Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "6037496",
    "label": "Memorandum from Jim Cannon to President Gerald R. Ford Concerning Enrolled Bill S. 6 - Education for All Handicapped Children",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6037496"
}

{
    "id": "6037496",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6037496",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Memorandum from Jim Cannon to President Gerald R. Ford Concerning Enrolled Bill S. 6 - Education for All Handicapped Children",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6037496",
    "collections": [
        "White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files",
        "Legislation Case Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Disabilities"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/96/374/6037496/content/arcmedia/presidential-libraries/exhibits/disabilities/EAHCA_4-29_1975_5.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/96/374/6037496/content/arcmedia/presidential-libraries/exhibits/disabilities/EAHCA_4-29_1975_5.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/96/374/6037496/content/arcmedia/presidential-libraries/exhibits/disabilities/EAHCA_4-29_1975_5.jpg",
    "imageCount": 7,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6037496",
    "naId": 6037496,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "productionDates": [
        {
            "day": 28,
            "logicalDate": "1975-11-28",
            "month": 11,
            "year": 1975
        }
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 7,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/96/374/6037496/content/arcmedia/presidential-libraries/exhibits/disabilities/EAHCA_4-29_1975.pdf",
    "mediaId": "a400c4ada8c8fcc4",
    "ocrText": "APPROVED NOV29\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION\nWASHINGTON\nLast Day: December 2, 1975\nNovember 28, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill S. 6 - Education for All\nHandicapped Children Act of 1975\nThis is to present for your action S. 6, the Education for\nAll Handicapped Children Act of 1975.\nBackground\nS. 6 extends permanently, and establishes a new formula for,\nFederal grants to States and localities for education of handi-\ncapped children. It sets forth State eligibility requirements,\nincluding service to all handicapped children and individualized\neducational programs and grievance procedures.\nThe formula provision of S. 6 would result in a growing propor-\ntion of the costs of educating the Nation's handicapped children\nbeing borne by the Federal government. Its supporters believe\nState and local governments lack adequate financial resources\nto provide education for all handicapped children.\nA series of court decisions have held that all handicapped\nchildren have a constitutional right to a free public education.\nLast year the Congress enacted the \"Mathias amendment\" which\nrequired all States to establish a goal of providing full\neducational opportunities for all handicapped children and to\nprovide parents with information and an opportunity to challenge\nthe services given their handicapped children. It is against\nthis backdrop that S. 6 must be viewed.\nOn October 7 Secretary Mathews advised the conferees that unless\nS. 6 was substantially modified he would recommend you not sign\nit. The Administration's major concerns were not addressed by\nthe conferees and the conference report was adopted 404-7 in the\nHouse and 87-7 in the Senate.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n- 2 -\nThe authorization levels were reduced by the conferees and\npeople such as Al Quie believe the best possible bill was\nproduced. Al Quie has announced that should you veto, he\nwould vote to override.\nThe allocation formula in the enrolled bill would be first\napplied in FY 78. The formula would produce increased authori-\nzations each year until FY 82 and then level off. Grants to\nstates would be reduced proportionately if appropriations were\nnot sufficient to pay the full authorization under the formula.\nFor FY 78, 50% of the allotments under the formula could be\nused by the States and 50% would pass through to local educa-\ntional agencies. Starting in FY 79 the State share would be\n25% and the local share 75%. Because of this provision in the\nenrolled bill the National Conference of State Legislatures\nhas urged you to veto. It sees the pass through as lessening\nthe State role, though it applauds the increased Federal\ncommitment the bill would bring about. No other group has\nurged a veto.\nThe concept of \"excess costs\" is one to which we have raised\nobjection throughout consideration of this bill. It is not\nan easy figure to obtain in an accounting sense and, conceptually,\nit opens the door to large scale Federal expenditures for areas\nof elementary and secondary education.\nBudget Impact\nThe Congress has appropriated the full amount of the present\nstatutory authorization for fiscal years 1976 and 1977 (advance\nfunding) -- $100 million and $110 million, respectively. Your\nrecent education rescission proposals included a recommended\nrescission of $35 million for the fiscal year 1977 State grant\nfunding, which would bring the level down to $75 million for\nthat year.\nEstimates provided by HEW of the amounts required for fiscal\nyears 1978-1982 to carry out the provisions of S. 6 are shown\nbelow:\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n- 3 -\nFiscal years. $ in millions.\n1978\n1979\n1980\n1981\n1982\nBasic grants\n387\n794\n1,500\n2,300\n3,100\nPre-school incentive\ngrants\n168\n177\n192\n206\n218\nEvaluation and\nstatistics\n27\n40\n40\nN/A\nN/A\nArchitectual barrier\nremoval grant\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\nArguments for Approval\n1. Disapproval will be interpreted by many to reflect a\nlack of concern for the educational needs of the handi-\ncapped and the reasons for your disapproval are not likely\nto be well understood by the public.\n2. The States cannot shoulder the burden of all the extra\ncosts involved in the education of the handicapped.\n3. Of the approximately 8 million handicapped children (from\nbirth to age 19) in the United States, only 3.9 million\nare currently receiving an appropriate education.\n4. While the enrolled bill entails potentially high budget\ncosts in later years, the conferees scaled down drastically\nthe authorizations for the earlier years and have provided\nfor a gradual increase in the Federal Government's partici-\npation.\nArguments for Disapproval\n1. Federal funding of education activities for handicapped\nchildren should be mainly aimed at assisting States in\nbuilding capacity. S. 6 would drastically alter traditional\nFederal-State roles by having the Federal Government pay\na substantial portion of the \"extra costs.\"\n2. The grant formula for \"entitlements\" in the enrolled bill\nis based on the erroneous assumption that only the States\nand not the Federal Government, have limited financial\nis\nFORD\nresources. Full funding of the formula would require\nappropriations which cannot realistically be expected.\nGERALD\nLIB S,\n- 4 -\nThe bill would thus falsely raise the expectations of the\nparents of millions of handicapped children. As Senator\nMuskie noted in the floor discussion,\n\"\nthe probability\nthat we will fully meet these needs seems small. Unless we\nforfeit on commitments to other important priorities in\nthe Federal budget, it strikes me as unlikely that we will\nbe able to fund this program at the full authorization in\nthe near future.\n3. The new formula contained in S. 6 presents a significant\ndanger that States would classify children as handicapped\ntoo freely in order to qualify for more funding.\n4.\nThe revised provision for congressional disapproval of\nHEW regulations under all education statutes, requiring the\ncongressional 45-day review period to begin only at the\ntime the final regulation is issued would further restrict\nthe Department's ability to issue regulations in a timely\nfashion. Moreover, S. 6 retains the present constitutionally\ndefective authority for the Congress to disapprove HEW\nregulations by concurrent resolution.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nDisapprove\nDepartment of Health, Education\nand Welfare\nDisapprove\nDepartment of Interior\nNo objection\nDepartment of Justice\nNo objection\nDepartment of Labor\nNo objection\nGeneral Services Administration\nNo objection\nCivil Service Commission\nApprove\nComments\n\"\nLynn:\nthe arguments for a veto are\nmore persuasive\nThe implied\nFederal funding levels are clearly\ninconsistent with our current budgetary\nobjectives\nMoreover, the\nproposed shift in the Federal role to\npermanent service cost funding and\ndetailed control\nis clearly\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\n- 5 -\ninconsistent with your desire to enhance\nState and local discretion\n....\nSince\na vote to override a veto is a virtual\ncertainty, should you decide to approve\nthe bill, we would suggest a signing\nstatement pointing out that full imple-\nmentation of its provisions would not\ntake effect for some time, and that you\nwill recommend amendments that will\nmaintain the appropriate division of\nFederal and State-local government roles\nin educating handicapped children and\nthat will be workable within realistic\nappropriation levels.\nMathews:\n\"The bill, while falsely raising the\nexpectations of what all levels of\ngovernment can do\nis likely to\nimpair our ability to deliver meaningful\nservices to children by imposing\nunnecessary new administrative and proce-\ndural burdens on State and local educational\nagencies\nMy hope would be that the\nPresident's veto would induce some alter-\nnative legislation which would allow him\nto support this good objective in a sound\nfashion.\n\"\nSecretary Mathews has indicated privately\nthat he would be very comfortable with\nyour signing the bill. His written veto\nrequest was to assure that should you veto,\nno one would attempt to undercut your\nposition by citing HEW's views.\nFriedersdorf:\nRecommends veto from a Congressional\nRelations point of view because of the\nimportance of being consistent once we\ngive a strong veto signal. But from a\npolitical standpoint, recognizes it might\nbe advantageous to sign. Says an override\nis virtually certain.\nMarrs:\nRecommends approval.\nBuchen (Chapman) :\n\"No objection to veto.' \"\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n- 6 -\nRecommendations\nAlthough the arguments in favor of a veto are persuasive,\nI believe you should give consideration to signing this enrolled\nbill.\nThe arguments in favor of signing this bill are more political\nthan programmatic. It is not good legislation, but I think\nyou could sign it and not be inconsistent with your vetoes on\nother matters nor weaken your arguments on issues to come\nbefore the Congress in the coming months. As OMB notes, since\nfull implementation of the provisions of the bill would not take\neffect for some time, you could sign the bill and then recommend\namendments that will maintain the appropriate division of Federal\nand State and local government roles.\nIt is a very close decision, but I recommend you sign the enrolled\nbill and issue a signing statement which indicates in strong terms\nyour concerns and your intention to recommend the law be amended.\nA proposed signing statement is at Tab B.\nDecision\n1. Approve S. 6 (Tab D) and issue signing statement at Tab B.\nGR7\n2. Disapprove S. 6 and issue veto message at Tab C.\nFORD & GERALD LIBRARY"
}