch/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ilia V. Velez
READ:UNKNOWN
( CN=Ilia V. Velez/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: Maritza Rivera ( CN=Maritza Rivera/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Tania I.
Lope~
( CN=Tania I. Lopez/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�ARMS Email System
Page 4 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sondra L. Seba ( CN=Sondra L. Seba/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Deborah B. Mohile ( CN=Deborah B. Mohile/OU=WHO/O=EOP [·WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Robin Leeds ( CN=Robin Leeds/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Rajiv Y. Mody ( CN=Rajiv Y. Mody/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Christopher Ferris ( CN=Christopher Ferris/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB J )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ed~ard F. Hughes ( CN=Edward F. Hughes/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Gregory B. Craig ( CN=Gregory B. Craig/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Carolyn T. Wu ( CN=Carolyn T. Wu/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Dario J. Gomez
READ: UNKNOWN
( CN=Dario J. Gomez/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
TO:'Charles M. Brain ( CN=Charles M. Brain/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Minyon Moore ( CN=Minyon Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: "Thomas M. Rosshirt"@lngate4.eop.gov ( "Thomas M. Rosshirt"@lngate4.eop.gov [ UN
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Roger V. Salazar ( CN=Roger V. Salazar/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Julie B. Goldberg ( CN=Julie B. Goldberg/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sheyda Jahanbani ( CN=Sheyda Jahanbani/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter ( CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William C. Haymes ( CN=William C. Haymes/OU=OA/O=EOP [ OA 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Fred DuVal ( CN=Fred DuVal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�ARMS Email System
Page 5 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Maureen T. Shea ( CN=Maureen T. Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Delia A. Cohen ( CN=Delia A. Cohen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Janelle E. Erickson ( CN=Janelle E. Erickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Chandler G. Spaulding ( CN=Chandler G. Spaulding/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: McGavock D. Reed ( CN=McGavock D. Reed/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan E. Smith ( CN=Jonathan E. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Mark D. Neschis ( CN=Mark D. Neschis/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Linda Ricci ( CN=Linda Ricci/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jessica L. Gibson ( CN=Jessica L. Gibson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Gino J. Del Sesto ( CN=Gino J. Del Sesto/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Marsha Scott
READ:UNKNOWN
CN=Marsha Scott/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: Sean P. Maloney ( CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=pub.pub.whitehouse.gov/U=wh-outbox-distr/FFN=wh
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dougias R. Matties ( CN=Douglas R. Matties/OU=OA/O=EOP [ OA 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Phillip Caplan ( CN=Phillip Caplan/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa J. Levin ( CN=Lisa J. Levin/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David S. Beaubaire ( CN=David S. Beaubaire/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�ARMS Email System
Page 6 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Amy Weiss
READ: UNKNOWN
( CN=Amy Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elliot J. Diringer ( CN=Elliot J. Diringer/OU=CEQ/O=EOP [ CEQ 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Michael V. Terrell ( CN=Michael V. Terrell/OU=CEQ/O=EOP [ CEQ 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Glen M. Weiner ( CN=Glen M. Weiner/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Virginia Apuzzo ( CN=Virginia Apuzzo/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Walker F. Bass ( CN=Walker F. Bass/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julianne B. Corbett ( CN=Julianne B. Corbett/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Lynn G. Cutler ( CN=Lynn G. Cutler/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan Orszag ( CN=Jonathan Orszag/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Carmen B. Fowler ( CN=Carmen B. Fowler/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Lana Dickey ( CN=Lana Dickey/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maureen A. Hudson ( CN=Maureen A. Hudson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Daniel W. Burkhardt ( CN=Daniel W. Burkhardt/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Debra S. Wood ( CN=Debra S. Wood/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Patrick E. Briggs ( CN=Patrick E. Briggs/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Judithanne V. Scourfield ( CN=Judithanne V. Scourfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jeannetta P. Allen ( CN=Jeannetta P. Allen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Woyneab M. Wondwossen ( CN=Woyneab M. Wondwossen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�ARMS Email System
Page 7 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Tracy F. Sisser ( CN=Tracy F. Sisser/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah S. Knight ( CN=Sarah S. Knight/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Diane Ikemiyashiro ( CN=Diane Ikemiyashiro/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kyle M. Baker ( CN=Kyle M. Baker/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Reuben L. Musgrave Jr.
READ: UNKNOWN
( CN=Reuben L. Musgrave Jr./OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
TO: Neera Tanden ( CN=Neera Tanden/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Brooks E. Scoville ( CN=Brooks E. Scoville/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole R. Rabner ( CN=Nicole R. Rabner/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Robin J. Bachman ( CN=Robin J. Bachman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William W. McCathran ( CN=William W. McCathran/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sherman A. Williams ( CN=Sherman A. Williams/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Edwin R. Thomas III ( CN=Edwin R. Thomas III/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas J. Band ( CN=Douglas J. Band/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Peter A. Weissman ( CN=Peter A. Weissman/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ashley L. Raines ( CN=Ashley L.. Raines/OU=OA/O=EOP [ OA 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kevin S. Moran ( CN=Kevin S. Moran/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jordan Tamagni
( CN=Jordan Tamagni/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�ARMS Email System
Page 8 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=access.digex.com/U=usiaOl/FFN=usiaOl/"@mr.eop.g
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=wilson.ai.mit.edu/U=backup/FFN=backup/"@mr.eop.
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kim B. Widdess ( CN=Kim B. Widdess/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leanne A. Shimabukuro ( CN=Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Brian D. Smith ( CN=Brian D. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Virginia N. Rustique ( CN=Virginia N. Rustique/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHOIO=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beverly J. Barnes ( CN=Beverly J. Barnes/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Andrew J. Mayock ( CN=Andrew J. Mayock/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham ( CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Cynthia M. Jasso-Rotunno ( CN=Cynthia M. Jasso-Rotunno/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jake Siewert ( CN=Jake Siewert/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Barbara D. Woolley ( CN=Barbara D. Woolley/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega ( CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Brenda M. Anders ( CN=Brenda M. Anders/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Catherine T. Kitchen ( CN=Catherine T. Kitchen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
�ARMS Email System
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Dorian V. Weaver ( CN=Dorian V. Weaver/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv ( CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Todd Stern ( CN=Todd Stern/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: G. Timothy Saunders ( CN=G. Timothy Saunders/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Cheryl D. Mills ( CN=Cheryl D. Mills/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elisa Millsap ( CN=Elisa Millsap/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie E. Mason ( CN=Julie E. Mason/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David E. Kalbaugh ( CN=David E. Kalbaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards ( CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Lori E. Abrams ( CN=Lori E. Abrams/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Christine A. Stanek ( CN=Christine A. Stanek/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: meglynn@usia.gov ( meglynn@usia.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: RUNDLET_P@al.eop.gov ( RUNDLET_P@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (WHO)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Timothy L. Newell ( CN=Timothy L. Newell/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: RILEY_R@al.eop.gov ( RILEY_R@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (OA)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: WEINER_R@al.eop.gov ( WEINER_R@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (DON)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: GRAY_W@al.eop.gov ( GRAY_W@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (NSC)
Page 9 of 14
�ARMS Email System
Page 10 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: SUNTUM_M@al.eop.gov ( SUNTUM_M@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (WHO)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: JOHNSON_WC@al.eop.gov ( JOHNSON_WC@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (OA)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: BARBUSCHAK_K@al.eop.gov ( BARBUSCHAK_K@al.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
(OA)
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=MSNBC.COM/U=patricia.peart/FFN=patricia.peart/"@mr.eop
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=news.wsj.com/U=jeanne.cummings/FFN=jeanne.cummings/"@m
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inetlR=aol.com/U=durph/FFN=durph/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOW
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=pacifica.org/U=mgarcia/FFN=mgarcia/"@mr.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=aol.com/U=marhast/FFN=marhast/"@mr.eop.gov [ UN
READ:UNKNOWN
.
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=krwashington.com>/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=upi.com/U=photo/FFN=photo/"@mr.eop.gOY [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=aol.com/U=rsimoncol/FFN=rsimoncol/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNO
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=latimes.com/U=James.gerstenzang/FFN=James.gerstenzang/
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=chron.com/U=Nancy.mathis/FFN=Nancy.mathis/"@mr.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=reuters.com/U=Larry.mcquillan/FFN=Larry.mcquillan/"@mr
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=MS01.DO.treas.sprint.com/U=JOHN.LONGBRAKE/FFN=JOHN.LON
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: "Alejandro G. Cabrera"@lngate4.eop.gov ( "Alejandro G. Cabrera"@lngate4.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=usatoday.com/U=bnichols/FFN=bnicholS/"@mr.eop.gov [ UN
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=usatoday.com/U=mhall/FFN=mhall/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=newsweek.com/U=drosen/FFN=drosen/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOW
READ: UNKNOWN
TO:
" ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=kcrw.org/U=kyle.mckinnon/FFN=kyle.mckinnon/"@mr.eop.go
�ARMS Email System
Page 11 of 14
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=tnr.com/u=dmilbank/FFN=dmilbank/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=ernail.msn.com/U=crnbeach/FFN=crnbeach/"@rnr.eop.go
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=VAXGTWY/U=Pubs_Backup/FFN=pubs_Backup/"@rnr.eop.gov [ U
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: "Jodi R. Sakol"@lngate4.eop.gov ( "Jodi R. Sakol"@lngate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: "Eli G. Attie"@lngate4.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
"Eli G. Attie"@lngate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=access.digex.com/U=usnwire/FFN=usnwire/"@mr.eop
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY/R=inet/R=usnewswire.com/U=newsdesk/FFN=newsdesk/"@rnr.eop
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: " ( "/R=EOPMRX/R=LNGTWY /R=inet/R=eln. attrnail . com/U=62955l04/FFN=62955104 /"@mr. eo
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: BUDIG_N@a1.eop.gov ( BUDIG_N@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (NSC)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: HEMMIG_M@a1.eop.gov ( HEMMIG_M@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: GRIBBEN_J@a1.eop.gov
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: NAPLAN_S@a1.eop.gov
READ: UNKNOWN
(WHO)
GRIBBEN_J@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
(WHO)
NAPLAN_S@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (NSC)
TO: WOZNIAK_N@a1.eop.gov ( WOZNIAK_N@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
(NSC)
TO: SULLIVAN_M@a1.eop.gov ( SULLIVAN_M@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
(WHO)
TO: INFOMGT@a1.eop.gov ( INFOMGT@a1.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1 ) (SYS)
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: US" <" ( "l=US" <"/C=US/ADMD=WESTERN UNION/O=ATT.COM/DD.ELN=62955104/"@rnrx.eop.g
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Message Creation Date was at
8-FEB-1999 12:08:00
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 8, 1999
�ARMS Email System
Page .12 of 14
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
On behalf of the American people, I am pleased to transmit the 1999
National
Drug Control Strategy to the Congress. This Strategy renews and advances
our
efforts to counter the threat of drugs -- a threat that continues to cost
our
Nation over 14,000 lives and billions of dollars each year.
There is some encouraging progress in the struggle against drugs.
The
1998
Monitoring the Future study found that youth drug use has leveled off and
in
many instances is on the decline -- the second straight year of progress
after
years of steady increases. The study also found a significant
strengthening of
youth attitudes toward drugs: young people increasingly perceive drug use
as a
risky and unacceptable behavior.
The rate of drug-related murders
continues to
decline, down from 1,302 in 1992 to 786 in 1997. Overseas, we have
witnessed a
decline in cocaine production by 325 metric tons in Bolivia and Peru over
the
last 4 years.
Coca cultivation in Peru plunged 56 percent since 1995.
Nevertheless, drugs still exact a tremendous toll on this Nation.
In a
lO-year period, over 100,000 Americans will die from drug use. The social
costs of drug use continue to climb, reaching $110 billion in 1995, a 64
percent increase since 1990. Much of the economic burden of drug abuse
falls
on those who do not abuse drugs
American families and their communities.
Although we have made progress, much remains to be done.
The 1999 National Drug Control Strategy provides a comprehensive balanced
approach to move us closer to a drug-free America. This Strategy presents
a
long-term plan to change American attitudes and behavior with regard to
illegal
drugs. Among the efforts this Strategy focuses on are:
Educating children:
studies demonstrate that when our children understand
the
dangers of drugs, their rates of drug use drop. Through the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program and other
efforts, we will continue to focus on helping our youth reject drugs.
Decreasing the addicted population:
the addicted make up roughly a
quarter of
all drug users, but consume two-thirds of all drugs in America. Our
strategy
for reducing the number of addicts focuses on closing the "treatment gap."
Breaking the cycle of drugs and crime: numerous studies confirm that the
vast
majority of prisoners comroittheir crimes to buy drugs or while under the
�ARMS Email System
Page 13 of 14
influence of drugs.
To help break this link between crime and drugs, we
must
promote the Zero Tolerance Drug Supervision initiative to better keep
offenders
drug- and crime-free. We can do this by helping States and localities to
implement tough new systems to drug test, treat, and punish prisoners,
parolees, and probationers.
more
(OVER)
2
Securing our borders:
the vast majority of drugs consumed in the united
States
enter this Nation through the Southwest border, Florida, the Gulf States,
and
other border areas and air and sea ports of entry. The flow of drugs into
this
Nation violates our sovereignty and brings crime and suffering to our
streets
and communities. We remain committed to, and will expand, efforts to
safeguard
our borders from drugs.
Reducing the supply of drugs: we must reduce the availability of drugs
and the
ease with which they can be obtained.
Our efforts to reduce the supply of
drugs must target both domestic and overseas production of these deadly
substances.
Our ability to attain these objectives is dependent upon the collective
will
of the American people and the strength of our leadership.
The progress we
have made to date is a credit to Americans of all walks of life -- State
and
local leaders,
parents, teachers, coaches, doctors, police officers, and clergy. Many
have
taken a stand against drugs. These gains also result from the leadership
and
hard work of many, including Attorney General Reno, Secretary of Health and
Human Services Shalala, Secretary of Education Riley, Treasury Secretary
Rubin,
and Drug Policy Director McCaffrey.
I also thank the Congress for their
past
and future support.
If we are to make further progress, we must maintain a
bipartisan commitment to the goals of the Strategy.
As we enter the new millennium, we are reminded of our common
. obligation
to build and leave for coming generations a stronger Nation. Our National
Drug
Control Strategy will help create a safer, healthier future for all
Americans.
�~RMS
Email System
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 8, 1999.
#
#
#
Page 14 of 14
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Dan Marcus ( CN=Dan Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 12:30:58.00
SUBJECT:
Grijalva and Medicaid
TO: Christopher C. Jennings ( CN=Christopher C. Jennings/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Kneedler expressed doubts that HHS has less ability to require the States
in Medicaid to ensure beneficiaries' rights vis-a-vis HMOs than it does in
Medicare.
I talked to Harriet Rabb and Anna Kraus (her deputy?), who
basically confirmed his suspicions:
HCFA regs do require State Medicaid
agencies to ensure beneficiaries procedural rights re decisions on
provision of services -- including appeals from HMO decions to the state
agency -- comparable to those in Medicare.'
Rabb and Kraus say only real
difference between Medicare and Medicaid is that there are already one or
two court decisions saying Medicaid HMOs are state actors, but none as ,to
Medicare HMOs.
�· '. ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 2
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Jonathan H. Schnur ( CN=Jonathan H. Schnur/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 12:55:39.00
SUBJECT:
our suggested language on bilingual education
TO: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Tanya E. Martin ( CN=Tanya E. Martin/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
(from Jon and Tanya)
Our added language is in bold -- in paragraphs 4 and 5. Based on further
conversations, we think the language below will help address concerns from
the groups and be consistent with Administration policy.
SUPPORTING STUDENTS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
Students with limited English proficiency (LEP) are the fastest
growing population served by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
According to State educational agency data, the number of LEP students
grew 24 percent between 1992 and 1995.
Many of the fastest growing LEP student populations are in States
and communities that have little prior experience in serving these
students.
For example, ten States (Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia)
reported increases in the numbers of LEP students greater than 46 percent
between 1992 and 1995.
Our nation derives a great deal of strength from our diverse
population, and we have to capitalize on the strengths and potential that
every child brings to the classroom.
Our clear goal is that LEP students should be able to speak and
read English after three consecutive years in our schools. We are equally
committed to ensuring that LEP students reach challenging academic
standards in all content areas.
And we are committed to developing
legislation that preserves flexibility for states and school districts to
provide the most appropriate, research-based instruction for each child.
Our reauthorization proposal for the Title VII bilingual education
provisions seeks to achieve these two very important goals by emphasizing
the same two key strategies we are pursuing throughout the ESEA:
improving teacher quality and strengthening accountability.
To increase teacher quality, for example, all institutions of
higher education applying for Title VII grants, would be required to show
that their teacher education programs include preparation for all teachers
serving LEP students.
�.. ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 2
To strengthen accountability and ensure that LEP students reach our
three-year goal of learning English, both Title VII grantees and Title I
schools would be required to annually assess LEP student progress in
attaining English proficiency.
LEP students who have been in a u.s. school for less than three
years would continue to be included in the Title I assessment system, but
after three years reading assessments would be conducted in English.
Schools and districts will be held accountable, as part of the larger ESEA
accountability provisions, for their progress in ensuring that LEP
students reach the three-year English language proficiency goal.
I also believe that AmericaD,s children need to become much more
fluent in other languages. We are very far behind other nations when it
comes to giving our students a mastery of other languages.
There are
teenagers in Europe who can easily speak three languages.
I am certain we
can do a much better job at giving our students at least a fluency in
English and one foreign language. There are currently over 200 two-way
bilingual education programs that teach English and a foreign language and
allow all students to truly develop proficiency in two languages.
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Dan Marcus ( CN=Dan Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 12:58:29.00
SUBJECT:
Re: Grijalva and Medicaid
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
1. I don't know.
I assume advocates don't trust state Medicaid agencies
and HCFA to enforce beneficiary rights and want the leverage of the
consitutional cause of action.
But
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Jonathan H. Schnur ( CN=Jonathan H. Schnur/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 13:42:07.00
SUBJECT:
Re: our suggested language on bilingual education
TO: Elena Kagan
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1
CC: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Tanya E. Martin ( CN=Tanya E. Martin/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
We spoke to a couple of staff at the Education Department who have a good
sense of where the hispanic community is on this.
Also, the Department has informed us that Jeffords has asked for the
testimony this afternoon, so we should give them any comments by 3 -- or
3:15 at the latest -- in order for them to be incoprorated before the
testimony gets sent to the hill.
Please page me when you need -- I will
be in a meeting until about 2:45.
-- Jon
�..
-
'
ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 2
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Kevin S. Moran ( CN=Kevin S. Moran/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 14:19:07.00
SUBJECT:
Pay Equity Meeting
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Elena ... I'm sorry about any confusion about Wednesday's meeting.
I
should have included you out of habit ... and I certainly didn't realize
that you were focusing on the issue. Here's the request I sent out
earlier. Do you think we need to gather our internal crew with John for a
seperate meeting tomorrow or Wednesday morning, or should we be ok with a
pre-meeting immediately before? k
---------------------- Forwarded by Kevin S. Moran/WHO/EOP on 02/08/99
11:20 AM ---------------------~----Kevin S. Moran
Record Type:
02/08/99 10:51:12 AM
Record
To:
Caroline R. Fredrickson/WHO/EOP
cc:
Jessica L. Gibson/WHO/EOP
Subject:
Pay Equity Meeting
Caroline ...
As you know, John agreed to hold a Pay Equity Meeting on Wednesday (2/10)
afternoon with Senator Harkin and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
I
understand that this is a somewhat politcally complex discussion,
especially in light of the other individuals who have been invited to
participate. Can I work with you today to make sure that this meeting is
organized in a way to make it run as smoothly as possible? Also, do we
need to hold an internal pre-meeting (and who do we want involved on our
side)? An will you be preparing John a background / briefing memo for
this? Thanks a lot.
k
Requested Attendees:
Sen. Tom Harkin
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Peter Reinecke (Harkin Legislative Director)
Chani wiggins (Harkin Legisltive Assistant)
Susan Bianchi-Sand (Director, Committee on Pay Equity)
Karen Nussbaum (Director, AFL-CIO Working Women Division)
Martha Burke (Director, Center for the Advancement of Public Policy)
Ga~l Schaeffer (Director, Business and Professional Women)
Chris Turman (BPW lobbyist)
Cynthia Bradley (AFSCME lobbyist)
Holly Fechner (Minority Staff Director, Senate HELP Committee)
Evelyn Kanolle (Deputy Director, National Committee on Pay Equity)
Anne Hoffman (UNITE)
�ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 2
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Dan Marcus ( CN=Dan Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 14:51:46.00
SUBJECT:
Re: Grijalva and Medicaid
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I pressed the very reluctant Mr. K re
I have a call into Westmoreland.
timing.
Lamkin is working on it but he and Seth need to see it and the
best we can do is first thing tomorrow.
I will call Seth on merits of
middle course.
Shalala, as you point out, has come around, but only, I
suspect, as an alternative to not filing at all. Certainly Rabb, whom I
will talk to again, has not told Kneedler that Shalala is now convinced
stripped-down is best.
I may also call Seth.
Elena Kagan
02/08/99 01:14:45 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Dan Marcus/WHO/EOP
cc:
subject:
Re: Grijalva and Medicaid
1. I'm not convinced. Why don't you talk with Tim Westmoreland? He's at
the Georgetown legislation program -- Devorah Adler will be able to give
you a number.
2. I'd like to see it by the end of the day.
And I do not think that a
stripped-down brief can include any explicit conclusions on the merits of
the state action issue.
If the SG can't write a brief without those
conclusions, then we're really left with a choice between filing or not
filing.
And by the way, my understanding is that Shalala and Min now want
a true stripped-down brief -- at least, that's what Thurm told Podesta
this morning.
�.. ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 4
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 15:00:46.00
SUBJECT:
fyi - for rangel
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
White House Outlines Anti-Drug Plan
By PETE YOST Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Releasing the Clinton
administration's
plan to cut the drug problem in half by 2007,
Vice President Al
Go're today said that the strategy had to provide
hope to
youngsters and treatment for prisoners even as
it cracked down
on traffickers.
"We must start by recognizing that our nation's
drug problem
was not born in isolation and does not exist in
a vacuum, 'I
Gore
said. " I t is an interconnected problem and so
our solutions must
also be interconnected. We must mount an all out
effort to
banish crime, drugs and disorder and
hopelessness from our
streets once and for all.' ,
Gore released the five-part plan, which he said
repaired
programs that are not working and gave a boost
to those that
do, during a ceremony at the Old Executive
Office Building next
to the White House.
He claimed some success in the fight against
drugs, noting that
drug use by adults is at half what it was in
1979 and that drug
use by young people has started to decline.
"But when drug dealers still roam our streets
and rob our
children of their dreams,
and drug related crime
still ravages so
many of our neighborhoods, we know that we have
barely
begun,"
Gore said.
"We must do so much more."
�·ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 4
The nationwide effort includes nearly $18
billion to be spent this
year by the federal government. White House drug
policy
director Barry McCaffrey wants the nation's
children to be the
focal point for the drive against drugs.
The White House "seeks to involve parents,
coaches, mentors,
teachers, clergy and other role models in a
broad prevention
campaign, "
McCaffrey said in the four-volume
strategy sent to
Capitol Hill today.
In a message to Congress, President Clinton said
that among the
positive signs are a growing view among young
people that
drugs are risky and a continuing decline in
cocaine production
overseas.
"Studies demonstrate that when our children
understand the
dangers of drugs, their rates of drug use
drop, "
said Clinton.
The five parts of the administration plan are
educating children,
decreasing the addicted population, breaking the
cycle of drugs
and crime, securing the nation's borders from dr
ugs and reducing
the drug supply.
The blend of strategies is aimed at reducing the
use and
availability of drugs by 25 percent by 2002 and
50 percent by
2007. Achieving the goal would mean just 3
percent of the U.S.
population aged 12 and over would be using
illegal drugs. The
current figure is estimated at 6.4 percent. In
1979, the rate was
near 15 percent.
Additional goals for the period ending in 2007
are to reduce by
30 percent the rate of crime associated with
drug trafficking and
use, and cutting the health and social costs ass
ociated with drugs
by 25 percent. As of 1995,
the social costs of
drug use were
estimated at $110 billion, a 64 percent increase
over 1990.
�'ARMS Email System
Page 3 of 4
A major piece of the drug-control effort is an
advertising
campaign that generates more than $195 million a
year in
matching contributions from media companies.
A cornerstone of the strategy is accountability
for the wide array
of current anti-drug programs, with boosts for
those that work
and the ability to identify swiftly and repair t
hose that aren't
producing results.
"In the past, Congress had been critical
because there were no
specific measurements for success, "
said Bob
Weiner, a
spokesman for McCaffrey. "There was some real
heat in the
government"
accountability, but
resisting demands for
no
longer do we only measure the people working the
issue and the
dollars spent on it. Now you've got to prove
bang for the buck. ' ,
While head of the u.s. Southern Command as an
Army general,
McCaffrey saw first hand in South America how
some u.S.
approaches to drug control succeed where others
fail.
Over a decade or more, some $700 million was
spent on
counter-narcotics aid in Bolivia, with no
significant reduction in
cocaine cultivation, said Pancho Kinney, deputy
director for
strategy in McCaffrey's office.
When another approach was used starting in 1995,
success was
immediate and has continued, Kinney added. Under
the
strategy, the u.S. military passes along
information about
drug-carrying aircraft,
~hich
then would be
intercepted by air
forces of Colombia and Peru.
O#AP-NY-02-08-99 1157EST
Copyright. Associated Press. All rights
reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or
redistributed.
Home
I
Top of Page
�,
,
"ARMS Email System
02108
Page 4 of 4
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Kevin S. Moran ( CN=Kevin S. Moran/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 15:13:17.00
SUBJECT:
Re: Pay Equity Meeting
TO: Elena Kagan
READ:UNKNOWN
CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
TEXT:
Who would be best to take point?
driving this issue.
I don't understand which office is
�·ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 4
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman!OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 16:20:25.00
SUBJECT:
revised talking points
TO: Maria Echaveste ( CN=Maria Echaveste/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: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Janet Murguia ( CN=Janet Murguia/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jessica L. Gibson ( CN=Jessica L. Gibson/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kevin S. Moran ( CN=Kevin S. Moran/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul E. Begala ( CN=Paul E. Begala/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ron Klain ( CN=Ron Klain/O=OVP @ OVP [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ann F. Lewis ( CN=Ann F. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jake Siewert ( CN=Jake Siewert/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
TO: Minyon Moore ( CN=Minyon Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP
READ: UNKNOWN
@ EOP
[ WHO 1 )
TO: Charles M. Brain ( CN=Charles M. Brain/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: Dawn L. Smalls ( CN=Dawn L. Smalls/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/Ou=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
�ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 4
Draft 2/9/99 4:20pm
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
TALKING POINTS FOR HOUSE DEMOCRATIC RETREAT
GREENBRIAR, WEST VIRGINIA
February 9, 1999
Tribute to Rep. Gephardt.
Let me begin by thanking, and honoring, one of
the greatest leaders of our party and our nation 0) Dick Gephardt.
DickD,s decision to stay in the Congress means we have an even better
chance of retaking the House.
It means that 0) after decades in which
Democrats by habit eagerly formed a circular firing squad 0) we will go to
the voters united and strong, a mature governing party. Most important of
all, it will give him a free hand to fight for the ideals for which we
stand.
Thank you for the leadership you have shown 0) waging what I
believe was a very important fight for the Constitution. And it goes
without saying that I am personally very grateful as well, to him and to
all of you.
I want to talk to you
nation and our party.
On the
forward a new vision for this
their old slogans -- old wine
major debate on the future of
briefly about the opportunity now before our
edge of the 21st Century, we have put
new era.
Our opponents have offered only
in old bottles. We now have a chance for a
our country. And we are right.
The Democratic Party has helped create a D+new dawn for America.D,
1992, the world had changed, but our government had not -- and our people
were falling behind. We put forward a new vision, based on our oldest
values -- opportunity, responsibility, community -- to renew our economy
and our nation.
It wasnD,t easy. Thanks to the courage of this caucus,
we put in place a new economic plan. And look at the results.
If we had
gone before the American people and said: vote for us, adopt our economic
plan, and you will see: The longest peacetime recovery in history.
P
eacetime unemployment the lowest since 1957. Welfare rolls have cut
nearly in half. And the budget deficit, $290 billion in 1992? Now itO,s
a surplus.
People would have said we were crazy.
In
And we should be proud of how we did it.
We balanced the budget -- but
at the same time we nearly doubled investment in education and training.
We raised the minimum wage and guaranteed family leave.
And now, this
expansion is at long last beginning to lift the hopes of those who have
been left behind. Wages are rising at more than twice the rate of
inflation.
Black and Hispanic unemployment are at the lowest levels ever
measured. Poverty is down.
Because of what you have done, this rising
tide is finally lifting all boats.
Our party should be proud of what we did to bring about these good
times.
But our party and our nation cannot be complacent.
We cannot
rest on old victories. We cannot go to the voters based on what we have
done -- but on what we must do now and in the future.
We have a duty to
see to it that prosperity is widely shared, that our values continue to be
supported in our schools and our communities; that our nation remains
strong.
If we are not willing to do it now, with our economy expanding,
when will we do it?
The contrast between our two parties gave us an historic advance at the
polls in 1998. We were the party of new ideas; they were the party of old
slogans and tired notions that were shopworn in the 1920s. We were the
party of progress; they were the party of partisanship. We were rewarded
because we stood together.
And I believe we are now seen as the party
�ARMS Email System
Page 3 of 4
that stands for the interest of ordinary people D) that stands for getting
things done --that focuses not on the obsessions of Washington but the
challenges facing families in their daily lives.
In 1999 and 2000, the best thing we can do is to continue to
advance our new vision and fight for our values D) to be the party that
unhesitatingly tries to make progress for the people.
We have a lot to
get done. And let me be clear: we will work with Republicans when and if
they are ready to support these key priorities;
First and foremost, to prepare for the 21st Century we must prepare for
the D&senior boom.DB You all heard my proposal for what we should do with
the surplus. We must save Social Security now.
Now, I have put forward
my plan, a plan that was written in close consultation with the leaders of
this caucus.
I am determined to continue to work together. The
Republicans have said they agree to use 62% of the surplus to save Social
Security. We should hold them to it.
Then we must focus on Medicare.
I propose that we use 15% of the surplus
to strengthen Medicare, and extend its life for another 10 years, while we
work on longer term reforms that can improve quality and meet needs such
as prescription drugs. As for the Republicans, if they agree to use 15%
of the surplus for Medicare, then we will be happy to work with them to do
so.
I have proposed that we use 12% of the surplus for tax relief through USA
Accounts -- a universal savings plan in which the government will help the
hardest pressed working people to save.
ThatD,s the right kind of tax
relief -- targeted and responsible, after we save Social Security and
Medicare.
Make no mistake: By standing together last year, we set the terms
of the budget. Now, with huge surpluses and a renewed Republican call for
massive across the board tax cuts, if we stand together again for fiscal
responsibility and the needs of our nation, we can set the agenda again.
Second, we should act boldly on education. Last year, by fighting to
begin hiring 100,000 teachers, and refusing to agree to a budget until
progress was made on education, we won a substantive and a political
victory.
We should press forward.
We should insist that this yearD,s
budget continue to hire teachers.
We should pass the school construction bill that will modernize or
build 5000 schools [Rangel/Lowey]. Now, the Republicans have finally
concluded that itO,s simply not wise to be seen as against school
modernization, and for kids learning in trailers.
So now they say they
have a plan. Our plan will get the resources into the hands of the school
districts that truly need it; theirs will funnel the money to districts
that donD,t. Ours will make sure that the money is actually used for
school construction; theirs doesnD,t.
If the Republicans will work on a
real school modernization bill -- not one that tries to slap a coat of
pain on the problem -- we will work with them.
And if not, we will fight
for what we know our children need.
And we should lead the way to strengthen our public schools. This year,
you will be called upon to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. The federal government already invests $15 billion in K-12
education.
I will send to you what we are calling the Education
�f\RMS Email System
Page 4 of 4
Accountability Act that will seek to dramatically change the way that
those funds are used. No child in America should be passed from grade to
grade if they have not mastered the material, we must end social promotion
-- and we must do it the right way, with after school and summer school to
help all students achieve.
I want to thank Reps. Clay, Lowey, Ford, Lynn
Woolsey in expanding the 21st Century After School program. No child in
America should be trapped in a failing school.
School districts must turn
their failing schools around, or shut them down 0) and we should provide
the help so they can do that.
No child should be taught by an unqualified
teacher. Every parent should have access to information and choice. And
schools must have and enforce discipline codes.
The Republicans have challenged this approach; they say that this
amounts to an intrusive overreach from Washington.
I am eager for a
national debate on education.
If the Republicans are willing to agree to
end social promotion, expand afterschool, turn around failing schools, and
all the other elements of our accountability agenda, we should work with
them.
Third, we must pass a strong and enforceable Patients Bill of
Rights.
[Dingell, Stark, and Sherrod'Brown] Last year the differences
between our Bill of Rights and what I called their Bill of Goods were
plain. Many of you saw the chart that I toted around the country -- and
IO,m ready to do it again. A real Patients Bill of Rights is enforceable,
guarantees continuity of care, the right to see a specialist, emergency
room treatment, and medical records privacy. And it covers many more
people than the Republican alternative.
I want to make bipartisan
progress on this again.
If Republicans want to work with us on a strong
and enforceable Patients Bill of Rights 0) the real deal, not a hollow
promise 0) we will work with them.
I believe there are other important steps to take in health care
0) including the proposal for
a long term care tax credit.
There are other areas in which we have a chance to act and a duty
to lead. We should raise the minimum wage. We should insist on what I
have called the New Markets Initiative to bring private capital into the
inner city, poor rural communities. [Rangel, LaFalce, Velasquez, Clyburn,
Roybal-Allard, and Waters]. We should push for the livability agenda I
outlined in the State of the Union 0) and we are working with the Livable
Communities Task Force. We should press for a strong Crime Bill for the
21st Century.
We should insist that the majority bring the bipartisan
campaign finance reform bill to a vote.
Let me conclude with a word on what our vision must be.
For all the
vicissitudes of the moment, we are politically very well positioned for
the elections in the Year 2000.
I believe we can and will retake the
House and hold the White House 0) and I will do everything I can to make
that happen.
But we should never lose sight of why we are in this
position. It is because we have stood before the public as one Party, a
united party that can govern, focused on the future.
If we keep our eyes
on the 21st Century, we will enter that century victorious.
�ARMS Email System
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 1
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Dawn L. Smalls ( CN=Dawn L. Smalls/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 18:11:21.00
SUBJECT:
Pay Equity Mtg.
TO: Jennifer M. Luray ( CN=Jennifer M. Luray/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Carolyn T. Wu ( CN=Carolyn T. Wu/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Shannon Mason ( CN=Shannon Mason/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: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith ( CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson ( CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/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: Elena Kagan ( CN=ElenaKagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP·[ OPD 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Kevin S. Moran ( CN=Kevin S. Moran/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Sara M. Latham ( CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
John will have a meeting on pay equity with Sen. Harkin and women's groups
on Wednesday, February 10 ~t 11:30am in the Roosevelt Room.
There will be
a pre-brief Tuesday evening time tbd.
pls call me at 6-4514 with any conflicts/questions.
Thanks.
�- "ARMS Email System
Page 1 of 2
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Constance J. Bowers ( CN=Constance J. Bowers/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-FEB-1999 18:17:53.00
SUBJECT:
ESEA Testimony
TO: Tanya E. Martin ( CN=Tanya E. Martin/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan H. Schnur ( CN=Jonathan H. Schnur/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Wayne upshaw ( CN=Wayne Upshaw/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Laura Emmett ( CN=Laura Emmett/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Daniel I. Werfel ( CN=Daniel I. Werfel/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: Leslie S. Mustain ( CN=Leslie S. Mustain/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Here is ED's final version.
please let me know ASAP what you think.
---------------------- Forwarded by Constance J. Bowers/OMB/EOP on
02/08/99 06:16 PM ---------------------------
"Cordes, Bill"
02/08/99 06:12:04 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Constance J. Bowers/OMB/EOP
cc:
Subject: ESEA Testimony
Final version (we hope)
is attached in Word 97 format.
<>
- eseafin.doc
==================== ATTACHMENT
1 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:
0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
�ARMS Email System
Page 2 of 2
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT: [ATTACH.D32]MAIL45896134K.036 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
DOCFIIEOAIBIIAEI000000000000000000000000000000003E0003OOFEFF090006000000000000
000000000004000000C80100000000000000100000FFOOOOOOOIOOOOOOFEFFFFFF000000008201
OOOOCBOIOOOOCCOIOOOOC9010000FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
�Automated Records Management SysteD1
Hex-Dump Conversion
DRAFT TESTIMONY ON ESEA REAUTHORIZATION
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
I appreciate this opportunity to present the Administration's views on the upcoming
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The
Administration is working on a detailed reauthorization proposal that we plan to submit for
your consideration next month. The Department will also soon submit to Congress several
reports evaluating the implementation and impact of Title I, other ESEA programs, and Goals
2000. Today I will provide an overview of our reauthorization efforts, as well as some of our
specific recommendations. If there is one overriding principle that defines what we hope to
accomplish, it is to end the tyranny oflow expectations and raise achievement levels for all of
our young people.
Let me begin by urging the Committee to develop a single, comprehensive bill
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Some have suggested a title-bytitle approach that could lead to several separate bills. This concerns me, because we have
worked very hard with the Congress in recent years to develop a comprehensive approach to
Federal support for education reform. If our efforts are to be successful, it is very important
for all the pieces to fit together, complementing and reinforcing each other to help States,
school districts, and schools to make the changes needed to raise achievement for all students.
This is why the Administration is developing a single, integrated reauthorization proposal,
and I hope you will do the same.
I also want to point out that with the nearly simultaneous reauthorization of the
Department's Office of Educational Research and Improvement, we have a unique
opportunity to develop a comprehensive agenda for independent research to support improved
practices and instruction in elementary and secondary education. We should make every
effort to develop research-based solutions to the many challenges we face in elementary and
secondary education, and to get the best information on what works into the hands of parents,
teachers, principals, and superintendents across the Nation.
BACKGROUND AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
This is, of course, this Administration's second opportunity to work with Congress on
improving the ESEA. The 1994 reauthorization-the Improving America's Schools Acttook direct aim at transforming a Federal role that for too long had condoned low expectations
and low standards for poor children. Along with the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the
1994 reauthorization reflected a bipartisan effort to raise expectations for all children by
helping States and school districts to set high standards and establish goals for improving
student achievement. The 1994 Act included provisions to improve teaching and learning,
increase flexibility and accountability for States and local school districts, strengthen parent
and community involvement, and target resources to the highest poverty schools and
communities.
There is strong evidence that these changes, particularly the emphasis on high
standards, have helped States and school districts carry out the hard work of real education
reform. States that led the way in adopting standards-based reforms-like Kentucky,
�Automated Records Management Systenl
Hex-Dump Conversion
2
Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas-found new support from Federal programs
that helped them to raise reading and math achievement. In other States, the new ESEA and
Goals 2000 encouraged and supported improvements in teaching and learning tied to high
standards. For example, in a very positive report on Goals 2000 by the General Accounting
Office (GAO), we were most pleased that State officials described Goals 2000 as "a
significant factor in promoting their education reform efforts" and a "catalyst" for change.
Signs of Progress
Partly as a result of changes at the Federal level and our new partnerships with the
States, 48 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have developed state-level
standards and two States have pushed for standards at the local level. More importantly, there
are promising signs of real progress toward meeting these higher standards in the classroom.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), for example, has shown
th
significant increases in math scores at the 4 , 8t\ and lih grades (See Chart 1). The National
Education Goals Panel reported that between 1990 and 1996, 27 States significantly increased
the percentage of 8th graders scoring at either the proficient or the advanced level on the
NAEP math test (See Chart 2).
Tomorrow the National Center for Education Statistics will release its national report
card on reading, and I understand we will see some improvement. Making sure that every
child can read well and independently by the end of the third grade is a key benchmark of
whether or not American education is improving. This has been a very high priority for the
Administration and over the past few years a strong, bipartisan consensus has emerged on the
importance of helping all children master this key prerequisite for all further learning. Title I
provides substantial resources to improve reading instruction, and last year, Congress on a
bipartisan basis passed the Reading Excellence Act to strengthen State and local efforts to
improve reading in the early grades. We also now have some 20,000 College Work-Study
students serving as reading tutors.
"Leading-Edge" States
Turning from the national to the State level, individual States have made notable
progress in a very short period oftime (See Chart 3). North Carolina, for example, more than
doubled the percentage of its 8th graders scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on the
NAEP math test, from 9 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 1996. In Texas, the percentage of
4th grade students reaching the NAEP proficient or advanced levels rose from 15 percent in
1992 to 25 percent in 1996.
The National Education Goals Panel issued a report authored by the Rand Corporation
that examined experience ofthese two States. This report found that the "most plausible
explanation" for the test-score gains was an "organizational environment and incentive
structure" based on standards-based reform, defined as "an aligned system of standards,
curriculum, and assessments; holding schools accountable for improvement by all students;
and critical support from business." This report also goes on to tell us that the willingness of
political leaders to stay the course and continue the reform agenda, despite "changes of
Governors and among legislators," is another key element that has defined the success of
these two leading States.
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
3
Many states are not yet implementing proven practices that are working in some of
this Nation's "leading-edge" States. According to recent special report on accountability in
Education Week, 36 states issue school report cards, 14 do not, and fewer than half of the
parents in States that do issue report cards are aware of their existence. The report also tells
us that only 19 States provide assistance to low performing schools, and only 16 States have
the authority to reconstitute or close down failing schools. Only about half the States require
students to demonstrate that they have met standards in order to graduate, and too many still
promote students who are unprepared from grade to grade. So we have work to do.
New Flexibility at the Federal Level
The 1994 reauthorization also brought real change to the way we do business at the
Department of Education. We made a very determined effort to give States and school
districts greater flexibility to make innovations that help all students reach high standards.
Our regulatory reform effort, for example, systematically examined every Department
regulation and set very specific criteria for regulating only when absolutely necessary. The
Office of Management and Budget and other Federal agencies have since adopted this
approach as a model. Under our new regulatory criteria, we found that we needed to issue
regulations for only five of the programs included in the 1994 ESEA reauthorization; thus we
eliminated a full two-thirds of the regulations previously covering the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
Another major improvement was to give States the option of submitting a single,
consolidated State application, instead of separate applications, for the majority of ESEA
programs. Not surprisingly, every State but one has adopted this approach, which both
reduces paperwork and encourages a comprehensive approach to planning for the use of
Federal funds. Moreover, States now submit their single plan just once during the life of the
authorization cycle, with brief yearly updates to ensure accountability. States reported in
fiscal year 1996 that the consolidated application slashed paperwork requirements by
85 percent.
In addition, the Department has vigorously implemented the waiver provisions
included in the 1994 reauthorization, which permit States, school districts, and schools to
request waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements that present an obstacle to innovative
reform efforts ifthere are adequate accountability safeguards in place. Our efforts included a
Waiver Hot Line as well as comprehensive waiver guidance at our site on the World Wide
Web.
Since the reauthorization of ESEA in 1994, the Department has received 648 requests
for waivers from States and local districts and granted a total of 357 waivers. Overall, the
Department has approved 55 percent and disapproved 8 percent of all waivers requested. Of
the remainder, 28 percent were withdrawn largely because districts learned that they had
sufficient latitude or flexibility under existing law to proceed without a waiver, demonstrating
that the ESEA is more flexible than many people thought even without the waiver authority.
�Auiomaied Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
4
ED-FLEX
Another approach to flexibility is the ED-FLEX demonstration program, which allows
the Department to give States with strong accountability mechanisms the authority to approve
waivers of certain Federal statutory and regulatory requirements that stand in the way of
effective reform at the local level. Congress has authorized up to 12 States to participate in
ED-FLEX.
We are proposing to expand ED-FLEX to allow all eligible States to participate. I
believe such an expansion should be considered, not as a free-standing bill, but in the context
of reauthorization, our emphasis on accountability for results, and other programmatic issues.
ED-FLEX can be an important tool for accelerating the pace of real reform in our schools, but
it must be done thoughtfully.
One final issue I want to touch on is the Department's performance in getting Federal
education dollars to the local level, where they can do the most good. There have been a
number of "dollars to the classroom" proposals over the past two years based on the
assumption that the Department of Education retains a significant portion of Federal
elementary and secondary appropriations to pay for administrative costs.
The truth is that over 95 percent of all the dollars appropriated by Congress for ESEA
programs already go to local school districts. Almost all ofthe rest goes to States to provide
technical assistance, to support the use of standards and assessments, and to provide
oversight. If the "95 percent" figure sounds familiar, it is because some of those proposals I
mentioned promise to send 95 percent of Federal dollars to the classroom.
I recognize that some may argue about whether the "local level" is the same as "the
classroom." My view is that once the funds reach the local level, it is up to local elected
school boards to decide how best to spend them to achieve the purposes of the programs
enacted by the Congress. We in Washington should not attempt to bypass local school boards
and deny them their lawful responsibility to determine how to meet the educational needs of
their students.
I believe that these accomplishments-widespread adoption of challenging standards,
promising achievement gains nationally and even more improvement in "leading-edge"
States, and new flexibility for States and school districts-show that we were on the right
track in 1994. The evidence demonstrates a clear connection between raising standards and
raising student achievement. The record also shows, however, that many States and districts
are still phasing in the 1994 reforms. Taken as a whole, this experience provides a
compelling argument for the Administration and Congress to keep working together to help
States and school districts get high standards into the classroom, and to push for improved
incentives and strengthened accountability mechanisms to ensure that these reforms take hold.
�AUlomated Records Management System.
Hex-Dump Conversion
5
THE NEXT STAGE: RAISING ACHIEVEMENT IN
OUR SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS
Let me layout for you the broader context for our ESEA reauthorization proposals. In
1994, we broke sharply with the past and made a significant policy shift in putting an end to
the practice of giving students a watered-down curriculum. I strongly believe that the tyranny
of low expectations-and it is tyranny-has been one of the great flaws of American
education. We vigorously oppose the idea of "dumbing down" American education. Instead
of "dumbing down," we want to "achieve up."
To support this effort we have developed a comprehensive, three-part strategy of
(1) targeting investments to disadvantaged children, with particular attention to the early years
of schooling; (2) improving teacher quality, and (3) real accountability. All these pieces need
to fit together if we want to raise achievement levels.
First, our investments in the Title I, the Class-Size Reduction program, the Reading
Excellence Act, education technology, and after-school programs-to name just a few-are
all part of our effort to get communities and their teachers and principals the resources they
need to raise achievement for all students. We have put a real emphasis on the early years of
schooling because research and common sense tells you that if a young person can "master
the basics" early, they get offto a much better start in their education.
We want to improve academic achievement for all students, with a special emphasis
on closing the gap upward between poor and minority students and other students. This is
why, for example, we are such strong supporters of reducing class size in the early grades.
Research from the Tennessee STAR study demonstrated that reducing class sizes in the early
grades led to higher achievement for all students, with poor and minority students showing the
greatest gains.
Second, we think it is absolutely essential to put a highly qualified, dedicated teacher
in every classroom in America. John Stanford, the inspiring former superintendent from
Seattle who recently passed away, had this marvelous slogan that summed up his philosophy:
"the victory is in the classroom." If we are going to achieve many more victories in the
classroom, we simply have to raise teacher quality and get many more certified teachers into
our Title I schools. This is why we asked the Congress to fund a strong teacher quality
iriitiative in reauthorizing the Higher Education Act last year. Our intent here is to make high
standards part of every teacher's daily lesson plans. I will discuss this part of our proposal in
greater detail later on in my testimony.
Strengthening Accountability
Stronger accountability is the third part of our broad strategy of improvement. We
believe that effective accountability measures-what business leaders call quality control
measures-can make sure that our investments are used wisely and actually produce the
desired results.
Much of our thinking about accountability has been informed by successful
accountability initiatives at the local and State levels. The most thoughtful education leaders
�Records Management Sysiem
Jlex-Dump Conversion
/',utolllatcd
6
at the State and local level are doing what we are proposing: they are ending social
promotion, requiring school report cards, identifying low performing schools, improving
discipline in schools and classrooms, and putting in place measurable ways to make change
happen, such as basic skills exams at different grade levels. They are striking a careful
balance between giving schools the increased support and flexibility they need to raise
achievement levels and, at the same time, holding schools accountable when they do not
measure up to clearly established goals. We are trying to strike that same balance in our
reauthorization proposals.
Our emphasis on accountability in ESEA, and in particular in Title I, seeks to build on,
support, and encourage these growing State imd local efforts to pick up the pace of standardsbased reform. Here it is important to recognize that we are not talking about more
regulations. We want better results. There is both a moral and a fiscal dimension to being
more accountable. We cannot afford to lose the talents of one child, and we cannot waste the
substantial resources entrusted to us by American taxpayers ..
The "either or" thinking that has dominated the public debate to date about our
accountability proposals-more Federal control versus less local control-really misses the
point entirely about what we seek to achieve. If a State is putting its own accountability
measures into place, we are not demanding that they replace their measures with our
measures. If a State does not have such requirements in place, then it makes a good deal of
sense for them to adopt our proposals. We expect States to do this because it is good
education policy and the right thing to do for the children.
Our approach to increased accountability is one of graduated response, a range of
options-some positive and others more prescriptive-that can help break the mold and get
low-performing schools moving in a more positive direction. On the positive side of the
continuum, you give school districts the flexibility they need if you see that they are making
progress. If a school or a school district simply isn't making things happen, we want to shake
things up and work with State and local officials to find out why. The local school district,
for example, may not be giving teachers the real professional development time they need.
If a school district is refusing to change despite a continuing failure to raise
achievement levels, we are prepared, for example, to be much more specific about how it uses
Title I funding. We do not intend to be passive in the face of failure. We will help, nudge,
prod, and demand action. And, if we have to, we are prepared to restrict or withhold ESEA
funding.
We recognize that a complete accountability system should be multi-dimensional and
include high expectations and accountability for everyone in the system. All of us are
responsible for ensuring that all students reach high standards. The accountability measures
in our reauthorization proposal will be designed to (1) help school districts and states provide
students with a high-quality education, (2) focus on continuous improvement, and (3) hold
students, teachers, principals, schools, and districts to high standards.
It is important to note that our proposed accountability measures reinforce and build
on similar provisions approved in 1994. For example, the underlying structure ofthe Title I
accountability provisions is sound, and a minority of States are hard at work emphasizing
�l.ll/nrlla!c:d Records Mltllagcm~nl ~yslcmi
I :t:d)lImp Conversion
7
continuous improvement and holding schools and principals accountable for results. Many
States, however, have not fully implemented the Title I provisions and have moved only
tentatively to make other changes based on high standards and accountability.
We seek to speed up and strengthen the process by requiring States to take immediate
action to tum around low-performing schools, to give parents annual report cards, to end
social promotion, to improve teacher quality, and to have well-thought-out discipline policies
in place that make a difference.
Meeting State Standards
First, we would retain the current Title I requirement that States establish assessments
aligned with State content and performance standards by the 2000-2001 school year. States
must also define adequate yearly progress for Title I schools and local school districts in a
manner that would result in continuous progress toward meeting State standards within a
reasonable time frame.
Turning Around the Lowest Performing Schools
Second, States should take immediate corrective action to tum around the lowest
performing schools. Currently, there are over 6,500 schools and 1,300 school districts
designated under Title I as needing improvement. These schools and districts were placed in
school-improvement status after making little or no improvement over a period of two years.
Many of these schools are still showing no improvement despite receiving additional support.
Weare saying our children have spent enough time in low-performing schools-it is time to
take action now.
States should quickly identify the lowest performing schools that are failing to show
improvement and provide additional support and assistance. If any school continues to show
no improvement, States should take bold action such as reconstituting the school or closing
the school down entirely and reopening it as a fresh new school. The Department's 2000
budget request includes a $200 million set-aside in Title I to help jumpstart this process of
State and district intervention in the lowest performing schools.
Annual Report Cards
Third, annual report cards at the State, district, and school levels should be a
requirement for receiving ESEA funds. The report cards should provide invaluable
information on improvement over time or the lack thereof. They should include information
on student achievement, teacher quality, class size, school safety, attendance, and graduation
requirements. Where appropriate, the student achievement data should be disaggregated by
demographic subgroups to allow a greater focus on the gaps between disadvantaged students
and other students.
For report cards to make sense they need to be easily understood by and widely
distributed to parents and the public.· As I indicated earlier, while 36 States already require
report cards, many parents and teachers from these States say that they have never seen them.
Our proposal is intended to give parents a tool they can use to join the debate over bringing
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
8
high standards into the classroom, to advocate on behalf of their children and their children's
schools, and to work with teachers and principals to make improvements.
I assure you, if parents find out that their children are going to an unruly or unsafe
school, there will be standing-room only at the next school board meeting and that can be a
very good thing. Ifparents discover that test scores are down at their school but up at a
nearby school, they will start asking questions and spark reform. In short, a good, honest
report card gives parents a real accountability tool that allows them to make a difference in
the education of their children.
Separately, we have proposed an additional test that can help parents determine if their
children are measuring up: the voluntary national tests in 4th grade reading and 81h grade
math. The independent, bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) is
developing a plan for this test, in accordance with language in the Fiscal Year 1999
Appropriations Act. I ask the Committee to join me in looking carefully at this plan when
NAGB announces it later in the spring.
Ending Social Promotion
Fourth, all States receiving ESEA funds should end the practice of social promotion. I
want to be clear that we are against both a policy of social promotion and a policy of retaining
students in grade. Weare for a policy of preparing children to achieve to high standards.
That is why we have pushed so hard for programs like Class Size Reduction, the Reading
Excellence Act, and the 21 sl Century Community Learning Centers after-school initiative,
which invest in the early years and help to minimize the number of children at risk of
retention in grade.
Research indicates that from 10 to 15 percent of young adults who graduate from high
school and have not gone further-up to 340,000 students each year-cannot balance a
checkbook or write a letter to a credit card company to explain an error on a bill. In addition,
about 450,000 to 500,000 young people drop out of high school between the 10lh and 121h
grades. Thesc are the young people who are hurt by both social promotion and retention. We
need to make sure these students are given the support they need to succeed.
The President's call for an end to social promotion is designed to tell students that
"performance counts," and to encourage districts and schools to take aggressive action to help
all students meet promotion standards on time. States should target their efforts at key
transition points, such as 4th, 8th, and 10th grades, and should use multiple measures, such as
valid assessments and teacher evaluations, to determine if students have met the high
standards required for promotion to the next grade. States would develop their own specific
approaches to match their unique circumstances.
Strategies to end social promotion include early identification and intervention for
students who need additional help--including appropriate accommodations and supports for
students with disabilities. After-school and summer-school programs, for example, can
provide extended learning time for students who need extra help to keep them from having to
repeat an entire grade.
�Records Management Systellll
1lex-Dump Conversion
AU{(,111atcd
9
Ensuring Teacher Quality
Fifth, we would encourage States and school districts to do more to ensure teacher
quality. Less than two weeks ago, we released our first biannual report on Teacher Quality.
In developing this report, we are making a statement that we are going to keep coming back to
the issue of teacher quality again and again. The first report told us that less than half of
America's teachers feel very well-prepared to teach in the modem classroom. Teachers cited
four areas of concern: using technology, teaching children from diverse cultures, teaching
children with disabilities, and helping LEP students (See Chart 4). This study really is a cry
for help and we need to respond.
I know the Members of this Committee share our concern about teacher quality, and
we want to work with you to address that concern. Research shows that qualified teachers are
the most important in-school factor in improving student achievement, yet more than
30 percent of newly hired teachers are entering the teaching profession without full
certification, and over 11 percent enter the field with no license at all.
Our ability to raise academic standards also is hindered by teachers teaching "out of
field." Overall, nearly 28 percent of teachers have neither an undergraduate major nor minor
in their main assignment fields. Another significant concern is the practice of using teacher
aides as substitutes for full-time instructors. All ofthese individuals are trying to do their
best, but where they are being asked to take the place of a teacher we are shortchanging our
students.
High-poverty urban schools are most likely to suffer from unqualified teachers. Even
when urban districts succeed in hiring qualified'teachers, attrition rates during the first five
years often reach 50 percent. Partly as a result of d~fficulties in recruiting and retaining
teachers, Title I schools are hiring teacher aides at twice the rate of certified teachers, and an
increasing number of aides are providing direct instruction without a teacher's supervision.
Our ESEA reauthorization proposal would begin to address these problems by asking
States to adopt challenging competency examinations for all new teachers that would include
assessments of subject-matter knowledge and teaching skills. We would also work to phase
out the use of teacher aides as instructors in Title I schools, but at the same time encourage
paraprofessionals to become certified teachers by supporting State and local efforts to build
career ladders leading to certification. Our proposal will urge States to make significant
progress in reducing both the number of teachers with emergency certificates and the number
of teachers teaching subjects for which they lack adequate preparation.
The issue of improving teacher quality is also of great importance to all of us who
want to improve the education of children with disabilities. The ESEA is meant to serve all
children and there are growing numbers of children with disabilities who have been
successfully mainstreamed into regular classrooms. The ESEA and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act can work together to make a real difference for many more of these
children. The Teacher Quality report told us that the majority of our teachers do not feel as
well-prepared as they should to teach children with disabilities. We want to work very hard to
make sure that all teachers have the skills and the tools they need to teach these children to
high standards.
�Automated Reeords Management System
TIex-Dump Conversion
10
We made a good start in improving teacher quality last year when Congress passedwith strong bipartisan support-the new teacher recruitment and training programs in Title II
of the reauthorized Higher Education Act. Our ESEA reauthorization plan would build on
this success by providing resources to help States strengthen teacher-certification standards.
It also will include-in the new Teacher Quality and High Standards in Every Classroom
initiative-increased investment in the high-quality professional development that teachers
tell us they need to help all students meet challenging new State standards.
TITLE I
I have described some of the key, crosscutting measures for getting high standards into
all classrooms. Now I would like to outline some program~specific issues and
recommendations, beginning with Title I, which is the largest Federal investment in
elementary and secondary education. This $7.7 billion program reaches more than 45,000
schools in over 13,000 school districts. With the expansion of schoolwide projects following
the last reauthorization, the program now serves over II million students. In the 1996-97
school year, 36 percent of the children served were white, 30 percent were Hispanic, and
28 percent were African-American. Seventeen percent of the children served were limited
English proficient.
Historically, Title I has been the single largest source of federal funding targeted to
raising the achievement levels of students in high-poverty schools and helping to close the
achievement gap between these children and their more advantaged peers. The 1994
reauthorization focused on helping children in high poverty schools reach the same high
standards expected of all students. In particular, States were required to develop content and
performance standards in reading and math, with aligned assessments to measure student
progress toward meeting the standards.
The 1994 Act also improved targeting of resources, expanded the schoolwide
approach, and strengthened parental involvement. With regard to targeting, the GAO recently
reported that Federal programs are much more targeted than State programs. On average, for
every $1 a State provided in education aid for each student in a district, the State provided an
additional $0.62 per poor student. In contrast, for every $1 of Federal funding districts
received for each student, they received an additional $4.73 in Federal funding per poor
student. We believe targeting works, and we recommend leaving in place the Title I
allocation formula adopted by the Congress in 1994.
The 1994 Act expanded school wide programs by permitting schools with poor
children making up at least 50 percent of their enrollment to use Title I funds in combination
with other Federal, State, and local funds to upgrade the instructional program of the entire
school. Since 1995, the number of schools implementing schoolwide programs has more than
tripled, from about 5,000 to approximately 16,000. Our reauthorization proposal would
maintain the 50-percent threshold for schoolwide programs.
Parents of Title I children are now more fully involved in their children's education
through the use of parent compacts called for in the 1994 Act. I want to stress that getting
parents involved in the process of school reform is often the spark that makes the difference.
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
11
I have been a strong advocate of increased parental involvement in education for many years
and there is a good reason for it. Parents are children's first teachers and they set the
expectations that tell children how hard they should strive to achieve. And teachers tell us
again and again that parents are too often the missing part of the education success equation.
If you look at the attached chart entitled "Making the Grade," you will see why we are
placing such a strong emphasis on developing compacts between parents and schools for our
Title I children (See Chart 5). Four years ago, we created the Partnership for Family
Involvement in Education with 40 organizations. This Partnership has since grown to 4,700
organizations and it continues to grow quite rapidly. To give you one example of its
activities, last month the Partnership sent out a detailed guide of best practices on how
teachers can work better with parents.
Progress Since the 1994 Reauthorization
Current information on Title I indicates progress on several fronts. Title I has
contributed to the rapid development of challenging State standards that apply to all students
in Title I schools. Teachers in Title I schools are increasingly reporting that standards are
helping to guide instruction. Moreover, preliminary data gathered for this reauthorization
from States that have implemented the Title I standards and assessment provisions generally
show increased achievement levels in high-poverty schools. For the 1997-98 school year,
seven of the 10 States with standards and aligned assessments in place for two years report
increasing percentages of students meeting proficient and advanced performance standards in
schools with poverty rates of at least 50 percent. These Statt;-level data are particularly
encouraging since final assessments are not required to be in place until school year 20002001. This and other information, including data indicating that Title I is driving higher
standards to poor districts and schools, will be discussed in greater detail in the
Congressionally mandated National Assessment of Title I scheduled for release in late
February.
Despite these initial signs of progress, I would be the first to admit that we are not
anywhere near where we need to be in turning around the thousands of low-performing highpoverty schools that are served by Title I. This is why the President is so strong for improved
teacher quality and increased accountability. We know that many States, districts, and
schools are not making as much progress as we had hoped. However, we did not expect to
tum around the long, sorry history of setting low expectations for our Nation's poorest
children in just four years. I believe we are now on the right course in aligning Title I with
the best efforts of State and local school systems. We simply need to stay the course in fitting
all the pieces together to raise achievement levels.
Finally, in looking at the impact of Title I, we should keep in mind that despite its size
and prominence at the Federal level, it represents about three percent of national spending on
elementary and secondary education. Title I is effective only when it works in partnership
with much larger State and local resources. Nevertheless, Title I can and should do more to
assist State and local efforts to raise the educational achievement level of poor and minority
children, and this is what we are trying to achieve through our reauthorization proposals.
�/lmomate:! Records Management SysfemC
Tlcx-Dump ConvCl'£ion
12
Proposed Changes to Title I
Building on what we have learned since 1994, our reauthorization proposal would
continue to hold at-risk children in high-poverty schools to the same high standards expected
of all children and link Title I to State and local reforms based on high standards. We also
would continue targeting resources to areas of greatest need, supporting flexibility at the local
level to determine instructional practices, and encouraging more effective implementation of
school wide programs.
Title I schools would of course be subject to the accountability provisions that we
would apply to all ESEA programs. Specific improvements to Title I would include targeting
additional resources to help the lowest achieving schools, phasing in a set-aside for
professional development aligned to standards, and phasing out the use of teacher aides as
instructors in Title I schools. We also would strengthen the schoolwide authority by
borrowing some of the successful features of the Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration program, such as basing reforms on solid research about what works. And in
• response to a key recommendation of the reading study conducted by the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS), we are proposing the use of diagnostic assessments in the first grade to
ensure the early identification of children with reading difficulties.
Separately, we support the continuation of the Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration program, which we believe is generating some good models for improving the
effectiveness of the broader Title I program and for strengthening both Title I and non-Title I
schools.
The Department also is considering proposals to promote high quality professional
development for early childhood educators and others to help children better develop
language and literacy skills in the early years. The NAS's reading study presented strong
evidence that children who receive enrichment services focused on language and cognitive
development in early childhood show significantly higher reading achievement in the later
elementary and middle school years. We believe that professional development based on
recent research on child language and literacy development-including strategies that could
be shared with parents-could make a significant contribution toward the goal of ensuring
that every child can read well by the end of the third grade. Our proposal would target those
children most at risk of experiencing difficulty in learning to read by working with early
childhood educators in Head Start and Title I pre-K programs.
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
13
QUALITY TEACHERS AND HIGH STANDARDS
IN EVERY CLASSROOM
While every State has developed high standards, States and districts now need
significant support to continue the hard work of turning these high expectations into
classroom realities. This is why we are proposing a new initiative called Quality Teachers
and High Standards in Every Classroom. This initiative would help States and school districts
continue the work of aligning instruction with State standards and assessments, while
focusing most resources on improving teacher quality through high-quality professional
development. Our proposal would build on and succeed the current Goals 2000, Title II, and
Title VI programs.
The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that the biggest
impediment to improving teaching was the lack of access to the kinds of knowledge and skills
teachers need to help students succeed. We know from the Commission's report that most
school districts do not direct their professional development funds in a coherent way toward
sustained, standards-based, practical, and useful learning opportunities for teachers. We need
to provide teachers with opportunities to change instructional practices in order to ensure that
all children are taught to high standards.
Just as we have real concerns about improving teacher quality, we need to recognize
the growing shortage of qualified principals. I was struck by a statistic in a recent article in
The Washington Post, which indicated that about 50 percent of all schools face a shortage of
qualified principal candidates. That is a very heavy statistic.
Unfortunately, we have not done enough to support the professional growth of
teachers and principals. Currently, most school districts spend less than three percent of their
budgets on professional development, while our best private companies spend as much as 10
percent to ensure that their employees have quality training and keep current in their work. If
we expect the best from our students, we need to ensure that we are giving our teachers the
best support possible. And, we know it works. In New York City's District 2, former
Superintendent Tony Alvarado made major investments in professional developmentinvestments that paid off in marked improvement in student achievement.
The 1994 reauthorization included a greater focus on research-based principles of
professional development in the Eisenhower Professional Development program. Despite this
emphasis, recent evaluations of the Eisenhower professional development program found that
most districts did not receive enough funding to support the kind of on-going, intensive
professional development that works best to improve teaching skills.
As we move into the next phase of getting high standards into schools and classrooms,
we must give States and districts the flexibility they need to strengthen their local efforts to
implement standards and to improve teacher quality. States could use these funds to continue
the development of standards and assessments and provide leadership to districts working to
align instruction with these standards and assessments and to improve professional
development for teachers. School districts would use their funds to implement standards in
schools and to invest in professional development in core subject areas, with a priority on
science and mathematics.
�Automated Records Management System
Jrex-Dump Conversion
14
States and districts would also be able to use these funds to meet new ESEA teacher
quality requirements related to the implementation and improvement of competency-based
assessments for initial licensure, the reduction of the number of teachers on emergency
credentials, and the reduction of the number of teachers teaching out of field.
Funds would be used to advance teacher understanding and use of best instructional
practices in one or more of the core academic content areas, with a primary focus on math and
science. The initiative also is designed to complement the strong emphasis on professional
development throughout our ESEA reauthorization proposal, including Title I, the Reading
Excellence Act, and Title VII.
We would support activities to assist new teachers during their first three years in
classroom, including additional time for course preparation and lesson planning, mentoring
and coaching by trained mentor teachers, observing and consulting with veteran teachers, and
team-teaching with veteran teachers.
Veteran teachers would be encouraged to participate in collaborative professional
development based on the standards developed by the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards. The initiative also would support district-wide professional development
plans designed to help students meet State academic standards, the integration of educational
technology into classroom practice, and efforts to develop the next generation of principals.
SAFE, DISCIPLINED, AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS
The Administration's plans for reauthorizing the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
'Communities Act have actually taken shape over the past few years in our annual budget
requests. These proposals have been designed to strengthen the program by improving
accountability and by targeting funds to local educational agencies with (1) significant drug
and violence prevention problems and (2) high-quality, research-based programs to address
those problems.
Our reauthorization proposal would build on these earlier efforts by emphasizing a
schoolwide approach to drug and violence prevention. All school districts receiving funds
would be required to develop a comprehensive Safe and Drug-Free Schools plan to ensure
that they have a drug-free, safe, and disciplined learning environment. These plans would
have to reflect the "principles of effectiveness" that the Department recently established,
which include the adoption of research-based strategies, setting measurable goals and
objectives for drug and violence prevention, and regular evaluation of progress toward these
goals and objectives.
Program funds would be distributed in larger, more effective grants, because our
proposal would require States to award competitive grants to a limited number of high-need
districts. Program evaluations have consistently found that the current practice of allocating
funds by formula to all districts spreads funds too thinly to have a significant impact in most
districts. For example, about three-fifths of districts currently receive grants ofless than
$10,000, with the average grant providing only about $5 per student.
�Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conv(.'fSion
15
Our reauthorization plan also would continue the Safe SchoolslHealthy Students
program, an interagency initiative that provides competitive grants to help school districts and
communities to develop and implement comprehensive, community-wide strategies for
creating safe and drug-free schools and for promoting healthy childhood development.
Similarly, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator Initiative would be continued under
our proposal.
We also will propose to authorize the Department to provide emergency servicesespecially mental health and counseling services-to schools affected by the kind of violence
or severe trauma we saw last year in Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oregon, and
Pennsylvania. This is the $12 million Project SERV (School Emergency Response to
Violence) initiative included in the President's 2000 budget request. Our reauthorization plan
also would set aside a small amount of funding at the State level to support similar emergency
response activities.
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Since the creation of Title III in the last ESEA reauthorization, the Federal
government has helped States and school districts make significant progress in bringing
technology into the classroom and making sure that teachers are prepared to effectively
integrate technology throughout the curriculum.
With the support of Congress, the Department has delivered over $1 billion to States
through the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. This investment is helping to increase the
number of classrooms connected to the Internet-just 27 percent in 1997-and has helped
decrease the student-computer ratio from 38 students per multimedia computer to 13 students
per multimedia computer.
By early March, $1.9 billion dollars in E-Rate discounts will be provided to the
Nation's schools and libraries. This means that over the summer, the number of poor schools
that are connected to the Internet will rise dramatically. These discounts will also provide
affordable access to advanced telecommunications and ensure that all of our schools are
active participants in the technological revolution.
To reduce the "digital divide" that could widen the achievement gap between
disadvantaged students and their wealthier peers, we propose to strengthen the targeting
provisions of the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. Just 63 percent of high-poverty
schools had connections to the Intemet in 1998, compared to 88 percent oflow-poverty
schools. The disparity is even greater at the classroom level, with only 14 percent of
classrooms connected to the Internet in high-poverty schools, compared to 34 percent of
classrooms in low-poverty schools.
Federal dollars are helping to narrow this digital divide. High-poverty schools
received over two-and-one-halftimes more new computers than their low-poverty
counterparts in recent years. We will make a special effort to address the needs of rural
America, where technologies like distance learning can make a real difference, and to
coordinate ESEA technology programs with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
�Automated RCC{)]'(ls Il'frtllagclllcnl SS's[chf
Hex· Dump Convcrsion
16
Technology Development Program, which expands access to innovations in technology to
students with disabilities.
Helping teachers integrate technology into their daily lesson plans will be another
special focus. Currently, only 20 percent of our teachers feel qualified to integrate technology
throughout the curriculum. The reauthorization proposal for Title III will focus on supporting
State and local efforts to improve teacher quality, with a priority for developing partnerships
between local school districts, institutes of higher education, and other entities.
We also want to strengthen our evaluation efforts to find proven and promising models
of how technology is improving achievement that we can bring to scale.
SUPPORTING STUDENTS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
Students with limited English proficiency (LEP) are the fastest growing population
served by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. According to State educational
agency data, the number of LEP students grew 67 percent between the 1990-91 and 1996-97
academic years.
Growing numbers ofLEP students are in States and communities that have little prior
experience in serving them. For example, between the 1992-93 and 1996-97 school years, the
LEP population more than doubled in Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada,
North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
The President's goal is to hold schools accountable for ensuring that LEP students can
speak and read English after three consecutive years in our schools. We are equally
committed to ensuring that LEP students reach challenging academic standards in all content
areas. We also want to assure that States and school districts have the flexibility they need to
provide the most appropriate instruction for each child.
I told you earlier that we cannot afford to waste the talents of one child. One of
America's greatest strengths has always been her diversity of peoples. Today, immigrants
and their children are revitalizing our cities, energizing our culture, and building up our
economy. We have a responsibility to make them welcome here and to help them to enter the
mainstream of American life.
Our reauthorization proposal for the Title VII bilingual education provisions seeks to
achieve these goals by emphasizing the same two key strategies we are pursuing throughout
the ESEA: improving teacher quality and strengthening accountability.
To increase teacher quality, for example, all institutions of higher education applying
for Title VII grants would be required to show that their teacher education programs include
preparation for all teachers serving LEP students.
To strengthen accountability, we would require both Title VII grantees and Title I
schools to annually assess the progress of LEP students in attaining English proficiency.
These assessments will be used to inform parents oftheir children's progress and to help
schools improve instruction.
�/,uiomatcd Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion.
17
LEP students who have been in U.S. schools for less than three years would continue
to be included in the Title I assessment system, but after three years reading assessments
would be conducted in English. Schools and districts would be held responsible, as part of
the larger ESEA accountability provisions, for ensuring that LEP students reach the three-year
English language proficiency goal.
I also believe that America's children need to become much more fluent in other
languages. We are very far behind other nations when it comes to giving our students a
mastery of other languages. There are teenagers in Europe who can easily speak three
languages. I am certain we can do a much better job at giving our students both a mastery of
English and fluency in at least one foreign language. There are currently over 200 two-way
bilingual education programs that teach English and a foreign language and allow all students
to truly develop proficiency in both languages.
EXCELLENCE AND OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC EDUCATION
As I travel around the country visiting schools, I continue to see the spark of
innovation and creativity in many public schools. Public education is changing quite rapidly
at the ground level and offering parents many more options in the terms of the type of schools
their children can attend and the courses they can take.
This Administration is a strong advocate of public school choice as a way to
encourage' and stimulate the creative efforts of school districts to give parents the opportunity
to find a school that best fits the needs of their children. Some discussions about choice .
suggest that there is choice only outside of public education. Well, that is an assumption that
I want to challenge because it really has no basis in fact.
You can go to school district after school district and find schools-within-schools,
magnet schools, school-to-work initiatives, high schools collaborating with local colleges, and
option and theme schools that focus in on specialized fields like the environment, the visual
and performing arts, comm~nications and techriology, back-to-basics, classical studies,
marine science, accelerated learning, the international baccalaureate, and career-related areas
like finance and medical sciences.
There is a great deal of variety in public education at the local level, from alternative
schools to community-based learning efforts, to schools-without-walls, to public schools that
focus in on the core knowledge approach to education. There are public school districts like
Seattle that have a completely open choice model and many other school districts that offer
intra-district choice, inter-district choice, and controlled choice. Critics of public education
would do well to recognize that many public school districts are far more in touch with
parents than they think and are giving parents the choices they seek.
I want to stress that one of the most important choices that parents can make about a
child's education is the choice of subjects and not schools. We have a growing body of
research showing that courses students choose in middle and high school are powerful
predictors of success-from mastery of high-level math to gaining entrance to top colleges
and universities. The best schools in America-whether they are public, private or
�IA
1H1!011iRted Records 11"
.
Janagcmcnt Systcm
Hex-Dump Conversion
18
parochial-all share something in common: they place a strong emphasis on a rigorous and
engaging academic program. This is what makes these schools distinctive, and it is what
makes them work.
That is why President Clinton has spent six years advocating the idea that by raising
standards, exciting families about their children's education, and putting quality teachers into
every classroom, we can raise achievement for many, many more of our students-and
indeed, someday soon, hopefully all of our students. That is the best public policy for us to
support. Private school voucher programs affect only a small number of students, divert us
from our goal of high standards for all children, and take scarce resources from the public
schools that serve around 90 percent of America's children.
While the Clinton Administration strongly opposes efforts to divert public funds to
private schools through vouchers or similar proposals, we want to encourage the development
of new choices within the public school system. This is why we worked very closely with
Congress to reauthorize the Charter School legislation that fosters creativity with
accountability. This year we are considering a new choice authority that would help us
identify and support new approaches to public school choice and promote a new, broader
version of choice that works within all public schools.
Weare interested in promoting public school choice programs in which the schools
and programs are public and accountable for results, are genuinely open and accessible to all
students, and promote high standards for all students. There are many successful public
schools that can provide models for improving low-performing schools, and one of our goals
must be to find ways to help States and local school districts to replicate these successful
models by leveraging "what works" for our children's education.
MODERNIZING SCHOOLS FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
An additional priority for the Administration is to help communities build and
renovate the school buildings they will need to help all students reach challenging standards.
The General Accounting Office has reported that States and school districts face over
$112 billion in repairs to existing schools. In addition, many schools face severe
overcrowding as a result of the "baby boom echo."
The Administration is proposing $25 billion in authority for interest-free bonds to
finance the construction or renovation of up to 6,000 schools. This proposal will be included
as part ofthe President's tax legislation. In addition, through the reauthorized ESEA, we
would make grants to involve citizens in designing schools that reflect the needs of the entire
community. The President's 2000 budget would provide $10 million for these grants under
the Fund for the Improvement of Education.
�AUt01-"!':l T'. .. vrds ,\ianagcment System
IIcx-Dump Conversion
19
CONCLUSION
These are just the highlights of a comprehensive reauthorization proposal that will
span a dozen or so titles affecting nearly every area of Federal support for the Nation's
elementary and secondary schools. I encourage you to give careful consideration to our full
proposal when it is completed next month, and I look forward to discussing the specific
details of our plan as your work on your legislation.
The framework for all of our thinking is the clear recognition that the days of
"dumbing down" American education are over. We want to "achieve up" and raise
expectations for all of our young people. As I have said so many times before, our children
are smarter than we think. We can and surely will debate the merits ofthe policy ideas that
we are putting forward today and that is healthy. Let us find common ground, however,
around the idea that we have both a moral and social obligation to give the poorest of our
young people the help they need to get a leg-up in life and be part of the American success
story.
As I travel around the country visiting schools, I really do get a sense that things are
happening, that a very strong consensus has developed about what needs to be done to
improve our schools. All the elements are coming together: a new emphasis on early
childhood, better reading skills, high expectations for all of our young people, and
accountability for results. We are moving in the right direction and we need to stay the course
to get results and always remember that "the victory is in the classroom."
In conclusion, I want assure you that the Administration is prepared to work with the
Congress to help and support local and State educators and leaders who are striving to raise
achievement levels. I hope that in the process, a new bipartisan spirit can evolve around
education issues. The last few years have been somewhat contentious here in Washington,
and we need to give a better account of ourselves to the American people.
I will be happy to take any questions you may have.
�
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
[02/06/1999 – 02/08/1999]
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 089 - Folder 003
574745