Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
134757474
label
HOPE [Hope and Opportunity for Postsecondary Education] Scholarship [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
134757474
contentType
document
title
HOPE [Hope and Opportunity for Postsecondary Education] Scholarship [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the National Economic Council (Clinton Administration)
Bob Shireman's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
134757474
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-4481639-20171073F-004-003-2018
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7267fbd5aba737c3
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2017-1073-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
National Economic Council
Series/Staff Member:
Bob Shireman
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
13223
FolderID:
Folder Title:
HOPE [Hope and Opportunity for Postsecondary Education] Scholarship [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
15
2
1
2
AACC
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Statement of the American Association of Community Colleges on
Chairman Archer's Mark Relating to Revenue Reconciliation Provisions
The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) is pleased that the Chairman's mark
includes & tax credit 9 help pay for the first two years of postsecondary education. However,
AACC is deeply concerned about its present configuration As announced, the credit would
cover 50 percent of up to $3,000 of out-of-pocket tuition expenses and books required for
attendance. This structure would limit the benefit the tax credit will have for community college
students, most of whom are enrolled at institutions whose nuition is well below the level at which
they could receive the maximum tax credit. We strongly believe that community college
students should be eligible for the same level of support through s tax credit as students enrolled
at more expensive institutions of higher education.
We are also troubled that the Chairman's mark does not permanently extend Section 127 of the
Internal Revenue Code Limiting the extension to a six-moth period for undergraduste programs
will hamper the ability of America's workers to gain access to the education programs they need
to maintain and upgrade their skills.
June 10, 1997
One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 728-0200 FAX (202) 883-2467
main
UNITED STATES STUDENT ASSOCIATION
50 YEARS CLOSER TO FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT
June 10, 1997
Erica Adelsheimer
(202) 347-8772
PRESS RELEASE
Students Express Strong Disappointment With Chairman Archer's
Education Tax Proposals
WASHINGTON, D.C.-Students around the country are registering
1413 K Street NW
10th Floor
their disappointment with Chairman Archer's plan for education
Washington, DC
tax initiatives. Chairman Archer's package will do nothing to
20005
expand access to education Instead of addressing student concerns
about the administration's education tax proposals, the plan shifts
Voice: 202.347.USSA
benefits away from even middle income families and funnels aid to
Fax: 202.393.5886
those with greater resources.
[email protected]
Students believe that education tax initiatives must include
measures to broaden educational opportunity. We know that
without additional help thousands of young people will be forced to
forego a college education We support the President's efforts to
ensure that at least $35 billion of any overall tax package be targeted
to higher education, and we urge Congress to ensure that the
neediest families, as well as those with middle and upper-middle
incomes, qualify for education-related tax benefits.
Chairman Archer's plan will provide additional aid to those
families least in need and no help to low-income students and
families who often find the financial barriers to college
insurmountable.
Students are particularly concerned that the modifications to the
HOPE Scholarship move the tax subsidies further toward the upper
income rather than toward those with the greatest need, that the
$10,000 deduction proposals will only help the wealthiest families,
and that there are no provisions for student loan forgiveness, a
student loan interest deduction, permanent extension of employer-
provided education assistance, or non-taxability of work-study and
TH
50
need-based scholarships and fellowships.
ANNIVERSARY
1947.1997
The College Board
1233 20th Street N.W., Suite 600, Washington D.C. 20036-2334
Telephone: (202) 822-5900: Facsimile: (202) 822-5920
Washington Office
June 10, 1997
College Board Response to Ways and Means Committee Chair
Archer's Education Tax Proposals
Throughout recent discussions on nition tax proposals, the College Board has advocared judicious use of
the tax code for educational purposes and recommended adjustments a ensure that any tax credit or
deduction be equitable for all families. In that regard, the College Board is pleased to note that the
proposals amounced by the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee this week support savings
for higher education through penalty-free withdrawals from IRAS accounts for postsecondary education.
In its totality, however. the package falls far short of advancing the College Board's priority of targering
the tax code for specific educational purposes and making any changes equitable for all families. For
example, we are concerned that the package does not include:
deductibility of interest on student loans;
tax-free treatment of need-based grants, fellowships, scholarships. and federal College Work Study
earnings; and
permanent (in contrast to a one-vear) extension of section 127 of the tax code for both undergraduate
and graduare students. 2 modest incentive for private sector investment in the continuing education of
adults.
We are also grearly concerned about other aspects of the chairman's package. By limiting the credit TO 50
percent of up to $3,000 of "out-of-pocket" anition expenses required for college attendance, the chainman's
version of the Hope Scholarship further reduces the B benefit for many low-income sudeots. Like the
Administration's Hope Scholarship, the chairman's tax credit would also be non-refundable. that is
students and families without any tax liability would not receive the benefit
In addition. the chairroan's proposed $10,000 tuition deduction. focused only on state- and private
sponsored pre-paid nuition programs. would primarily benefit middle- and upper-middle income taxpayers.
These provisions of the chairman's package also have the potential to complicate the financing of higher
education by encouraging multiple state variations of the pre-paid tuition consept, not to mention the
proliferation of private for-profit models.
The College Board is pleased that the Administration last week modified its original unition tax proposals,
shifting more funding TO the needier students, providing student loan imterest deduction, and allowing tax
relief for employer-provided education assistance. We are concerned that the committee did not include
these modifications in its recently released plan.
a
The College Board is a national association of over 3,200 schools and colleges dedicated a advancing
equity and excellence for all students.
Educational Excellence for All Students
U.S.
Public Interest Research Group
National Association of State PIRGs
News Release
Board of Directors
For Immediate Release:
For More Information:
Alaska PIRG
Junc 10. 1997
Ivan Frishberg, (202) 546-9707
California PIRC
Colorado PIRC
Connecticus PIRG
Statement from PIRG's Higher Education Project regarding House Ways and
Florida PIRG
Means Committee Proposal on Higher Education tax cuts.
Illinois PIRG
Maryland PIRG
Massachuseus PIRG
A college education is the best investment we can make in America's future. Rather than
PIRG in Michigan
fully opening up that investment to all Americans-students, Chairman Archer's Mark
Missouri PIRC
represents a missed opportunity to expand access to higher education.
Montana PIRG
New Jersey PIRG
U.S. PIRG has commended both the President and the Leadership in Congress for the
New Mexico PIRC
commitment to higher education that was made in the balanced budget deal. However,
New York PIRC
we have persistent concerns that the $35 billion investment in higher education is
Onio PIRO
delivered in a way that truly delivers hope to all students, including those working
Oregon State PIRG
families with incomes too low to create significant tax liability.
Pennsylvania FIRG
Vermont PIRG
Compared to the.President's proposals, Chairman Archer's proposal does even less to
Washington PIRG
deliver assistance to those who need it the most, when it could have done more. We
Wisconsin PTRG
encourage Chairman Archer to listen a liale closer to the concerns of students, and work
towards a greater and more real hope for America's college students.
Congress and the Administration should work together to construct a tax package that
includes a hope scholarship that goes 10 the millions of American students who don't
have tax liability, and that includes proposals that case the burden of student debt: tax
exempt loan forgiveness and a student loan interest deduction
30 - 30 30
U.S. PIRG is the national lobbying office of the state Public Interest Research Groups. U.S. PIRG is a non-
profit environmental and consumer watchdog group with citizen and student members in over 35 states,
and with chapters at over 100 college campuses.
U.S. PIRG
21X D Street. SE
Washington. DC 20003
(202) 546-9707
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
One Dupent Circle Suite 700 Washingmo, DC 20036-1192 phone 202/293-7070 fax 202/296-5819
June 9, 1997
The Honorable William V. Roth
The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman
Chairman
Senate Finance Committee
House Ways and Means Committee
210 Dirksen Senate Office Building
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairmen:
We write to indicate our enthusiastic support for the agreement reached berween the
President and Congress to devote a substantial portion of any tax cuts to higher education. We
congratulate the President and the Congress for their continued efforts to expand access to higher
education, and believe that properly crafted tax incentives are an investment in America's future.
We fully endorse the goals articulated by the Administration and congressional leaders in
advancing their respective packages of education-related tax cuts. We believe that as Congress
works to implement the budget agreement, it has a historic opportunity to produce a final tax
package that will enable all Americans to afford postsecondary education for themselves and
their children.
As you examine the specific features of education-related tax benefits. we hope that you
will join the President in his call for making at least two years of postsecondary education the
nown for our citizens. The creation of an expanded Hope Scholarship program is the single most
effective way in which the tax writing committees can make the dream of a better future for all
Americans a reality. We believe such a program. if it is correctly designed to provide benefits to
DUE neediest citizens as well as to middle income families, will be a proud legacy for
policymakers.
The bipartisan agreement for restoration of deductibility of student loan interest payments
is another important tax provision we support. An "above-the-line" deduction for educational
bo rowing would provide relief ED millions of our citizens with student loan payments.
The Administration has proposed that any loan forgiveness for borrowers who make 25
years of payments based on income be non-taxable. We fully endorse this proposal. In an effort
to romote greater community service, the Administration has also proposed non-taxability of
loan forgiveness by non-profit entities. We believe public colleges and universities should be
included in this provision. While public institutions can provide non-taxable loan forgiveness in
cettain circumstances under current law. we believe their inclusion in this new provision would
The Honorable William V. Roth
The Honorable Bill Archer
June 9, 1997
Page 2
simplify the process substantially. Also, we encourage Congress to include a technical expansion
of non-taxability to include loan discharge, write-off and compromise.
The Administration and Congress have proposed a variety of additional incentives that
ment careful consideration. These include tax-free educational savings accounts; expansion and
permanent extension of tax exemption for employer-provided education assistance; tax
exemption for work-study earnings, scholarships and fellowships; and proposals to encourage
lifelong learning.
An additional proposal we are concerned about is non-taxability of state prepaid nuition
plans. We strongly support this in concept, but believe it should apply only to state prepaid
tuition plans that are actuarially sound, and that do not create unfunded contingent liabilities for
themation's public institutions.
We appreciate your leadership on these important issues, and stand ready to work with
you in the historic task before the Committee.
Sincerely,
James Appleberry B. applicancy
President
On behalf of the following education associations:
Hisganic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU)
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO)
National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations (NCEOA)
The Education Trust
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)
United Negro College Fund (UNCF)
United States Student Association (USSA)
pc: The Honorable Richard W. Riley
Members of the Senate Finance Committee
Members of the House Ways and Means Committee
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(JUNE 9, 1997)
Contact: Gay Clybum, 202/857-1824
(e-mail: [email protected])
Tim Martin, 202/293-7070
(e-mail: [email protected])
News
WWW: www.aascu.nche.edu/news/releases/archer.htm
Statement from American Association of State Colleges and
Universities In response to Chairman Bill Archer's Mark, House
American
Committee on Ways and Means
I am disappointed to see that Chairman Archer's tax package, instead of improving the
Association of
administration's education-related tax proposals. accomplishes just the opposite. It is
more regressive and does nothing to expand access to higher education.
The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) has set a clear
State
standard against which any educational tax proposal may be judged-that of
broadening educational opportunity.
Colleges and
We believe the president deserves credit for insisting that at least $35 billion of any tax
expenditures should be devoted to higher education. We had hoped that Chairman
Universities
Archer would modify the details of the administration's proposal to ensure that the
neediest, as well as middle- and upper-income Americans, would qualify for education-
related tax benefits.
One Dupost Circle
Unfortunately, the chairman's mark falls short. Noi only does it devote substantially
less to education-related tax provisions than the budget agreement with the president
Suite 700
requires, it is also seriously mis-targeted
Our concerns are as follows:
Washington, DC
The modifications made to the president's Hope Scholarship proposal move the tax
subsidies SWEP further toward the types income. By limiting
20036-192
pocker" tuition and books, the chairman's mark fails to conform to the
improvements the president recently announced. In addition, limiting the credit to
Derice 202/193-7070
50 percent of tuition and books up to $3,000 serves as another de facto cap on the
maximum eligibility of students at schools with tuition charges of less than $3,000.
The fact that the tax credit continues to be nonrefundable also renders it ineffective
fax 202/236-5819
as an instrument of access.
The deductibility of up to $10,000 per student per year of expenditures through state-
sponsored prepaid tuition plans. and the creation of a similar deduction for private
prepaid tuition programs, will help only our highest income citizens.
(over)
Add 1, AASCU
The deductibility of up to $10,000 per student per year of expenditures through state-
sponsored prepaid tuition plans, and the creation of a similar deduction for private
prepaid tuition programs, will help only our highest income citizens.
The chairman's mark fails to include non-taxability of student loan forgiveness-an
extraordinarily important feature of the administration's package that AASCU fully
endorses.
The chairman's proposal does not restore the deductibility of student loan interest
payments, which enjoy universal support within the higher education community and
bipartisan support in Congress.
The chairman's mark does not permanently extend employer-provided education
assistance-temporarily extended it only through Dec. 31. 1997- and then only for
undergraduate study.
The proposal phases out non-taxability of tuition reduction provided to employees of
educational institutions, and thus increases personnel costs at colleges and universitie
AASCU hopes to work with Chairman Archer to address our concerns as he leads the
Ways and Means Committee in mark-up.
-30-
Association of Community College Trustees
1740 "N" Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
ACCT
202.775.4667
June 6, 1997
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We write to reaffirm our support for your educational tax
proposals as outlined on June 4th by the Department of Education. As
you know, the Association of Community College Trustees has been
unwavering in its support for your proposals to increase the nation's
investment in education and training so critical to sustaining our
economy.
We are especially pleased by your decision to make Hope
Scholarships more readily available to low-income students by allowing
them to use the tax credit to cover educational costs beyond what is
covered by their Pell Grant. In addition, eliminating the "B" average
requirement will make the tax credit more accessible and consistent
with other federal student aid program requirements. We applaud these
two critical improvements and believe that it will strengthen support in
Congress for enacting the $1,500 tuition tax credit.
Your decision to add the extension of Employee Educational
Assistance and restoration of the deduction for student loan interest as
integral components of your educational proposal will further strengthen
and enhance America's investment in education and training. Both
initiatives are long-standing priorities of community college trustees and
the institutions they represent.
NO. 1370 P. 8
SECRETARY HC OFFECE
WV8#16 1661 ) NOT
The Honorable William J. Clinton
June 6, 1997
Page Two
The nation's community college trustees will work hard TO win
enactment of this important educational investment package by
communicating its importance to Members of Congress.
We thank you for your leadership and for continuing to make
educational investment a national priority.
Sincerely,
Montez C. Martin, Jr.
Ray Taylor
ACCT Chair
ACCT President
6 'd 1870 ON
SECRETARY 80 OFFECE
1661 *6 NOT
ACCT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Noah Brown
202/775-4667
COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS LOSE HOPE
UNDER ARCHER TAX PLAN
Washington DC (June 9) -- House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer
today unveiled his plan to provide $85 billion in net tax cuts as part of the budget reconciliation
bill to be considered by Congress this summer. The plan's education components depart
significantly from President Clinton's proposals and cuts in half the value of the tuition credit for
students attending community colleges. The plan also would raisc taxes on working Americans
who need access to postsecondary education to remain employable.
Archer's plan provides $22 billion for the President's Hope Scholarship tax credit over
five years. The credit would match 50 percent of higher education out-of-pocket expenses
(tuition and books) up to $3,000 to families earning less than $80,000 per year, and to
individuals earning less than $40.000 per year. This contrasts sharply with the Administration's
tax credit plan to provide a tax credit of up to $1.500 to cover educational expenses for the first
two years of college.
Students attending community colleges, where annual tuition averages less than $1,500,
lose under Archer's version of the tuition tax credit. This is due to the way in which the amount
of the credit would be calculated. For example. if a student attends a community college and
pays $1,500 for tuition, they would be eligible for a $750 tax credit under Archer's plan - half
the amount available under the President's Hope Scholarship proposal. The net effect of
Archer's plan is to shift the credit's benefit to students with financial means and to those
attending costlier four-year colleges and universities.
Archer's plan also raises taxes on working people seeking to upgrade their skills and/or
qualify for new jobs. Under the plan. the tax exclusion for employer-provided tuition assistance
would expire after this year. Beginning next year. individuals receiving tuition assistance from
the employers would see their paychecks reduced by additional tax withholding.
ACCT opposes Archer's changes to the Hope Scholarship tax credit and is alarmed that
Employee Education Assistance would not continue beyond the current year. The plan fails to
provide real access and opportunity to Americans without the financial means to attend college
and creates a tax impediment for those seeking to successfully join today's high-skills
workplace.
ACCT represents the more than 6.000 publicly elected and appointed governing officials
of community, junior, and technical colleges across the United States and Canada.
###
Association of Community College Trustees, 1740 "N" Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SUPPORT
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S HIGHER EDUCATION INITIATIVES
(Updated May 1, 1997)
MAJOR EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS
Walter Bumphus
Chair
American Association of Community Colleges
James Appleberry
President
American Assoc. of State Colleges & Universities
Stanley O. Ikenberry
President
American Council on Education
A. Lee Fritschler
President
Annapolis Group (Private Colleges)/Dickinson Coll.
Montez Martin, Jr.
Chair
Association of Community College Trustees
J. Donald Monan, SJ
Interim Pres.
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Robert C. Andringa
President
Coalition for Christian Colleges and Universities
C. Peter McGrath
President
National Association of State Universities &
Land Grant Colleges
Marvin G. Carmichael
Nat'l Chair
National Association of Student Financial Aid
and Dallas Martin
President
Administrators
ALABAMA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Stafford L. Thompson
President
Enterprise State Junior College
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Cordell Wynn
President
Stillman College
ALASKA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Amos Agnasagga
Trustee
Ilisagvik College
Harold Ivanoff
Trustee
Ilisagvik College
George Kingik
Trustee
Ilisagvik College
Edna A. MacLean
President
Ilisagvik College
1
ARIZONA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Dorothy Fulton
Board Chair
Central Arizona College
Rick Gibson
Trustee
Central Arizona College
Jan Guy
Trustee
Cochise Community College District
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Bill Williams
President
Grand Canyon University
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Lattie F. Coor
President
Arizona State University
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Raul Cardenas
President
Paradise Valley Community College
Manuel T. Pacheco
President
University of Arizona
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Genevieve Watson
Fin. Aid. Dir.
Phoenix College
ARKANSAS
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
John E. Barnes
Board Chairman
Pulaski Tech College
Richard Blankenbeker
Trustee
Pulaski Tech College
Shelia Jones
Trustee
Pulaski Tech College
Philip H. Merry
Trustee
Westark Community College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. LeVon Balzer
President
John Brown University
Dr. Jerol Swaim
President
Williams Baptist College
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Arkansas Tech University
Ouachita Baptist University
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Gerald E. Craig
Dir. of Fin. Aid
Arkansas State University
Carlia Sproles
Dir. of Fin. Aid
Hendrix College
2
CALIFORNIA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Fred Gaskin
President
Cerritos Community College
Bob Verderber
Board President
Cerritos Community College
Isobel F. Dvorsky
Trustee
Chabot-Las Positas Comm. College Dist.
Paul Gomez
Board Vice President
Chaffey Community College
Andrea D. Shorter
Trustee
City College of San Francisco
John Schwitters
President
College of Oceaneering
Kenneth D. Yglesias
President
Golden West College
Richard D. Alexander
Trustee
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Comm. College Dist.
Rebecca Clark
Trustee
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Comm. College Dist.
Richard Jacoby
Trustee
Hancock College
Patricia Lofland
Trustee
Long Beach City College
George R. Boggs
President
Palomar College
Ralph Jensen
Trustee
Palomar College
Enriqueta Ramos
Board Chair
Rancho Santiago Comm. College District
Mary Figuerca
Board Secretary
Riverside Community College District
Mark Takano
Board President
Riverside Community College District
Marcia Milchiker
Trustee
Saddleback Community College District
Kenneth James Moser
Trustee
San Diego Community College District
Evonne Seron Schulze
Board President
San Diego Community College District
Maria Nieto Senour
Board Chair
San Diego Community College District
Leo P. Burke
Trustee
San Joaquin Delta Community College
Nancy Pyle
Trustee
San Joaquin Delta Community College
Bill Thurston
Board President
Solano Co Community College District
G. Gordon Browning
Trustee
Southwestern Community College Dist.
Philip Westin
Chancellor
Ventura County Community College District
Allister A. Allen
Trustee
Yosemite Community College Dist.
Pamila Fisher
Chancellor
Yosemite Community College
Nancy Rosasco
Board Chair
Yosemite Community College Dist.
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Janet L. Holmgren
President
Mills College
John Brooks Slaughter
President
Occidental College
Marilyn Chapin Massey
President
Pitzer College
Nancy Bekavac
President
Scripps College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Clyde Cook
President
Biola University
Dr. Ronald Ellis
President
California Baptist College
Dr. LeRoy Lawson
President
Pacific Christian College
Dr. Jim Bond
President
Point Loma Nazarene College
3
Dr. James Grant
President
Simpson College
Mr. Wayne Kraiss
President
Southern California College
Dr. David Winter
President
Westmont College
California State University System Endorsement Letter
Dr. Manuel A. Esteban
President
CSU Chico
Dr. Robert C. Detweiler
President
CSU Dominguez Hills
Dr. John D. Welty
President
CSU Fresno
Dr. Milton A. Gordon
President
CSU Fullerton
Dr. Alistair W. McCrone
President
Humboldt State University
Dr. Robert C. Maxson
President
CSU Long Beach
Dr. James M. Rosser
President
CSU Los Angeles
Mr. Jerry A. Aspland
President
California Maritime Academy
Dr. Peter P. Smith
President
CSU Monterey Bay
Dr. Blenda J. Wilson
President
CSU Northridge
Dr. Bob Suzuki
President
Ca. State Polytechnic Univ., Pomona
Dr. Donald R. Gerth
President
CSU Sacramento
Dr. Anthony H. Evans
President
CSU San Bernardino
Dr. Stephen L. Weber
President
San Diego State University
Dr. Robert A_ Corrigan
President
San Francisco State University
Dr. Robert L. Caret
President
San Jose State University
Dr. Warren J. Baker
President
Ca. Poly. State U., San Luis Obispo
Dr. Bill W. Stacy
President
CSU San Marcos
Dr. Ruben Arminana
President
Sonoma State University
Dr. Marvalene Hughes
President
CSU Stanislaus
Mr. J. Handel Evans
President
CSU Channel Islands
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
Tomas Arciniega
President
California State University, Bakersfield
Norma S. Rees
President
California State University, Hayward
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Laurel L. Wilkening
Chancellor
University of California, Irvine
M.R.C. Greenwood
Chancellor
University of California, Santa Cruz
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Barry Munitz
Chancellor
The California State University System
John P. Schlegel, SJ
President
University of San Francisco
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Susan Murphy
Dean of Acad. Ser.
University of San Francisco
Janis Linfield
Ex. Director, S.R.S.
Calif. State University, Hayward
Jerry Sims
Dir. of Fin. Aid
An Center College of Design
4
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
San Francisco State University (President Robert Corrigan, Steering Committee Chair)
California State University System (Chancellor Barry Munitz, Steering Committee Member)
California Institute of Technology
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
California State University, Bakersfield
California State University, Dominguez Hills
California State University, Fresno
California State University, Hayward
California State University, Los Angeles
California State University, Monterey Bay
California State University, Northridge
California State University, Sacramento
California State University, San Bernardino
California State University, San Marcos
California State University, Stanislaus
Claremont McKenna College
College of Alameda
Glendale Community College
Humbolt State University
Loma Linda University
Occidental College
San Bernardino Valley College
San Diego Mesa College
San Diego State University
Simpson College
Sonoma State University
United States International University
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, Riverside
University of Redlands
University of San Diego
COLORADO
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
John C. Giardino
Trustee
Colorado Mountain College
Cynthia M. Heelan
President
Colorado Mountain College
Richard J. Morton
Trustee
Colorado Mountain College
Donald G. Salanty
Trustee
Colorado Mountain College
Jeanne Sheriff
Trustee
Colorado Mountain College
Joe D. May
President
Pueblo Community College
5
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Kathryn J. Mohrman
President
The Colorado College
Dr. Ronald Schmidt
President
Colorado Christian University
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
Shelia Kaplan
President
Metropolitan State College of Denver
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Roger Koester
Dir. of Fin. Aid
Colorado School of Mines
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Community College of Denver (President Byron McClenney, Steering Committee Member)
Metropolitan State College of Denver
Pikes Peak Community College
Pueblo Community College
Trinidad State Junior College
University of Northern Colorado
CONNECTICUT
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Evan Dobelle
President
Trinity College
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
David G. Carter
President
Eastern Connecticut State University
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Connecticut College
DELAWARE
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
William B. DeLauder
President
Delaware State University
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
American Council on Education Board of Directors
F. Patrick Ellis
President
The Catholic University of America
6
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Georgetown University (President Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J., Steering Committee Member)
American University
Catholic University of America
Gallaudet University
George Washington University
Howard University
Trinity College
FLORIDA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Mary Bennett
Trustee
Daytona Beach Community College
Philip R. Day
President
Daytona Beach Community College
Martha Barrett
Trustee
Florida Community College/Jacksonville
Mary Ann Stiles
Board Chair
Hillsborough Community College
Doris Weatherford
Trustee
Hillsborough Community College
Donald Pruitt
Trustee
Indian River Community College
Linda Gallen
Trustee
Manatee Community College
Eltse B. Carter
Trustee
Okaloosa-Walton Community College
Sally R. Merrifield
Trustee
Okaloosa-Walton Community College
James. R. Richburg
President
Okaloosa-Walton Community College
Mark E. Browning
Trustee
Pasco-Hernando
Lucille F. DuCharme
Trustee
Polk Community College
Maryly V. Peck
President
Polk Community College
Herbert S. Stewart
Trustee
Polk Community College
Russell L. Moncrief
Trustee
Seminole Community College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Peter H. Armacost
President
Eckerd College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Paul Corts
President
Palm Beach Atlantic College
Dr. Gregory Hall
President
Warner Southern College
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Frederick S. Humphries
President
Florida A&M University
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Eduardo J. Padron
President
Miami-Dade Community College
Rita Bornstein
President
Rollins College
7
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Karen Fooks
Dir. of Fin. Aid
University of Florida
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Miami Dade Community College (District Pres. Eduardo Padron, Steering Committee Member)
Florida State University
GEORGIA
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Mary Brown Bullock
President
Agnes Scott College
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Charles B. Knapp (Chair)
President
University of Georgia
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Willie Williams
Dir. of Fin. Aid
Morris Brown College
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Loretta W. Franklin
Dean, Student Fin.
DeVRY Institute of Technology
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Morehouse College (President Walter E. Massey, Steering Committee Member)
Dalton College
DeKalb College
Georgia State University
State University of West Georgia
ILLINOIS
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Kenneth R. Joseph
Trustee
Belleville Area College
Thomas H. Colclasure
Trustee
Belleville Area College
Donald G. Crist
President
Carl Sandburg College
Joyce Green
Trustee
Carl Sandburg College
Gretchen J. Naff
President
College of Lake County
John Duffy
Trustee
Elgin Community College
Clare M. Ollayos
Trustee
Elgin Community College
Ellen N. Roberts
Trustee
Elgin Community College
Don Cavallini
Trustee
Heartland Community College
Ruth Mercedes Smith
President
Highland Community College
8
Franklin Walker
Board Chair
Highland Community College
Joyce Heap
Trustee
Joliet Junior College
Eleanor McGuan-Boza
Trustee
Joliet Junior College
Jim Russell
Trustee
Joliet Junior College
Vernon O. Crawley
President
Moraine Valley Community College
John J. Daley
Trustee
Moraine Valley Community College
Patricia J. Fortunato
Trustee
Morton College
Mark Fazzini
Trustee
Prairie State College
Judith Hess
Trustee
William Rainey Harper College
Kris Howard
Trustee
William Rainey Harper College
Paul N. Thompson
President
William Rainey Harper College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Thomas Tredway
President
Augustana College
David Spadafora
President
Lake Forest College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. John Bowling
President
Olivet Nazarene University
Dr. AJ Anglin
President
Trinity Christian College
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
James J. Stukel
President
University of Illinois
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Chicago State University (President Delores Cross, Steering Committee Member)
Southern Illinois University (President Ted Sanders, Steering Committee Member)
City Colleges of Chicago
Rend Lake College
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Truman College
Other
Ronald J. Temple
Chancellor
City Colleges of Chicago
INDIANA
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Eugene S. Mills
President
Earlham College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Shirely Showalter
President
Goshen College
9
Dr. Ronald Manahan
President
Grace College
Dr. Blair Dowden
President
Huntington College
Dr. James Barnes
President
Indiana Wesleyan University
Dr. Richard Hagood
President
Northwest Nazarene College
Dr. Jay Kesler
President
Taylor University
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
John Worthen
President
Ball State University
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Myles Brand
President
Indiana University
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Terrill Cosgray
Assoc. Dir of F.A.
Indiana University, Bloomington
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis
University of Evansville
IOWA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Mary Lou Engler
Trustee
Eastern Iowa Community College Dist.
John W. Fagerland
Trustee
Eastern Iowa Community College Dist.
John W. Frampton
Trustee
Eastern Iowa Community College Dist.
Richard Haiston
Trustee
Eastern Iowa Community College Dist.
Kirby L. Kleffmann
Board Chairman
Eastern Iowa Community College Dist.
Mark Birdnow
Trustee
Hawkeye Community College
Willie Culpepper
Trustee
Hawkeye Community College
William J. Hierstein
President
Hawkeye Community College
Ervin A. Dennis
Trustee
Hawkeye Community College
Gary Faust
Trustee
Iowa Western Community College
Wayne Kobberdahl
Trustee
Iowa Western Community College
Randy Pash
Trustee
Iowa Western Community College
Wanda Rosenbaugh
Trustee
Iowa Western Community College
Mervin L. Cronbaugh
Trustee
Kirkwood Community College
Robert Davidson
Trustee
Kirkwood Community College
Karen Gorham
Trustee
Kirkwood Community College
Wayne Newton
Board Chair
Kirkwood Community College
Norm Nielsen
President
Kirkwood Community College
James Sauter
Trustee
Kirkwood Community College
Jim Benjegerdes
Board Chair
North Iowa Area Community College
10
David L. Buettner
President
North Iowa Area Community College
Linda Upmeyer
Trustee
North Iowa Area Community College
Janet Fife
Trustee
Southeastern Community College
Moudy Nabulsi
Trustee
Southeastern Community College
Dale Rickert
Trustee
Southeastern Community College
George Rogerson
Trustee
Southeastern Community College
Edward E. Schiefer
President
Southeastern Community College- South
Dr. Carl Zylstra
President
Dordt College
Dr. James Bultman
President
Northwestern College
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Martin C. Jischke
President
Iowa State University
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
John Parker
Asst. VP for Bus/Fin Drake University
KANSAS
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
George Tregellas
Trustee
Barton County Community College
Robert Burch
Trustee
Butler County Community College
Jacqueline Vietti
President
Butler County Community College
Gayle A Krause
Trustee
Butler County Community College
Floris Jean Hampton
Board Chair
Dodge City Community College
Althea White
Trustee
Dodge City Community College
Ed Nicklaus
Trustee
Garden City Community College
Mary Beth Williams
Trustee
Garden City Community College
Mary Ann Flunder
Trustee
Kansas City KS Community College
Nita Barnes Clontz
Trustee
Pratt Community College
Darrell Shumway
Trustee
Pratt Community College
Jo Ann Sharp
Trustee
Seward County Community College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Richard Spindle
President
MidAmerica Nazarene College
Dr. Robert Campbell
President
Sterling College
Dr. David Brandt
President
Tabor College
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Emporia State University
Washburn University
11
KENTUCKY
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Richard Blanchard
Board Chair
Lexington Community College
Janice N. Friedel
President
Lexington Community College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Larry D. Shinn
President
Berea College
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Michael F. Adams
President
Centre College
Elisabeth Zinser
Chancellor
University of Kentucky, Lexington Campus
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Centre College
LOUISIANA
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Gregory M. St. L. O'Brien
Chancellor
University of New Orleans
MAINE
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Donald W. Harward
President
Bates College
William R. Cotter
President
Colby College
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Bates College
Colby College
MARYLAND
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Beverly Anderson
Board Chair
Prince George's Community College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Judy Jolley Mohraz
President
Goucher College
Christopher B. Nelson
President
St. John's College
12
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Donald N. Langenberg
Chancellor
University of Maryland System
William E. Kirwan
President
University of Maryland at College Park
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
University of Maryland, College Park (Pres. William E. Kirwan, Steering Committee Member)
Bowie State University
Frostburg State University
MASSACHUSETTS
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Philip Tortorella
Trustee
Massasoit Community College
Sheryl Savage
Trustee
Massasoit Community College
Nancy Smith
Trustee
Massasoit Community College
Gloria E. Striggles
Trustee
Massasoit Community College
Richard Early
Trustee
Northern Essex Community College
David Hartleb
President
Northern Essex Community College
Byron Matthews
Trustee
Northern Essex Community College
Catherine Frazer
Trustee
Northern Essex Community College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Richard P. Traina
President
Clark University
Rev. Gerard Reedy
President
College of the Holy Cross
Gregory S. Prince, Jr.
President
Hampshire College
Joanne V. Creighton
President
Mount Holyoke College
Dale Rogers Marshall
President
Wheaton College
Harry C. Payne
President
Williams College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Judson Cariberg
President
Gordon College
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
Adrian Tinsley
President
Bridgewater State College
American Council on Education Board of Directors
John A. DiBiaggio
President
Tufts University
Sherry H. Penney
Chancellor
University of Massachusetts Boston
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Barbara Tornow
Dir. of Fin. Assist.
Boston University
Yvonne Gittens
Assoc. Dir. of F.A.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
13
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Northeastern University
Wheaton College
Wheelock College
MICHIGAN
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Jeff Patton
Trustee
Kalamazoo Valley Community College
Harold E. Traxler
Trustee
Kalamazoo Valley Community College
Brian Hice
Trustee
Kellogg Community College
Richard J. Pappas
President
Lake Michigan College
Pat Moody
Trustee
Lake Michigan College
Steven Silcox
Trustee
Lake Michigan College
Karen A. Carbonelli
Trustee
Montcalm Community College
Beatrice Doser
Board Chair
Montcalm Community College
Judith A. Riessen
Trustee
Montcalm Community College
Allen Arnold
President
Mott Community College
Lenore Croudy
Trustee
Mott Community College
Edward Thorne
Trustee
Mott Community College
Frank Marczak
President
Muskegon Community College
Nancy Rubinski
Trustee
Muskegon Community College
Michael A. McManus
Trustee
Northwestern Michigan College
Richard Thompson
Chancellor
Oakland Community College
Denise Wellons-Glover
Trustee
Wayne County Community College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Melvin L. Vulgamore
President
Albion College
Alan J. Stone
President
Alma College
James F. Jones, Jr.
President
Kalamazoo College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Gaylen Byker
President
Calvin College
Dr. James McHann
President
William Tyndale College
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Judy Layer Florian
Dir. of F.A.
Macomb Community College
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Baker College
Calvin College
Central Michigan University
14
Eastern Michigan University
Ferris State University
Grand Valley State University
Kalamazoo College
Saginaw Valley State University
University of Detroit - Mercy
University of Michigan
Washtenaw Community College
Wayne County Community College
Western Michigan University
MINNESOTA
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Axel D. Steuer
President
Gustavus Adolphus College
Brother Dietrich Reinhart
President
St. John's University
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. George Brushaber
President
Bethel College
Dr. Gordon Anderson
President
North Central Bible College
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Richard Battig
Dir., Student F.A.
University of St. Thomas
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Metropolitan State University
MISSISSIPPI
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
William Dodson
Trustee
Hinds Community College District
Ray Holloway
Trustee
Hinds Community College District
Jobie Martin
Board President
Hinds Community College District
Clyde Muse
President
Hinds Community College District
John Patrick
Trustee
Hinds Community College District
Talmadge Portis
Trustee
Hinds Community College District
Lelia Rhodes
Trustee
Hinds Community College District
Cardell Williams
Trustee
Hinds Community College District
Jeanette Atkins
Trustee
Itawamba Community College
Martha Gordon
Trustee
Itawamba Community College
Gertrude Allen
Trustee
Mississippi Gulf Coast Comm. College Dist.
15
Geraldine Barnes
Trustee
Mississippi Gulf Coast Comm. College Dist.
Sylvia Bradley
Trustee
Mississippi Gulf Coast Comm. College Dist.
James V. Cerra
Trustee
Mississippi Gulf Coast Comm. College Dist.
Billy Hewes
Trustee
Mississippi Gulf Coast Comm. College Dist.
Barry L. Mellinger
President
Mississippi Gulf Coast Comm. College
Lillian C. Randall
Trustee
Mississippi Gulf Coast Comm. College Dist.
Delores Sumrall
Trustee
Mississippi Gulf Coast Comm. College Dist.
Robert Watters
Trustee
Mississippi Gulf Coast Comm. College Dist.
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
University of Mississippi (President Robert C. Khayat, Steering Committee Member)
Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College
MISSOURI
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Boyd H. Eversole
Trustee
East Central College
Cliff Davis
Trustee
Ozarks Technical Community College
Norman K. Myers
President
Ozarks Technical Community College
Michael P. Rohrbacker
Trustee
St. Louis Community College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Robert Spence
President
Evangel College
Dr. Pat Taylor
President
Southwest Baptist University
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
Ed M. Elliott
President
Central Missouri State University
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Gwendolyn W. Stephenson Chancellor
St. Louis Community College Center
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Pamela Fowler
V.P. Fin. Aid
Sanford-Brown College
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Metropolitan Community Colleges
16
MONTANA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
David Beyer
President
Flathead Valley Community College
Jeanne Tallman
Board Chair
Flathead Valley Community College
NASULG (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Michael P. Malone
President
Montana State University
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Susan Weinreis
Asst. Dir. of F.A
Montana State University-Billings
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
University of Montana (President George M. Dennison, Steering Committee Member)
Flathead Valley Community College
Montana State University, Bozeman
Montana State University College of Technology, Great Falls
Montana Tech of the University of Montana
NEBRASKA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Louis Stithem
Trustee
Mid-Plains Community College Area
Helen Griffin
Board Chair
Southeast Community College
Mary A. Harding
Trustee
Southeast Community College
Lynn Schluckebier
Trustee
Southeast Community College
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Janet Dodson
Dir. of Fin. Aid
Doane College
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Saint Anselm College
University of Nebraska at Kearney
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
University of Nebraska at Omaha
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Joan R. Leitzel
President
University of New Hampshire
17
NEW JERSEY
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
William K. McDaniel
Trustee
Burlington Community College
Robert C. Messina
President
Burlington Community College
Carol H. Talbot
Trustee
Burlington Community College
Marilyn Williamson
Trustee
Burlington Community College
Ronald D. Winthers
Trustee
Burlington Community College
Ronald Casella
Trustee
Cumberland Community College
J. Alan Woodruff
Trustee
Cumberland Community College
Frank Digaetano
Trustee
Essex County College
Yolanda Gehring
Trustee
Essex County College
Gwendelyn Sanford
Trustee
Essex County College
Richard J. D'Orazio
Trustee
Gloucester County College
Virginia N. Scott
Board Chair
Gloucester County College
Irene G. Almeida
Trustee
Hudson County Community College
Glen Gabert
President
Hudson County Community College
Lourdes I. Santiago
Trustee
Hudson County Community College
Elizabeth Spinelli
Board Chair
Hudson County Community College
Thomas D. Sepe
President
Mercer County Community College
William A. Connor
President
Sussex County Community College
James Perry
Trustee
Union County College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Thomas Kean
President
Drew University
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Sussex County Community College
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
Vera King Farris
President
The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Michael Bennett
Dir. of Fin. Aid
Brookdale Community College
Other
Robert A. Scott
President
Ramapo College of New Jersey
18
NEW MEXICO
Johnathan Ortiz
Dir. Student F.A
Luna Vocational Tech. Inst.
NEW YORK
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Judith C. Peckham
Trustee
Broome County Community College
Cynthia Emmer
Trustee
Corning Community College
Virginia B. Adams
Trustee
Genesee Community College
Stuart Steiner
President
Genesee Community College
Anthony T. Zambito
Trustee
Genesee Community College
Gregory T. DeCinque
President
Jamestown Community College
Sean A. Fanelli
President
Nassau Community College
Rosalyn Udow
Board Chair
Nassau Community College
Joan Wolfgang
Trustee
Niagara County Community College
Stephen Goldberg
Trustee
Rockland Community College
Patricia R. Feeser
Trustee
Schenectady County College
Mary Ellen Duncan
President
SUNY College of Technology- Delhi
Richard C. Van Donsel
Trustee
Tompkins Cortland Community College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Judith R. Shapiro
President
Barnard College
Neil R. Grabois
President
Colgate University
Eugene M. Tobin
President
Hamilton College
Richard H. Hersh
President
Hobart and William Smith Colleges
David H. Porter
President
Skidmore College
Roger L. Hull
President
Union College
Frances D. Fergusson
President
Vassar College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Daniel Chamberlain
President
Houghton College
Dr. David Schroeder
President
Nyack College
Dr. William Crothers
President
Roberts Wesleyan College
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Lois B. DeFleur
President
State Univ. of New York at Binghamton
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Hunter R. Rawlings III
President
Cornell University
Raymond C. Bowen
President
LaGuardia Community College
19
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Douglas Bucher
Director, Fin. Aid
New York University
Irvin Bodofsky
Director, Fin. Aid
SUNY - Health Science Center . Syracuse
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Bank Street College of Education (Pres. Augusta Souza Kappner, Steering Committee Member)
New York University (President L. Jay Oliva, Steering Committee Member)
C.W. Post Campus of LIU
City University of New York
Marist College
Marymount College
Marymount Manhattan College
Pace University
St. John's University
SUNY at Old Westbury
NORTH CAROLINA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Herman E. Davis
Trustee
Blue Ridge Community College
Mary S. Bell
Trustee
Cape Fear Community College
P. Anthony Zeiss
President
Central Piedmont Community College
C. Louis Shields
Trustee
Coastal Carolina Community College
Cari O. Blakely
Trustee
Davidson County Community College
Artheneus Dew
Trustee
Fayetteville Technical Community College
Marye Jeffries
Trustee
Fayetteville Technical Community College
Stephen R. Satisky
Trustee
Fayetteville Technical Community College
C. David Kepple
Trustee
Forsyth Technical Community College
Dewitt E. Rhoades
Trustee
Forsyth Technical Community College
Desna L. Wallin
President
Forsyth Technical Community College
Patricia Skinner
President
Gaston College
Lillie J. Solomon
Trustee
Halifax Community College
James F. Strickland
Trustee
James Sprunt Community College
H. James Owen
President
Piedmont Community College
Larry Wilkerson
Board Chair
Piedmont Community College
Phillip R. Dixon
Board Chair
Pitt Community College
Charles E. Russell
President
Pitt Community College
Glendale Boone
Trustee
Roanoke-Chowan Community College
Nellie J. Fennell
Trustee
Roanoke-Chowan Community College
Harold E. Mitchell
President
Roanoke-Chowan Community College
Helen M. Newsome
Trustee
Roanoke-Chowan Community College
Nell White
Trustee
Tri-County Community College
20
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Julianne Still Thrift
President
Salem Academy and College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Mr. William Hurt
President
Montreat College
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Francis T. Borkowski
Chancellor
Edward B. Fort
Appalachian State University
Chancellor
NC Agricultural & Technical State Univ.
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Cape Fear Community College
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Pres. Michael Hooker, Steering Committee Member)
Carteret Community College
Catawba Valley Community College
Duke University
East Carolina University
Elon College
Guilford College
North Carolina State University
Queens College
University of North Carolina, Asheville
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
University of North Carolina, Greensboro
University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Wake Forest University
NORTH DAKOTA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Donna S. Thigpen
President
Bismarck State College
OHIO
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Cathryn S. Balas
Trustee
Clark State Community College
Maureen C, Grady
Trustee
Donna B. Hart
Clark State Community College
Board Chair
Than Johnson
Clark State Community College
Trustee
Clark State Community College
M. Valeriana Moeller
President
Columbus State Community College
21
Thomas M. Brown
Board Chair
Terra State Community College
Charlotte J. Lee
President
Terra State Community College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Neal Malicky
President
Baldwin-Wallace College
R. Stanton Hales
President
The College of Wooster
Michele Tolela Myers
President
Denison University
Nancy Schrom Dye
President
Oberlin College
Thomas B. Courtice
President
Ohio Wesleyan University
L. Baird Tipson
President
Wittenberg University
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Lee Snyder
President
Bluffton College
Dr. Ronald Johnson
President
Malone College
Dr. LeBron Fairbanks
President
Mount Vernon Nazarene College
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
Clair Van Ummersen
President
Cleveland State University
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Carol A. Cartwright
President
Kent State University
E. Gordon Gee
President
The Ohio State University
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Deb Heineman
Dir., Student F.A.
Medical College of Ohio
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Ohio State University (President E. Gordon Gee, Steering Committee Member)
Cleveland State University
OKLAHOMA
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Paul Mills
President
Bartlesville Wesleyan College
Dr. Loren Gresham
President
Southern Nazarene University
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Emest L. Holloway
President
Langston University
22
OREGON
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Marilyn Crouser
Board Chair
Chemeketa Community College
Gerald G. Watson
Trustee
Chemeketa Community College
Cindy Cable
Board Chair
Lane Community College
Tracy L. Simms
Board Secretary
Lane Community College
Norma Jean Germond
Trustee
Portland Community College
Harold C. Williams
Trustee
Portland Community College
Stephen J. Kridelbaugh
President
Southwestern Oregon Community College
Dan Smith
Trustee
Southwestern Oregon Community College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Michael Mooney
President
Lewis and Clarke College
Steven S. Koblik
President
Reed College
Jerry E. Hudson
President
Willamette University
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Edward Stevens
President
George Fox University
Dr. David Miller
President
Western Baptist College
Dr. Jay Barber
President-Elect
Warner Pacific College
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
David E. Gilbert
President
Eastern Oregon State College
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Daniel F. Moriarty
President
Portland Community College
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Rick Weems
Dir., Fin. Aid
Warner Pacific College
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Portland State University (President Judith A. Ramaley, Steering Committee Member)
Portland Community College
PENNSYLVANIA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Fred F. Bartok
President
Butler County Community College
Ray D. Steffler
Trustee
Butler County Community College
John M. Kingsmore
President
Community College of Allegheny County
Griffith Dudding
Trustee
Lehigh Carbon Community College
23
Augustus C. Martin
Trustee
Lehigh Carbon Community College
Michael J. Torbert
Trustee
Lehigh Carbon Community College
Mahmoud Fahrny
Trustee
Luzerne County Community College
Rose Tucker
Trustee
Luzerne County Community College
Joseph Giles
Trustee
Northwest Pennsylvania Tech. Institute
Thomas M. Hartman
Trustee
Reading Area Community College
Victor Yarnell
Trustee
Reading Area Community College
Gust Zogas
President
Reading Area Community College
John Andrighetti
Trustee
Westmoreland County Community College
Hugh M. Dempsey
Trustee
Westmoreland County Community College
Daniel C. Krezenski
President
Westmoreland County Community College
Gene E. McDonald
Trustee
Westmoreland County Community College
Jerome R. Yasher
Trustee
Westmoreland County Community College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Ellen S. Hurwitz
President
Albright College
Richard J. Cook
President
Allegheny College
Rev. Daniel G. Gambet
President
Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales
Daniel N. De Lucca
President
Alvernia College
Bette E. Landman
President
Beaver College
Mary Patterson McPherson
President
Bryn Mawr College
William D. Adams
President
Bucknell University
Antoinette Iadarola
President
Cabrini College
Esther L. Barazzone
President
Chatham College
A. Lee Fritschler
President
Dickinson College
Sidney D. Kline, Jr.
Board Chair
Dickinson College
Constantine N. Papadakis
President
Drexel University
Theodore E. Long
President
Elizabethtown College
A. Richard Kneedler
President
Franklin and Marshall College
Monsignor David A. Rubino
President
Gannon University
Gordon A. Haaland
President
Gettysburg College
Sister Linda Bevilacqua
President
Gwynedd-Mercy College
Patricia M. Ryan
President
Harcum College
Sister Francesca Onley
President
Holy Family College
Robert W. Neff
President
Juniata College
Edward G. Boehm, Jr.
President
Keystone College
Rev. James Lackenmier
President
King's College
G. David Pollick
President
Lebanon Valley College
Sister Mary Cecilia
President
Manor Junior College
William P. Garvey
President
Mercyhurst College
Barbara Gillette Price
President
Moore College of Art and Design
Roger H. Martin
President
Moravian College
Rosalie M. Mirenda
President
Neumann College
24
Arthur J. Lendo
President
Pierce College
John F. D'Aprix
President
Pennsylvania College of Podiatric Medicine
W. Sherrill Babb
President
Philadelphia College of Bible
Philip P. Gerbino
President
Philadelphia Coll. of Pharmacy and Science
James P. Gallagher
President
Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science
Katherine U. Henderson
President
Point Park College
Margaret M. Healy
President
Rosemont College
JoAnne W. Boyle
President
Seton Hill College
Alfred H. Bloom
President
Swarthmore College
Joel L. Cunningham
President
Susquehanna University
C. Carlyle Haaland
President
Thiel College
Rev. J. A. Panuska
President
University of Scranton
John Strassburger
President
Ursinus College
Rev. Edmund J. Dobbin
President
Villanova University
Howard J. Burnett
President
Washington and Jefferson College
Robert J. Bruce
President
Widener University
Christopher N. Breiseth
President
Wilkes University
Gwendolyn Evans Jensen
President
Wilson College
George W. Waldner
President
York College of Pennsylvania
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Harold Howard
Co-President
Eastern College
Dr. John Schauss
Co-President
Eastern College
Dr. John White
President
Geneva College
Dr. Rodney Sawatsky
President
Messiah College
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
Dr. John M. Lilley
Provost/Dean
Penn State Erie, The Behrend College
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Graham B. Spanier
President
Pennsylvania State University
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Betty Davis
Dir. & Lead F.A.A.
Community College of Allegheny County
William Irwin
Dir., Student F.A
Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Gettysburg College (President Gordon A. Haaland, Steering Committee Member)
Pennsylvania State University, (President Graham Spanier, Steering Committee Member)
University of Pennsylvania (Dr. Judith Rodin, Steering Committee Member)
Allegheny College
Community College of Philadelphia
Dickinson College
25
Eastern College
Franklin & Marshall College
Lafayette College
Northampton Community College
Slippery Rock University
Susquehanna University
Wilson College
SOUTH CAROLINA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Alvin DeWitt
Board Chair
Florence-Darlington Technical College
Charles Gould
President
Florence-Darlington Technical College
Mary Langston
Trustee
Florence-Darlington Technical College
Carlene Lowery
Trustee
Florence-Darlington Technical College
Thomas R. Perrin
Trustee
Florence-Darlington Technical College
James L. Hudgins
President
Midlands Technical College
Robert C. Lentz
Trustee
Midlands Technical College
A. Eugene Roundtree
Trustee
Midlands Technical College
Peter E. Sercer
Board Chair
Midlands Technical College
Robert Wilkins
Trustee
Midlands Technical College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
David E. Shi
President
Furman University
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
Constantine W. Curris
President
Clemson University
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Marvin Carmichael
Chairman
Clemson University
SOUTH DAKOTA
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Thomas Johnson
President
University of Sioux Falls
TENNESSEE
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. William Brown
President
Bryan College
Dr. Gregory Jordan
President
King College
26
Dr. Paul Conn
President
Lee College
Dr. Millard Reed
President
Trevecca Nazarene University
Dr. David Dockery
President
Union University
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Martin Methodist College
Union University
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
James E. Walker
President
Middle Tennessee State University
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Board of Directors
Joel Harrell
Director of F.A
University of Tennessee-Chattanooga
TEXAS
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Lillian Davis
Trustee
Austin Community College
Sharon Green
Trustee
Austin Community College
Bennie Matthews
Trustee
College of the Mainland
Chris Oliver
Trustee
Houston Community College System
Bill Blake
Board Chair
Lee College
Jess D. Navarre
Trustee
Lee College
Jackston N. Sasser
President
Lee College
Eugene Caldcleugh
Trustee
N. Harris Montgomery Comm. College Dist.
Priscilla Kelly
Trustee
N. Harris Montgomery Comm. College Dist.
Mary L. Matteson
Trustee
N. Harris Montgomery Comm. College Dist.
John E. Pickelman
Chancellor
N. Harris Montgomery Comm. Coll. District
David Vogt
Trustee
N. Harris Montgomery Comm. College Dist.
Stephanie Wentzel
Trustee
N. Harris Montgomery Comm. College Dist.
J. D. Bruce
Board Chair
San Jacinto College District
James F. Horton
Chancellor
San Jacinto College District
John W. Nichols
Trustee
San Jacinto College District
Ruede M. Wheeler
Trustee
San Jacinto College District
Larry J. Wilkerson
Board Chair
Temple College
Bea Wohleb
Trustee
Temple College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Ronald K. Calgaard
President
Trinity University
27
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Gary Cook
President
Dallas Baptist University
Dr. Bob Riley
President
East Texas Baptist University
Dr. Alvin Austin
President
LeTourneau University
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
Jerome H. Supple
President
Southwest Texas State University
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Franklyn G. Jenifer
President
University of Texas at Dallas
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
University of Texas at El Paso (President Diana S. Natalicio, Steering Committee Member)
El Paso Community College
Le Tourneau University
Lee College
Texas Women's University
VERMONT
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Vermont State Colleges System (Chancellor Charles Bunting, Steering Committee Member)
Castleton State College (Vermont State Colleges System)
Community College of Vermont (Vermont State Colleges System)
Johnson State College (Vermont State Colleges System)
Lyndon State College (Vermont State Colleges System)
Vermont Technical College (Vermont State Colleges System)
VIRGINIA
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Ladell Payne
President
Randolph-Macon College
John W. Elrod
President
Washington and Lee University
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Joseph Lapp
President
Eastern Mennonite University
Dr. Terry Lindvall
President
Regent University
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Piedmont Virginia Community College
28
WASHINGTON
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Frank Russell
Trustee
Bates Technical College
Gloria Mitchell
Trustee
Cascadia Community College
Arland Lyons
Trustee
Centralia College
James E. Sherrill
Trustee
Centralia College
Darrell D. Beers
Board Chair
Columbia Basin College
Lee Thornton
President
Columbia Basin College
Charles D. Kee
Trustee
Edmonds Community College
Mary Helen Roberts
Trustee
Edmonds Community College
Alison W. Sing
Board Chair
Edmonds Community College
Virginia Sprenkle
Board Chair
Everett Community College
Jim D. Avers
Board Chair
Green River Community College
Richard A. Rutkowski
President
Green River Community College
Linda Sprenger
Trustee
Green River Community College
Bob Patterson
Trustee
Lake Washington Technical College
Barbara Stephenson
Trustee
Olympic College
Jay W. Kim
Board Chair
Pierce College
Shoubee Liaw
Trustee
Shoreline Community College
Deborah J. Aldrich
Trustee
Skagit Valley College
Lydia Ledesma-Reese
President
Skagit Valley College
Katie Philbrick
Trustee
Skagit Valley College
Julie A. Grant
Trustee
South Puget Sound Community College
John Lantz
Trustee
Tacoma Community College
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Susan Resneck Pierce
President
University of Puget Sound
Thomas E. Cronin
President
Whitman College
Coalition for Christian Colleges Endorsement Letter
Dr. Dennis Davis
President
Northwest College
Dr. William Robinson
President
Whitworth College
NASULGC (State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Samuel H. Smith
President
Washington State University
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
Community College of Spokane
University of Puget Sound
29
WEST VIRGINIA
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Travis Parker Kirkland
President
Southern West Va. Comm. & Tech College
AASCU Board of Directors Signatories
Clifford M. Trump
Chancellor
State College System of West Virginia
WISCONSIN
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Frank J. Marsden
Trustee
Blackhawk Technical College
William Ihlenfeldt
President
Chippewa Valley Technical College
Marge A. Linse
Board Chair
Chippewa Valley Technical College
H. Victor Baldi
President
Fox Valley Technical College
Barbara Bermel
Trustee
Fox Valley Technical College
Robert A. Lyle
Trustee
Fox Valley Technical College
Jerald W. Schoenike
Trustee
Fox Valley Technical College
DeDe M. Yankoski
Trustee
Fox Valley Technical College
Victor Hildebrandt
Trustee
Lakeshore Technical College
Robert A. Beaver
Board Chair
Mid-State Technical College
Sandra Haasi
Trustee
Mid-State Technical College
Brenda Rhinehart
Trustee
Mid-State Technical College
Lauren Baker
Trustee
Milwaukee Area Technical College
John R. Birkholz
President
Milwaukee Area Technical College
Sheila D. Cochran
Trustee
Milwaukee Area Technical College
William L. Hegge
Trustee
Milwaukee Area Technical College
Julian Jasper
Trustee
Milwaukee Area Technical College
Mae D. Killebrew
Trustee
Milwaukee Area Technical College
Edgardo Ocasio
Board Chair
Milwaukee Area Technical College
Joseph Rice
Trustee
Milwaukee Area Technical College
Daniel Klawitter
Board Chair
Morraine Park Technical College
John J. Shanahan
President
Moraine Park Technical College
Robert C. Ernst
President
Northcentral Technical College
Bettye Nall
Trustee
Northcentral Technical College
Ronald L. Bertieri
Trustee
Waukesha County Technical College
Susan E. Bischmann
Trustee
Waukesha County Technical College
Joan S. Jenstead
Board Chair
Waukesha County Technical College
Thomas E. Neill
Trustee
Waukesha County Technical College
David R. Hildebrand
President
Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College
30
Dickinson College Endorsement Letter
Victor E. Ferrall, Jr.
President
Beloit College
Richard Warch
President
Lawrence University
American Council on Education Board of Directors
Beverly Simone
President
Madison Area Technical College
Eleanor J. Smith
Chancellor
University of Wisconsin-Parkside
Colleges and Universities Committed to America Reads Challenge
University of Wisconsin, Platteville
WYOMING
AACC/ACCT (Community Colleges) Endorsement Letter
Dennis E. Christensen
Trustee
Central Wyoming College
John R. Kaiser
Trustee
Laramie County Community College
Jane Vondrak-Brown
Board Chair
Laramie County Community College
31
The Honorable William J. Clinton
February 22, 1997
Page Two
Your proposal to increase the maximum Pell Grant award from
$2,700 to $3,000 - the largest increase in two decades -- would greatly
enhance access to college by over one million needy students and helps
to lessen the corrosive effects of inflation that have reduced Pell's
purchasing power in recent years. We applaud your proposal to restore
eligibility to 218,000 single independent students who were eliminated by
the 1992 Higher Education Amendments. Students who work hard to
make it on their own deserve the chance to go to college.
We totally support extending the Employee Educational Assistance
Act (Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code). We firmly believe that
employers should assist their employees to upgrade their skills and to
remain competitive in the global economy without incurring additional tax
liabilities. Continuous learning is now the rule, not the exception in
America.
We applaud your leadership to put education first. During the
coming week, more than 750 trustees and presidents will carry our
support of your education proposals to Capitol Hill, encouraging Congress
to join with you in making education a national priority.
Sincerely,
/ Montez C. Martin, Jr.
Watt Bemphes
Walter Bumphus
Chair
Chair
ACCT Board of Directors
AACC Board of Directors
AACC
ACCT
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRUSTEES
February 22, 1997
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Clinton:
On behalf of the American Association of Community Colleges
(AACC) and the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT),
representing the collective leadership of the nation's 1,200 community,
junior, and technical colleges, we wish to reaffirm our support for your
unprecedented commitment to education as announced in your State of the
Union Address and reflected in your Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request to the
Congress. The community college sector has repeatedly endorsed many
of the elements of your education proposals over the past year, and again
expresses its support.
Specifically, a $1,500 tuition tax credit and $10,000 tax deduction
would be significant additions to existing student financial assistance
programs as means toward financing a college education. The Hope
Scholarship program would augment the Pell Grant and other student aid
programs that currently serve financially needy community college
students. We urge you, however, to make Hope Scholarships as simple
and free of restrictive regulation as possible for both students and
institutions in order that it serve the broadest segment of the American
population as possible. The $10,000 tuition tax deduction would make
financing lifelong learning a real possibility for millions of students and
families.
AACC. One Dupout Circle. NW, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 728-0200, FAX (202) 833-2467
ACCT, 1740 "N" Street, NW. Washington, DC 20036, (202) 775-4667, FAX (202) 223.1297
Final A,11
HIGHER EDUCATION ENDORSEMENT LETTERS
(as of April 16, 1997)
Date
Education Associations
Signed By:
Affirmative Sign-on From:
2/22/97
American Association of Community
Montez Martin, Jr., Chair,
70 Community College Presidents
Colleges and Association of Community
ACCT Board of Directors
280 Community College Trustees
College Trustees
and Walter Bumphus, Chair
AACC Board of Directors
2/23/97
American Council on Education
Resolution by the Board of
31 Board of Directors
Directors
3/10/97
Dickinson College (Annapolis Group)
A. Lee Fritschler, President,
105 college presidents
Dickinson College
3/17/97
Coalition of Christian Colleges & Universities
Robert C. Andringa,
63 college presidents
President, Condition for
Christian Colleges and
Universities
3/18/97
California State University System
Barry Munitz, Chancellor,
All 23 college presidents
California State University
3/28/97
American Association of State Colleges and
James Appleberry, President,
15 Board of Directors
Universities
American Association of
State Colleges & Universities
3/27/97
National Association of State Universities
C. Feter Mcgrath, President
22 Board of Directors
and Land-Grant Colleges
NASULGC & Charles
Knapp, President, Univ. of
Georgia & NASULGC Chair
4/8/97
Association of Jesuit Colleges and
J. Donald Monan, SJ, Interim
28 Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Universities
President
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRUSTEES
LETTER OF SUPPORT, FEBRUARY 22, 1997
Signed by the Following 70 Community College Presidents:
ALABAMA
Stafford L. Thompson
President
Enterprise State Junior College
ALASKA
Edna A. MacLean
President
Ilisagvik College
CALIFORNIA
Fred Gaskin
President
Cerritos Community College
John Schwitters
President
College of Oceaneering
Kenneth D. Yglesias
President
Golden West College
George R. Boggs
President
Palomar College
Philip Westin
Chancellor
Ventura County Community College District
Pamila Fisher
Chancellor
Yosemite Community College
COLORADO
Cynthia M. Heelan
President
Colorado Mountain College
Joe D. May
President
Pueblo Community College
FLORIDA
Philip R. Day
President
Daytona Beach Community College
James. R. Richburg
President
Okalooss-Walton Community College
Maryly V. Peck
President
Polk Community College
ILLINOIS
Donald G. Crist
President
Carl Sandburg College
Gretchen J. Naff
President
College of Lake County
Ruth Mercedes Smith
President
Highland Community College
Vernon O. Crawley
President
Moraine Valley Community College
Paul N. Thompson
President
William Rainey Harper College
IOWA
William J. Hierstein
President
Hawkeye Community College
Norm Nielsen
President
Kirkwood Community College
David L. Buettner
President
North Iows Area Community College
Edward E. Schiefer
President
Southeastern Community College- South
KANSAS
Jacqueline Vietti
President
Butler County Community Coliege
KENTUCKY
Janice N. Friedel
President
Lexington Community College
MASSACHUSETTS
David Hartleb
President
Northern Essex Community College
MICHIGAN
Richard J. Pappas
President
Lake Michigan College
Allen D. Arnold
President
Mon Community College
Frank Marczak
President
Muskegon Community College
Richard Thompson
Chancellor
Oakland Community College
MISSISSIPPI
Clyde Muse
President
Hinds Community College District
Barry L. Mellinger
President
Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College
MISSOURI
Norman K. Myers
President
Ozarks Technical Community College
MONTANA
David Beyer
President
Flathead Valley Community College
NEW JERSEY
Robert C. Messina
President
Burlington County College
Glen Gabert
President
Hudson County Community College
Thomas D. Sepe
President
Mercer County Community College
William A. Connor
President
Sussex County Community College
NEW YORK
Stuart Steiner
President
Genesee Community College
Gregory T. DeCinque
President
Jamestown Community College
Sean A. Fanelli
President
Nassau Community College
Mary Ellen Duncan
President
SUNY College of Technology- Delhi
NORTH CAROLINA
P. Anthony Zeiss
President
Central Piedmont Community College
Desna L. Wallin
President
Forsyth Technical Community College
Patricia Skinner
President
Gaston College
H. James Owen
President
Piedmont Community College
Charles E. Russell
President
Pitt Community College
Harold E. Mitchell
President
Roanoake-Chowan Community College
NORTH DAKOTA
Donns S. Thigpen
President
Bismarck State College
OHIO
M. Valeriana Moeller
President
Columbus State Community College
Charlotte J. Lee
President
Terra State Community College
OREGON
Stephen J. Kridelbaugh
President
Southwestern Oregon Community College
PENNSYLVANIA
Fred F. Bartok
President
Butler County Community College
John M. Kingsmore
President
Community College of Allegheny County
Gust Zogas
President
Reading Area Community College
Daniel C. Krezenski
President
Westmoreland County Community College
SOUTH CAROLINA
Charles Gould
President
Florence-Darlington Technical College
James L. Hudgins
President
Midlands Technical College
TEXAS
Jackston N. Sasser
President
Lee College
John E. Pickelman
Chancellor
N. Harris Montgomery Comm. Coll. District
James F. Horton
Chancellor
San Jacinto College District
WASHINGTON
Lee Thornton
President
Columbia Basin College
Richard A. Rutkowski
President
Green River Community College
Lydia Ledesma-Reese
President
Skagit Valley College
WEST VIRGINIA
Travis Parker Kirkland
President
Southern West Va. Comm. & Tech. College
WISCONSIN
William Thienfeldt
President
Chippewa Valley Technical College
H. Victor Baldi
President
Fox Valley Technical College
John R Birkholz
President
Milwaukee Area Technical College
John J. Shanahan
President
Moraine Park Technical College
Robert C. Emst
President
Northcentral Technical College
David R. Hildebrand
President
Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
ON PRESIDENT CLINTON'S HIGHER EDUCATION INITIATIVES
FEBRUARY 23, 1997
WHEREAS, President Clinton has made higher education a central priority of his
second term; and
WHEREAS, the Administration has proposed a set of initiatives that, taken
together, would ease the burden that students and their families face in financing a
higher education; and
WHEREAS, these initiatives include the largest Pell Grant funding increase in the
program's history, raising award levels for all students, making an additional
400,000 low-income students eligible, and correcting a long-standing inequity in the
treatment of independent students; and
WHEREAS, President Clinton has urged colleges and universities to utilize
increased funding in the Federal Work-Study Program to strengthen literacy
training efforts; and
WHEREAS, the Administration has proposed the creation of Hope Scholarships, a
nonrefundable $1,500 tax credit; a $10,000 tax deduction for higher education
expenses; extending the tax exemption for employer-provided education assistance;
and authorizing the flexible use of individual retirement accounts for college
expenses; and
WHEREAS, the breadth of these recommendations, and the bipartisan interest they
have sparked, signify a comprehensive and complementary set of programs that
will benefit low- and middle- income families;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the American
Council on Education:
(1) Commends President Clinton for his exemplary leadership in developing public
policy initiatives that will enhance access to college for American families; and
(2) Strongly supports the elements of the President's plan, including increased Pell
grant funding, Hope Scholarships, tax deductions, employer-provided education
assistance, and the flexible use of retirement accounts to help finance higher
education; and
(3) Encourages colleges and universities to participate in the America Reads
program; and
4) Looks forward with enthusiasm to working with the President and the Congress
in a bipartisan fashion to enact legislation to further open the doors of higher
education.
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1996
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Beverly Simone, President
Cordell Wynn, President
Madison Area Technical College
Stillman College
Barry Munitz, Chancellor
3550 Anderson Street
PO Drawer 1430
The California State University System
Madison. WI 53704-2599
Tuscaloosa. AL 35403
Chair
(608) 246-6676
(205) 349-4240
Michele Tolela Myers, President
Denison University
Eleanor J. Smith, Chancellor
Vice Chair/Chair Elect
University of Wisconsin-Parkside
Box 2000
CLASS OF 1998
Franklyn G. Jenifer, President
Kenosha. WI 53141-2000
University of Texas at Dallas
(414) 595-2211
Raymond C. Bowen, President
Immediate Past Chair
LaGuardia Community College
City University of New York
Manuel T. Pacheco, President
31-10 Thomson Avenue
University of Arizona
Long Island City. NY 11101
Secretary
CLASS OF 1997
(718) 482-5050
Nancy Bekavac. President
Francis T. Borkowski. Chancellor
John A. DiBiaggio, President
Scripps College
Appalachian State University
Tufts University
Boone. NC 28608
Medford. MA 02155
Myles Brand. President
(704) 262-2040
(617) 627-3300
Indiana University
Daniel F. Moriarty, President
Rite Bornstein, President
Edward B. Fort, Chancellor
Portland Community College
Rollins College
North Carolina Agricultural &
1000 Holt Avenue
Technical State University
Stanley O. Ikenberry, President
Winter Park. FL 32789
1601 E. Market Street
American Council on Education
(407) 646-2120
Greensboro. NC 27411
(910) 334-7940
CLASS OF 1996
Lois B. DeFleur, President
Martin C. Jischke, President
State University of New York
Nancy Bekavac, President
at Binghamion
lowa State University
Scripps College
117 Beardshear Hall
PO Box 6000
1030 Columbia
Ames. IA 50011-2035
Binghamton. NY 13902-6000
Claremont. CA 91711
(607) 777-2131
(515) 294-2042
(909) 621-8148
Steven S. Koblik, President
Barry Munitz, Chancellor
Myles Brand. President
Reed College
The California State University System
Indiana University
3203 S.E. Woodstock Boulevard
400 Golden Shore Drive
Bryan Hall 200
Portland. OR 97202-8199
Long Beach. CA 90802
Bloomington. IN 47405
(503) 771-7500
(310) 985-2800
(812) 855-4613
Michele Tolela Myers. President
Raul Cardenas, President
Manuel T. Pacheco, President
Denison University
Paradise Valley Community College
University of Arizona
Granville. OH 43023
18401 North 32nd Street
Tucson. AZ 85721
(614) 587-6281
Phoenix. AZ 85032
(602) 621-5511
(602) 493-2727
Eduardo J. Padrón. President
Sherry H. Penney, Chancellor
Miami-Dade Community College
Franklyn G. Jenifer, President
University of Massachusetts Boston
300 N.E. Second Avenue
University of Texas at Dallas
100 Morrisey Building
Miami, FL 33132
P.O. Box 830688
Boston. MA 02125
(305) 237-3316
Richardson. TX 75083
(617) 287-6800
(214) 883-2201
Elisabeth Zinser, Chancellor
Gwendolyn W. Stephenson, Chancellor
University of Kentucky
Hunter R. Rawlings III. President
St. Louis Community College Center
Lexington Campus
Cornell University
300 S. Broadway
III Administration Building
Ithaca. NY 14853
St. Louis. MO 63102
Lexington. KY 40506-0032
(607) 255-5201
(314) 539-5150
(606) 257-2911
ELECTED OFFICERS OF
Council of Independent Colleges
Washington Higher Education
ASSOCIATIONS-EX OFFICIO
John L Henderson, President
Secretarial
FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS:
Wilberforce University
Mary Burgan. General Secretary
Wilberforce, OH 45384
American Association of University
Association of American Colleges &
(513) 376-2911 x704
Professors
Universities
1012 14th Street NW. Suite 500
Harold W. Eickhoff. President
National Association for Equal
Washington. DC 20005
The College of New Jersey
Opportunity in Higher Education
(202) 737-5900 x3019
Hillwood Lakes, CN 4700
Earl S. Richardson, President
Trenton. NJ 08650-4700
Morgan State University
(609) 771-2101
Hillen Road & Cold Spring Lane
Baltimore, MD 21239
American Association of Community
(410) 319-3200
Colleges
Daniel F. Moriarty, President
Nazional Association of Independent
Portland Community College
Colleges & Universities
PO Box 19000
Michael F. Adams, President
Portland. OR 97280
Centre College
(503) 977-4916
600 West Walnut St.
Danville. KY 40422
American Association of State Colleges
(606) 238-5220
& Universities
Vera King Farris. President
National Association of State
Richard Stockton College of
Universities & Land-Grant Colleges
New Jersey
Frederick E Hutchinson, President
Jim Leeds Road
University of Maine
Pomona. NJ 08240
Orono. ME 04469-5703
(609) 652-4521
(207) 581-1512
Association of American Universities
F. Patrick Ellis. FSC. President
The Catholic University of America
ELECTED OFFICERS OF ASSO-
620 Michigan Avenue. NE
CLATIONS-EX OFFICIO FOR
Washington. DC 20064
ONE-YEAR TERMS:
(202) 319-5100
National Association of Student
Association of Catholic Colleges &
Financial Aid Administrators
Universities
Dallas Martin. President
Karen M. Kennelly, CSJ
National Association of Student
President
Financial Aid Administrators
Mount St. Mary's College
1920 L Street, NW
12001 Chalon Road
Washington. D.C. 20036-5020
Los Angeles. CA 90049-1599
(202) 785-0453
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
(310) 471-9500
Irene L Gomberg
Association of American Medical
American Council on Education
Association of Jesuit Colleges &
Colleges
One Dupont Circle, NW
Universities
Paul J. Friedman, M.D.
Washington. DC 20036
John P. Schlegel, SJ. President
Professor of Radiology
(202) 939-9315
University of San Francisco
University of California Medical
2130 Fulton Street
Center-8756
11/12/96
San Francisco. CA 94117
200 WESH Arbor Drive
(415)666-6762
San Diego. CA 92103-8756
(619) 543-6633
DICKINSON
COLLEGE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
CARLISLE PENNSY
March 10, 1997
The Honorable Bill Clinton
The President of the United States
The White House
1000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500
Dear Mr. President :
We are writing on behalf of the thousands of students whom we serve to applaud your efforts.
to place higher education at the top of the nation's list of priorities, and to recognize its potential as
an investment for our political and economic future.
Before you are a number of excellent proposals that would collectively give millions of
Americans the chance to pursue their dreams of achieving a college education. Among these are
proposals to increase traditional student aid programs such as Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grants (SEOG), and Federal Work Study.
Also before you are innovative proposals that would use the tax code to help ease the burden
on families that are hard-pressed to send their children to college. These tax proposals include: the
President's Hope Scholarship; tax deductions for college expenses; tax-free education savings
accounts; the exclusion of taxes on fellowships and scholarships; the extension of Section 127,
which excludes from tax employer-provided educational assistance; and the restoration of the
student loan interest deduction. All of these ideas are meritorious and deserve your careful
consideration and support. If enacted, they would represent the bright promise to families that if
they work hard and plan ahead, a college education for their children will be within reach.
The current federal investment in higher education, represented by the student aid programs,
not only has been of great benefit to individuals, it also represents a very real investment in the
betterment of our society. Study after study clearly shows that college graduates earn more money,
pay more taxes, use fewer government services, and serve in charitable activities and community
leadership roles in the areas where they live. Tomorrow's political, business, and community
leaders are the college students of today.
The Honorable Bill Clinton
March 10, 1997
Page Two
You now have before you an historic opportunity to build upon this legacy and fulfill this
bright promise. We urge you to stay the course, work together, and pass a package of proposals that
will open the doors of college for all Americans. We stand ready to work with you and to show you
precisely how these programs will make a very real difference for families. We also stand ready to
speak up loudly in support of your efforts and to let the American people know what hard work and
creative thinking can achieve.
On this matter of public policy, our appreciation is profound and our determination unfailing.
Don't let this historic opportunity for America pass us by.
On behalf of all of us listed on the following pages, I am
Sincerely,
A. Lee Fritschler
President
ALF:als
The following presidents have endorsed this letter and authorize the
addition of their signatures:
Agnes Scott College, Decatur GA . Mary Brown Bullock
Albion College, Albion MI - Melvin L Vulgamore
Albright College, Reading PA - Ellen S. Hurwitz
Allegheny College, Meadville PA - Richard J. Cook
Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales, Center Valley PA . The Rev. Daniel
G. Gambet
Alma College, Alma MI - Alan J. Stone
Alvernia College, Reading PA - Daniel N. DeLucca
Augustana College, Rock Island IL - Thomas Tredway
Baldwin-Wallace College, Berea OH - Neal Malicky
Barnard College, New York NY - Judith R Shapiro
Bates College, Lewiston ME - Donald W. Harward
Beaver College, Glenside PA - Bette E. Landman
Beloit College, Beloit WI - Victor E. Ferrall, Jr.
Berea College, Berea KY - Larry D. Shinn
Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr PA - Mary Patterson McPherson
Bucknell University, Lewisburg PA - William D. Adams
Cabrini College, Radnor PA - Antoinette Iadarola
Centre College, Danville KY . Michael F. Adams
Chatham College, Pittsburgh PA - Esther L Barazzone
Clark University, Worcester MA . Richard P. Traina
Colby College, Waterville ME - William R Cotter
Colgate University, Hamilton NY - Neil R Grabois
College of the Holy Cross, Worcester MA . The Rev. Gerard Reedy
The College of Wooster, Wooster OH - R Stanton Hales
The Colorado College, Colorado Springs CO . Kathryn J. Mohrman
Denison University, Granville OH . Michele Tolela Myers
Dickinson College, Carlisle PA - A Lee Fritschler and Sidney D. Kline, Jr., Chairman
of the Board
Drew University, Madison NJ . Thomas Kean
Drexel University, Philadelphia PA - Constantine N. Papadakis
Earlham College, Richmond IN . Eugene S. Mills
Eckerd College, St. Petersburg FL - Peter H. Armacost
Elizabethtown College, Elizabethtown PA . Theodore E. Long
Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster PA - A. Richard Kneedler
Furman University, Greenville SC - David E. Shi
Gannon University, Erie PA - Monsignor David A. Rubino
Geneva College, Beaver Falls PA - John H. White
Gettysburg College, Gettysburg PA - Gordon A. Haaland
Gordon College, Wenham MA . R. Judson Carlberg
Goucher College, Towson MD - Judy Jolley Mohraz
Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter MN . Axel D. Steuer
Gwynedd-Mercy College, Gweynedd Valley PA - Sister Linda Bevilacqua
Hamilton College, Clinton NY - Eugene M. Tobin
Hampshire College, Amherst MA - Gregory S. Prince, Jr.
Harcum College, Bryn Mawr PA . Patricia M. Ryan
Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva NY . Richard H. Hersh
Holy Family College, Philadelphia PA . Sister Francesca Onley
Juniata College, Huntingdon PA . Robert W. Neff
Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo MI . James F. Jones, Jr.
Keystone College, LaPlume PA . Edward G. Boehm, Jr.
King's College, Wilkes-Barre PA . The Rev. James Lackenmier
Lake Forest College, Lake Forest IL . David Spadafora
Lawrence University, Appleton WI . Richard Warch
Lebanon Valley College, Annville PA . G. David Pollick
Lewis and Clarke College Portland OR - Michael Mooney
Manor Junior College, Jenkintown PA . Sister Mary Cecilia
Mercyhurst College, Erie PA . William P. Garvey
Messiah College, Grantham PA . Rodney J. Sawatsky
Mills College, Oakland CA - Janet L Holmgren
Mocre College of Art and Design, Philadelphia PA . Barbara Gillette Price
Moravian College, Bethlehem PA - Roger H. Martin
Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley MA . Joanne V. Creighton
Neumann College, Aston PA - Rosalie M. Mirenda
Oberlin College, Oberlin OH - Nancy Schrom Dye
Occidental College, Los Angeles CA - John Brooks Slaughter
Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware OH - Thomas B. Courtice
Peirce College, Philadelphia PA - Arthur J. Lendo
Pennsylvania College of Podiatric Medicine, Philadelphia PA - John F. D'Aprix
Philadelphia College of Bible, Langhorne PA . W. Sherrill Babb
Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, Philadelphia PA - Philip P. Gerbino
Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science, Philadelphia PA - James P. Gallagher
Pitzer College, Claremont CA . Marilyn Chapin Massey
Point Park College, Pittsburgh PA . Katherine U. Henderson
Randolph-Macon College, Ashland VA - Ladell Payne
Reed College, Portland OR . Steven S Koblik
Rollins College, Winter Park FL - Rita Bornstein
Rosemont College, Rosemont PA - Margaret M. Healy
St. John's College, Annapolis MD . Christopher B. Nelson
St. John's University, Collegeville MN . Brother Dietrich Reinhart
Salem Academy and College, Winston-Salem NC - Julianne Still Thrift
Scripps College, Claremont CA . Nancy Bekavac
Seton Hill College, Greensburg PA . JoAnne W. Boyle
Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY . David H. Porter
Swarthmore College, Swarthmore PA - Alfred H. Bloom
Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove PA . Joel L Cunningham
Thiel College, Greenville PA - C Carlyle Haaland
Trinity College, Hartford CT . Evan S Dobelle
Trinity University, San Antonio TX . Ronald K. Calgaard
Union College, Schenectady NY . Roger L Hull
University of Puget Sound, Tacoma WA . Susan Resneck Pierce
University of Scranton, Scranton PA - The Rev. J. A. Panuska
Ursinus College, Collegeville PA . John Strassburger
Vassar College, Poughkeepsie NY - Frances D. Fergusson
Villanova University, Villanova PA - The Rev. Edmund J. Dobbin
Washington and Jefferson College, Washington PA - Howard J. Burnett
Washington and Lee University, Lexington VA . John W. Elrod
Wheaton College, Norton MA - Dale Rogers Marshall
Whitman College, Walla Walla WA . Thomas E. Cronin
Widener University, Chester PA - Robert J. Bruce
Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre PA . Christopher N. Breiseth
Willamette University, Salem OR - Jerry E. Hudson
Williams College, Williamstown MA - Harry C Payne
Wilson College, Chambersburg PA . Gwendolyn Evans Jensen
Wittenberg University, Springfield OH - L Baird Tipson
York College of Pennsylvania, York PA . George W. Waldner
Coalition for Christian Colleges
329 Eighth Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002-6158
& Universities
Tel: (202) 546-8713
Fax: (202) 546-8913
integrating scholarship. faith and service
Roberr C. Andringa. Ph.D.
President
March 17, 1997
Dear President Clinton and Congressional Leaders,
We are writing on behalf of the 150,000 plus students served by Coalition colleges and universities to
commend your efforts to place higher education at the top of the nation's list of priorities, and to
recognize education's potential as an investment for our political, economic, and civic well-being as a
nation.
Before you are a number of excellent proposals that would collectively give millions of Americans the
chance to pursue their dreams of achieving a college education. Among these are proposals to increase
traditional student aid programs such as Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
(SEOG), and Federal Work Study.
Also before you are innovative proposals that would use the tax code to help ease the burden on families
that are hard-pressed to send their children to college. These tax proposals include: the President's Hope
Scholarship; tax deductions for college expenses; tax-free education savings accounts; the exclusion of
taxes on fellowships and scholarships; the extension of Section 127, which excludes from tax employer-
provided educational assistance; and the restoration of the student loan interest deduction. All of these
ideas are meritorious and deserve your careful consideration and support. If enacted, they would
represent the bright promise to families that if they work hard and plan ahead, a college education for
their children will be within reach.
The current federal investment in higher education, represented by the student aid programs, not only has
been of great benefit to individuals, it also represents a very real investment in the betterment of our
society. Study after study clearly shows that college graduates earn more money, pay more taxes, use
fewer government services, and serve in charitable activities and community leadership roles in the areas
where they live. Tomorrow's political, business, and community leaders are the college students of today.
You have an historical opportunity to build upon this legacy and fulfill this bright promise. We urge you
to stay the course, work together in a bipartisan manner, and pass a package of proposals that will open
the doors of college for all qualified Americans. We stand ready to work with you and to show you
precisely how these programs will make a very real difference for families. We also stand ready to speak
up loudly in support of your efforts and to let the American people know what hard work and creative
thinking can achieve.
On this matter of public policy, our appreciation is profound and OUT determination unfailing. Please
don't let this historic opportunity for America pass us by,
Sincerely,
Andring
Robert C. Andringa, President
Coalition for Christian Colleges & Universities
An association of 90 member colleges and universities, all with comprehensive curriculums rooted in the arts and sciences.
and supported by an expanding coalizion of affiliated institutions and many organizations, foundations and individuals
Presidents who requested to be signatories:
Dr. Gordon Anderson, President
Dr. Dennis Davis, President
Dr. Paul Mills, President
North Central Bible College, MN
Northwest College, WA
Bartlesville Wesleyan College, OK
Dr. AJ Anglin. President
Dr. David Dockery, President
Dr. JamesMcHann. President
Trinity Christian College, IL
Union University, TN
William Tyndale College, MI
Dr. Alvin Austin, President
Dr. Blair Dowden. President
Dr. Millard Reed, President
LeTourneau University, TX
Huntington College, IN
Trevecca Nazarene University, TN
Dr. LeVon Balzer. President
Dr. Ronald Ellis, President
Dr. Bob Riley, President
John Brown University, AR
California Baptist College, CA
East Texas Baptist University, TX
Dr. Jay Barber, President-Elect
Dr. LeBron Fairbanks, President
Dr. William Robinson, President
Warner Pacific College, OR
Mount Vernon Nazarene College, OH
Whitworth College, WA
Dr. James Barnes. President
Dr. James Grant, President
Dr. Rodney Sawatsky, President
Indiana Wesleyan University, IN
Simpson College, CA
Messiah College, PA
Dr. Jim Bond, President
Dr. Loren Gresham, President
Dr. Ronald Schmidt, President
Point Loma Nazarene College, CA
Southern Nazarene University, OK
Colorado Christian University, CO
Dr. John Bowling, President
Dr. Richard Hagood, President
Dr. David Schroeder, President
Olivet Nazarene University, IL
Northwest Nazarene College, ID
Nyack College, NY
Dr. David Brandt, President
Dr. Gregory Hall, President
Dr. Shirely Showalter
Tabor College, KS
Warner Southern College. FL
Goshen College, IN
Dr. William Brown, President
Dr. Harold Howard
Dr. Lee Snyder, President
Bryan College, TN
Dr. John Schauss, Co-Presidents
Bluffton College, OH
Eastern College, PA
Dr. George Brushaber, President
Dr. Robert Spence, President
Bethel College, MN
Mr. William Hurt, President
Evangel College. MO
Montrest College, NC
Dr. James Bulunan, President
Dr. Richard Spindle. President
Northwestern College. LA
Dr. Ronald Johnson, President
MidAmerica Nazarene College, KS
Malone College, OH
Dr. Gaylen Byker, President
Dr. Edward Stevens, President
Calvin College, MI
Dr. Thomas Johnson, President
George Fox University, OR
University of Sioux Falls, SD
Dr. Robert Campbell, President
Dr. Jerol Swaim. President
Sterling College, KS
Dr. Gregory Jordan. President
Williams Baptist College, AR
King College, TN
Dr. Judson Carlberg, President
Dr. Pat Taylor, President
Gordon College, MA
Dr. Jay Kesler. President
Southwest Baptist University, MO
Taylor University, IN
Dr. Daniel Chamberlain, President
Dr. John White, President
Houghton College, NY
Mr. Wayne Kraiss, President
Geneva College, PA
Southern California College, CA
Dr. Paul Conn, President
Dr. Bill Williams, President
Lee College, TN
Dr. Joseph Lapp, President
Grand Canyon University, AZ
Eastern Mennonite University, VA
Dr. Clyde Cook, President
Dr. David Winter, President
Biola University. CA
Dr. LeRoy Lawson. President
Westmont College, CA
Pacific Christian College. CA
Dr. Gary Cook, President
Dr. Carl Zylstra, President
Dallas Baptist University, TX
Dr. Terry Lindvall, President
Dordt College, LA
Regent University, VA
Dr. Paul Corts, President
Palm Beach Atlantic College, FL
Dr. Ronald Manahan, President
Grace College, IN
Dr. William Crothers, President
Roberts Wesleyan College, NY
Dr. David Miller, President
Western Baptist College. OR
UNIVERSITY
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
BAKERSFIELD . CHANNEL ISLANDS CHICO , ACADEMY DOMINOUEZ MONTEREY MILLS PRESNO BAY NORTHRIDGE FULLERTON POMONA HAYWARD SACRAMENTO HUMBOLDT
LONG SAN BERNARDINO BEACH . SAN DISCO SAN MARITIME PRANCISCO SAN JOSE . SAN LUIS OBISPO . SAN MARCOS . SONOMA . STANISLAUS
LOS ANOBLES
BARRY MUNITZ
CHANCELLOR
March 18, 1997
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
The Honorable Trent Lott
The President of the United States
Majority Leader
United States Senate
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House
The Honorable Richard Riley
U.S. House of Representatives
Secretary of Education
Dear Sirs:
Both the Clinton Administration and the Congress have put forward important
and substantial tax proposals to help low-income families, middle class families, and
working adults finance higher education.
We commend the President for his exemplary leadership in proposing Hope
scholarships, a $10,000 tax deduction for education, and a significant expansion of the
Pell grant program. We commend members of Congress of both parties for their
suggestions to let families use IRAs without penalty for education, to restore the
deductibility of interest on student loans and to make employer provided educational
assistance a permanent part of the tax code.
These proposals would, if enacted, help millions of low and middle income
families finance higher education. Such a step would pay enormous dividends-both
individual and social-in the years ahead.
We strongly encourage Congress and the President to work cooperatively to
develop these ideas and pledge to assist both parties to enact legislation that achieves
our mutual objectives of providing assistance to students from different socio-economic
backgrounds.
Signed on behalf of all 23 presidents by Barry Munitz, Chancellor
The California State University
400 Golden Shore, Long Beach California 90802 Phone (562) 985-2800 Fax (562) 985-2800 [email protected]
aarcu
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
One Duposit Circle
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036-1192
phone
202/293-7070
fax
202/296-5819
March 28, 1997
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
The Honorable Trent Lott
The President of the United States
Majority Leader
United States Senare
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Sirs:
Both the Clinton administration and the Congress have put forward important and
substantial tax proposals to help middle-income families and working adults finance higher
education.
We commend the President for his exemplary leadership in proposing that the tax code be
used to provide millions of dollars in financial aid for students and families, as well as a
significant expansion of the Pell grant program. We commend members of Congress of both
parties for their suggestion to let families use IRAS without penalty for education, to restore
deductibility of interest on student loans, and to make employer-provided educational assistance
a permanent part of the tax code.
Education-related uses of the tax code would, if properly enacted. help millions of low-
and middle-income families finance higher education. Such a step would pay enormous
dividends--to both individuals and to society-in the years ahead.
We strongly encourage Congress and the President to work cooperatively to develop
these ideas and pledge to assist both parties to enact legislation that achieves our mutual
objectives of providing assistance to students from different socio-economic backgrounds.
James Sincerely, James B. Appleberry B. appleking
President
pc:
The Honorable Richard Riley
Signed on behalf of AASCU's Board of Directors listed on the enclosed page.
AASCU BOARD OF DIRECTORS SIGNATORIES
Chair
Dr. John M. Lilley
President Vera King Farris
Penn State Erie, The Behrend College
The Richard Stockton College of New
(Pennsylvania)
Jersey
President Norma S. Rees
Secretary/Treasurer
California State University. Hayward
President James E. Walker
Middle Tennessee State University
President Jerome H. Supple
Southwest Texas State University
Chair Elect
President Ed M. Elliott
President Adrian Tinsley
Central Missouri State University
Bridgewater State College
(Massachusetts)
Past Chair
President Constantine W. Curris
Chancellor Clifford M. Trump
Clemson University
State College System of West Virginia
(South Carolina)
President Clair Van Ummersen
Directors
Cleveland State University
President Tomás Arciniega
(Ohio)
California State University, Bakersfield
President John Worthen
President David G. Carter
Ball State University
Eastern Connecticut State University
(Indiana)
President David E. Gilbert
Eastern Oregon State College
President Sheila Kaplan
Metropolitan State College of Denver
(Colorado)
04/0L
202 6
FED. REL.
4 002
to
NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
RECEIVED APR - 4 1997
March 27, 1997
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
The Honorable Trent Lott
The President of the United States
Majority Lender
United States Senate
The Honorable Thomas A. Deschie
Minority Leader
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
United States Senate
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Richard Gephardt
Minority Leader
The Honorable Richard Riley
U.S. House of Representatives
Secretary of Education
Dear Sirs:
Both the Clinton Administration and the Congress have put forward important and substantial
tax proposals to help low-income families, middle class families, and working adults finance
higher education.
We commend the President for his exemplary leadership in proposing Hope scholarships, a
$10,000 tax deduction for education, and 8 significant expansion of the Pell grant program. We
commend members of Congress of both parties for their suggestions to let families use IRAs
without penalty for education, to restore the deductibility of interest on student loans and to make
employer provided education assistance a permanent part of the tax code.
These proposals would, if enacted, help millions of low and middle income families finance
higher education. Such a step would pay enormous dividends - both individual and social - in
the years shead.
We strongly encourage Congress and the President to work cooperatively to develop these ideas
and pledge to assist both parties to enact legislation that achieves our mutual objectives of
providing assistance to students from different socio-economic backgrounds.
Cordially,
Charles Krapp
C. Peter Magrath
Charles B. Knapp
President, National
President, University of
Association of State Universities
Georgia, and NASULGC Chair
and Land-Gramt Colleges
Signed on behalf of all 20 presidents and chancellors of the NASULGC Board of Directors by
C. Peter Magrath, President, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
and Charles B. Knapp, President, University of Georgia, and NASULGC Chair.
One Dupont Circle. NW Suite 710
Washington. DC 20036 1191
(202) 778-0818
Fax (202) 296-6456
07 TUE 18:05 FAX 202 639 9305
CSU FED. REL.
003
Charles B. Knapp
Donald N. Langenberg
President, University of Georgia
Chancellor, University of Maryland System
and Chair, NASULGC Board of Directors
Joan R Leitzel
C. Peter Magrath
President, University of New Hampshire
President, National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
Michael P. Malone
President, Montana State University
Myles Brand
President, Indiana University
Gregory M. SLL. O'Brien
Chancellor, University of New Orleans
Carol A. Cartwright
President, Kent State University
Manuel T. Pacheco
President, The University of Arizona
William B. DeLauder
President, Delaware State University
Samuel H. Smith
President, Washington State University
Lattie F. Coor
President, Arizona State University
Graham B. Spanier
President, Penesylvania State University
Lois B. DeFleur
President, State University of New York
James J. Stukel
XII Binghamton
President, University of Illinois
E. Gordon Gee
Laurel L. Wilkening
President, The Ohio State University
Chancellor, University of California
E Irvine
M.R.C. Greenwood
Chancellor, University of California,
Senta Cruz
Ernest L. Holloway
President, Langston University
Frederick S. Humpbries
President, Florida A&M University
Martin C. Juschice
President, lows State University
William E Kirwan
President, University of Maryland at
College Park
AJCU
ASSOCIATION OF JESUIT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
April 8, 1997
COURTER
Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Control 1100 CHING MA
The White House
CREDITION
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Family SIVERSITY CT
Washington, DC 20500
FORTMANT NIVERSITY.
STATESTY DC
Dear Mr. President:
"A
1 write on behalf of our association of the twenty-eight Jesuit colleges and
have SIVERSEN.OH
universities to congratulate you for proposing the Hope and Educational
1.1
comm.
Opportunity Act of 1997. Your initiative has focused attention on the
NO
critical importance of higher education as a national priority together
with the issues of affordability of college for the majority of Americans
and a reemphasis on the role of the Federal government in assuring
educational opportunities.
1,000
LA
11;
In a period of necessary fiscal constraint, your courage in proposing
creative new funding for students is most appealing, particularly the
$1,500 scholarship tax credit. This additional credit should encourage
more students to participate in the higher education process. The $10,000
I'A
tuition deduction can only continue to help middle class students and
their families to cope with and offset college costs, particularly for multi-
student families.
In the interests of both students and of our institutions, however, WC do
have serious questions regarding implementation of the $1,500 scholarship
tax credit. To the extent that the thrust of the program is further to
expand access, the Federal requirement of a B minus average will almost
certainly penalize many of the precise students it was designed to assist.
For the majority of students and their universities, we are greatly
PA
concerned at the additional administrative complication that would result
III
in reporting to the Treasury Department on maintenance of student
grades. This is not the time to impose additional COSIS and manpower
08
hours to report this information to the Treasury. Furthermore, initiating
a previous drug arrest record of potential tax credit awardees with the FBI
raises concerns about personal intrusion that have never been necessary
for any of the other Federal student aid programs.
1 SUITE 405 T._ FAX1202 662-8523
We support and applaud your suggestions for increasing Pell Grants. This program
alone provides educational opportunities for a majority of Americans who could
not normally pursue a college education without Pell assistance. We would even
encourage more substantial amounts for Pell Grants as this program remains the
cornerstone of student financial aid.
With equal vigor, we support your efforts to continue with all the campus-based aid
programs including a substantial increase for the Federal Work Study Program. As
you are well aware, many of our campuses have had literacy tutoring programs in
place for many years. As part of this effort, our association will continue to
promote the "America Reads Challenge." The Supplemental Education
Opportunity grants and work-study continue to be the best instruments our
financial aid officers possess in adapting to the pressing individual needs of students.
While middle class Americans do need economic relief in providing quality
education for their children, it is the neediest of students who continue to be most
reliant upon the assistance of the Federal government and of individual campuses as
well. That is why emphasis on Pell Grants together with the campus-based aid
programs is so urgently pressing. In this connection, we are disappointed that you
did not request funding for the State Student Incentive Grant Program, 80% of
whose recipients have family incomes below $12,500.
Finally, we want to assure you that more Federal assistance for student aid will not
be the cause of increased tuition costs. Paradoxically, the fastest growing cost
center driving up tuitions in private universities for the past decade has been the
provision of institutional financial aid to our students. The more Federal funding
available for students, the less pressure exists for institutional aid. Thus, this
rapidly escalating cost center for the institution is brought under control.
Mr. President, we welcome the opportunity 10 work with you. As a graduate of a
Jesuit university, we continue 10 be especially proud of your accomplishments. We
wish you well in the success of your second term.
Sincerely,
I Hondred
J. Donald Monan, SP
Interim President
CC:
Honorable Richard H. Riley
Honorable James M. Jeffords
Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Honorable William F. Goodling
Honorable William Clay
June 3, 1997
Mr. Steven B. Sample
President
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California 90089-0012
Dear Steven:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter regarding the importance of
sustaining our investment in higher education and research. I share
your belief that such investments are essential to our continued
economic growth and international competitiveness.
The tight weave of research and education that exists in our
research universities, colleges, and medical schools, fostered
through bipartisan commitment, has served our nation exceptionally
well. It is our responsibility to maintain strong, competitively
awarded, frontier research programs to provide a steady stream of new
knowledge and to train the next generation of scientists, engineers,
and teachers. We must ensure that they are well prepared to
contribute to all sectors of our economy.
Even in this period of budgetary restraint, the National
Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, both
leaders in basic and university-based research, are slated for
inflationary growth over 1997. The mission agency programs (such as
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Departments
of Agriculture and Energy) are also an important part of the federal
research and education portfolio. I am proud that the budget agree-
ment maintains our national commitment to research and education
investments even as we eliminate the budget deficit.
Given the importance of research universities and of our
strong university-government partnership, I have also requested a
government-wide policy and administrative review of data on the
stresses that research universities may be facing. A multi-agency
task force, under the auspices of the National Science and Technology
Council, will present its findings and recommendations to me this
summer regarding the federal government's role in addressing these
critical issues.
I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this issue, and
I hope my actions continue to merit your support and confidence.
Sincerely,
CLINTON
BC/RSM/DWB/JAD/ws-ws-ws-efr
(Corres. #3520805)
(6.sample.sb)
CC: John Gibbons, OEOB 424
CC: Naomi Tinklepaugh, NEOB 8236
CC: Jack Fellows, NEOB 8225
CC: Robert Shireman, OEOB 235
JUL-31-97 THU 02:44 PM
P. 01/02
DERAI OF AND EDUCATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ENTRO STATES OF AMERICA
OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
Facsimile Cover Sheet
Policy, Planning, and Innovation
POLICY, BUDGET, AND ANALYSIS STAFF
600 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Building ROB-3
Washington, DC 20202/5121
Telephone Number: (202) 708-9069
FAX Number: (202) 708-9107
Sally Kirkgasler, Director
Rose Fletcher, Program Assistant
DATE: 7/31 Number of Pages, Including Cover Page:
2
TO:
Bob Shiveman
FAX Number:( ) 456 2223
Policy and Budget Development Unit
Forecasting and Policy Analysis Unit
David Bergeron
Daniel Madzelan
Unit Chief
Unit Chief
X
Karen Wenk
Steve Carter
Education Program Specialist
Program Analyst
Ellen Sealey
Joseph Mike
Program Analyst
Program Analyst
Donald Conner
Charles Masten
Management/Program Analyst
Economist
Maria Rojtman
Mary Miller
Management/Program Analyst
Management/Program Analyst
Deborah Santiago
Adam Ochlis
Program Analyst
Management Analyst
Valentina Tikoff
Julie Laurel
Management/Program Analyst
Statistician
Diana Hayman
Program Analyst
Remarks:
EXAMPLES (STATE-BY-STATE TO COME
SHORTLY)
Dan M
JUL-31-97 THU 02:44 PM
P. 02/02
Postsecondary Education Tuition Tax Benefits Under Various Situations
Two kids in college: Married couple, $60,000 income,
$2,500 ($3,500 after year 2002)
with two kids in college, one at a community college
with $2,000 tuition, the other a junior at a private
college with $10,000 tuition.
Divorced parent: Single parent with $40,000 income,
$1,100
one child going to an average community college
full-time ($1,200 tuition and fees).
Returning to school less than half-time: Family with
$400
$30,000 income, one parent going to a public four-year
college part-time to change careers ($2,000 tuition and
fees).
Child is beyond first two years: Family with $40,000
$1,000 ($2,000 after year 2002)
income, one child is junior at average private college
$12,000 tuition and fees).
Returning to school full-time to become a teacher:
$700
Homemaker, family income of $70,000, attending
graduate teacher training program at public university
after being out of college for 20 years ($3,500 tuition).
Graduate student: Single graduate student with $15,000
$1,000
income and tuition of $15,000.
NASFAA
ID 202-785-1487
JUL 28'97
7:55 No 001 P.02
DOORS OF EDUCATIONAL
OPENING
NASFA
July 25, 1997
The Honorable Richard W. Riley
Secretary of Education
Room 6161, FB - 10
Washington, D.C. 20202
Dear Mr. Secretary:
When we spoke last week, I indicated my strong concerns about some of the student eligibility and
reporting requirement issues contained in the legislation dealing with the Hope Scholarship tax credit,
and my fear that if they are not resolved satisfactorily, most tax filers will view the program as a
bureaucratic nightmare rather than as a positive educational tax benefit.
To this end. ] have carefully reviewed the language contained in the current House and Senate bills,
and have identified what J believe are the most significant problems.
NASFAA wants to work with you and your staff, along with personnel from the Treasury Department
to develop responsible reporting procedures to insure adequate safeguards within the system. At the
same time, we want to develop a reporting system that does not impose unnecessary and costly
paperwork and reporting burdens on students, families, or institutions.
I sincerely hope we can all work together to resolve these issues by keeping the specificity and detail
out of the statute thus enabling us to develop responsible regulations to address the operational details.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss these matters further, please call upon me. Meanwhile, I
hope this information will be useful to you.
Sincerely,
Dallas Martin
President
NATIONAL ASSO IATION OF STUDENT FINANCIAL ADD ADMINISTRATORS
1920 1. STREET N.W. SUITE 200 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036-5020 TELEPHONE: 202-785-0453 FAX: 202-785-1487
NASFAA
ID:202-785-1487
JUL 28'97
7:55 No 001 P.03
NASFAA's Assessment
Of Student Eligibility And Reporting Requirement Issues Related
To the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit
July 25, 1997
J) Eligible student must be enrolled in a course of study on at least a half-time basis for at least
one academic period during a calendar year.
Issue: The enrollment status of a given student can vary significantly during a calendar year. A1 most
credit hour institutions. a student who enrolls for 12 hours or more for a term is considered full-time
and therefore an individual enrolled for at least six hours would be considered a half-time student. It is
important, however, to clarify whether a student enrolled half-time for only a portion of a calendar
year is also eligible to include the amount of any qualified tuition and related expenses paid by that
individual for postsecondary education during the calendar year when they were enrolled on a less-
than-half-time basis.
To illustrate this issue. consider the following example. A student enrolls for six hours at the local
community college for the spring semester of 1998 and pays qualified tuition and fees of $350. The
student enrolls for three credit hours during the summer term and pays $175 to the school, and then
enrolls for a four hour course in the fall term and is assessed another $225 for it. During the 1998 tax
year, the individual paid a total of $750 in qualified tuition and fees and was a half-time student
during one academic period (spring semester) of the tax year. Therefore, is the amount of the
allowable tax credit based upon the total amount paid during the year ($750). or on the amount paid
during the term when the student was enrolled at least half-time ($350)?
The language contained in Section 201 of the House and Senate versions of the tax bills under Section
25A(b)(3) implies that the full amount of $750 would be used to determine the credit since the
individual was enrolled half-time for at least one academic period which began during the tax year. On
the other hand. Section 25A(d)(3) of the definition implies that for "any academic period" the student
must be carrying at least 1/2 the normal full-time workload for the course of study the student is
pursuing.
There are at least three issues involved with this requirement. The first is determining which
educational expenses (or amounts paid) during the tax year can bc considered in calculating the Hope
tax credit. The second is determining who is responsible for reporting the information. The third issue
is how the information will be reported to the IRS.
Proposed Solution: Congress must clarify the seeming conflict between the legislative language found
in Section 25A(b)(3) and Section 25A(d)(3), to insure that everyone understands which expenses paid
during a tax year are to be used to calculate the Hope tax credit.
The language contained in Section 6050S discusses "Returns Relating to Higher Education Tuition and
Related Expenses." This section, however, does not state whether the tax filer or the higher education
institution is responsible for certifying that the student was enrolled half-time for an academic period.
1
NASFAA
ID: :202-785-1487
JUL 28'97
7:56 No 001 P. 04
NASFAA believes this issue should be addressed by regulations if institutions are to be responsible for
certifying this requirement. In this case, it would be important that standardized procedures, time lines,
and methods (paper or electronic) be developed in cooperation with representatives from postsecondary
education community and representatives from the Departments of Education and Treasury. Further,
once these requirements have been developed. they should be published for public comment before
becoming official regulations.
If the tax filer is expected to provide this assurance, Congress should clarify this in the legislative
language to avoid having it regulated by the Secretary. In this case, it should be a simple self-
certification.
2) Defining qualified tuition and related expenses.
Issue: The language in Section 25A(d)(1) of the bills defines the term "qualified tuition and related
expenses" to mean tuition, required fees, and required books for course of instruction. It further
clarifies that eligible fees only include academic fees and not activity, athletic, or insurance fees.
Section 6050S further states in (b)(2)(C)(i) that educational institutions have to report the aggregate
amount of payments for qualified tuition and related expenses received for the student. While
institutions should be able to verify tuition and fee payments that are received. very few will be able
to verify costs incurred for required books. Some students buy new books, while others buy used
books. Students may share a book or use one from a library. Students may also purchase books from a
source that is not related in any manner to the institution.
In practice, most institutions simply build a reasonable allowance for books and supplies into their
student expense budgets. just as they include an average allowance for room and board or
transportation. The actual amount expended for any of these items however, may vary from one
student to another. Further, college book stores are usually operated as auxiliary enterprises and
therefore they would not have a record of how much a student has paid for required books.
Proposed Solution: NASFAA would suggest that if required books are to be included as a part of
related expenses, institutions should be allowed to estimate an amount that most students would incur
for those courses of study.
Further, NASFAA believes that limiting related expenses to educational fees and books unfairly
understates the actual educational expenses that many students incur. Any student taking a studio an
painting course. a photography class, or an architectural drawing course will likely be assessed more
for supplies and materials than a student purchasing a book for an algebra class. One student can
include their expense in determining the amount of the Hope tax credit, but the other student cannot.
Therefore, NASFAA would propose that the definition be expanded to include an estimate of required
books, supplies, and related course expenses.
3) Adjustments for certain scholarships, etc.
Issue: Section 25A(g)(2) of the bills defines those circumstances under which a tax filer would be
required to reduce the amount of qualified tuition and related expenses. if the person receives other
scholarships or assistance. While we can understand the intent of this provision. we would note that
there is no way to consistently monitor or verify such payments without simply relying on the honesty
of the tax filer.
2
NASFAA
ID:202-785-1487
JUL 28'97
7:56 No. 001 P.05
First, many scholarship providers send award proceeds directly to the recipient. As such, college
officials have no way of knowing whether the funds used to pay for tuition and fees came from the
scholarship proceeds or from the student's own monies. Second, even when a scholarship is forwarded
to the school for disbursement, such awards are often simply applied to a student's total account as a
credit. As such, there is no way of knowing whose dollars were applied to tuition and whose were
applied 10 other charges like room and board. Granted, a few donors may specify that their proceeds
have to be applied only to tuition and/or fees, but these are the exceptions and not the rule. Therefore,
if this offset adjustment remains a requirement, the only way that it can be fairly applied is to take the
word of the tax filer.
We have similar concerns with the provision which says that veterans educational benefits, which may
be used to pay tuition and fee expenses, must be deducted from the qualified tuition and fee amounts.
Again, when a student receives veterans benefits, the monies go directly to the student. Whether these
funds or the student's own funds are used to pay tuition and/or fees can only be certified by the
student. In addition, we can find no logical reason to subtract VEAP benefits under Chapter 32, when
these amounts were voluntarily contributed by the person while they were serving their country.
Proposed Solution: Given the difficulties associated with monitoring these adjustments evenly and
fairly. and their modest impact relative to the cost of the Hope tax credit, we would proposed deleting
the adjustments section from the statute and instead to address these issues, as necessary. through
regulations.
4) Eligible student must not have a federal or state felony conviction for drug possession or
distribution.
Issue: Section 25A(g)(3) denies a tax credit to a student convicted of a felony drug offense.
Experience has shown that colleges and universities usually do not know whether an enrolled student
has been convicted of a drug felony. As such, it would be unwise to have these entities responsible for
certifying this eligibility requirement.
Proposed Solution: NASFAA proposes that the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue
Service run a tape match, on at least an annual basis, comparing the names and social security
numbers of those individual students who filed for the Hope tax credit against the records maintained
of federal and state court convictions. This would identify any person who claimed the credit with an
ineligible student. If a match is found and the tax credit has been claimed, the tax filer would be
notified they are not eligible for such credit due to the drug conviction and therefore must remit the
amount of the credit allowed to the IRS.
In addition. instructions on the tax forms should announce this eligibility requirement to tax filers and
inform them of the impending tape match.
5) No credit for married individuals filing separate returns.
Issue: Section 25A(g)(5) requires a married couple to file a joint return for the tax year in order to
qualify for a Hope tax credit. This requirement seems unnecessarily arbitrary. For example, take a
married couple. without other dependents, who are both students. If they choose to file separate tax
returns and each individual applied for their own Hope tax credit, why can they not do so? Is the
intent of the legislation to prevent each of them from filing for their own Hope tax credit on a joint
3
NASFAA
ID:202-785-1487
JUL 28'97
7:57 No. 001 P.06
return? Presumably, this is not the case since parents could file for more than one tax credit if they
had two or more dependents in college during a tax year who qualified.
Proposed Solution: NASFAA believes that this provision should be deleted, since the kind of tax
return filed should not have a bearing on the person's eligibility for the Hope tax credit.
6) Form and manner of returns.
Issue: Section 6050S(b) of the bills outlines the information which would have to be provided by
educational institutions to those persons who desire to file for a Hope tax credit. Given the specificity
of data required within this section, it should first be noted that not a single postsecondary educational
institution could comply with these requirements.
For example, the requirements would expect the institution to report the name, address, and taxpayer
identification number (TIN) of the individual who attended the institution as well as the name, address
and TIN of any other individual who might claim the student as a dependent for the purpose of filing
for the HOPE Scholarship tax credit.
First, we would question the need to report the student's address. The address maintained on most
institutional files is the student's current campus address, which changes very frequently. Further, in
many cases, the campus address will not match up with the address listed on the student's or parents'
tax form, so its usefulness is very limited. The name and social security number of the student should
suffice for reporting purposes.
Second, institutions do not maintain or collect social security numbers of a student's parents.
stepparents. or spouse. In most cases. they also do not maintain a current listing of the student's
parents', stepparents', or spouse's legal names and current addresses. The fact is, institutions do not
need this type of data. so they do not collect it. In addition, most taxpayers are very reluctant to reveal
their social security numbers to any third party--for security reasons--and family circumstances, marital
status. and addresses are constantly changing. The ability of any institution to maintain and provide
this kind of accurate data to the student or the IRS is simply not possible, nor is it necessary.
Third, while we have previously discussed the problem with determining the aggregate amount of
payments for qualified tuition and related expenses. we are also concerned about the ability of
institutions to provide an accurate determination of the aggregate amount of reimbursements or refunds
paid to a student during the calendar year.
For example, a student may receive a scholarship from a community organization that the institution
does not know about, particularly if that student is not a financial aid recipient at the institution.
Likewise, a student may receive a refund from the Music Department for a musical instrument rental
when the student withdraws from a particular class. The transaction does not go through the
institution's business office because it is handled by the Music Department. As such. the institution's
Student Accounts Office records would not show this transaction and the only way it could be
accurately reported would be for every institution to centralize all of its now decentralized financial
functions.
4
NASFAA
ID:202-785-1487
JUL 28'97
7:58 No 001 P.07
Institutions are already having difficulty complying with the refund regulations mandated under the
Higher Education Act and this requirement would simply add a whole different set of unnecessary
requirements.
Finally, we would note that institutions operate their current student aid programs on an award year
cycle that runs from July 1 to June 30 of each year. Thus, their record keeping systems are maintained
on this schedule. The reporting requirements related to the Hope tax credit will already require
institutions to completely revamp their record keeping systems, and as such, the changes should be
kept to a minimum.
Possible Solution: NASFAA strongly believes that the level of required taxpayer data called for in
this section is unreasonable and should be eliminated from the statute.
If the taxpayer listed the social security number of the qualifying student as part of claiming the HOPE
Scholarship tax credit, the IRS could then run data base matches based on that number. Since
taxpayers are already required to list the social security number of any dependent they claim. this
approach would relieve parents, stepparents, spouses, or others from the requirement to share
confidential data with an institution. and it would relieve all parties of the expenses and burdens
associated with collecting, maintaining, and reporting such data.
Further we would propose that the specificity contained in this section governing payments, refunds,
and reimbursements simply be deleted from the statute and replaced with a requirement to have the
Departments of Treasury and Education work with representatives of the higher education community
to develop standardized reporting procedures, that will maintain the integrity of the programs while not
imposing unreasonable reporting requirements on all parties.
5
PRESIDENT CLINTON DELIVERS THE FIRST BALANCED BUDGET
IN A GENERATION AND A MAINSTREAM TAX CUT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
$900 Billion in Net 10 Year Deficit Savings.
First Balanced Budget since 1969.
Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children Since 1965.
A $500 Per Child Tax Credit for Approximately 27 Million Families.
Largest Investment in Higher Education Since the G.I. Bill in 1945:
$1,500 HOPE Scholarship to Make Two Years of College Universally
Available
20% Tuition Tax Credit for College Juniors, Seniors, Graduate Students
and for Working Americans pursuing Lifelong Learning to upgrade their
skills
Critical Long-Term Entitlement Reforms -- Extends Solvency of Medicare
Trust Fund for at Least a Decade.
Brownfields and Empowerment Zones Tax Incentives to Revitalize Our
Nation's Distressed Areas.
A $ 3 Billion Welfare-to-Work Jobs Initiative Targeted to High Poverty Areas.
Treats Legal Immigrants Fairly -- Restores Health and Disability Benefits
THE FIRST BALANCED BUDGET IN A GENERATION
FIRST BALANCED BUDGET SINCE 1969
Net savings of over $900 billion over ten years.
1993 Economic Plan has cut the deficit 77% from $290 billion in 1992 to $67 billion or lower
in 1996. This agreement finishes the job -- balances the budget in 2002 and puts the
budget in surplus in each of the second five years of the budget.
SINGLE LARGEST INVESTMENT IN HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN SINCE THE
PASSAGE OF MEDICAID IN 1965
An unprecedented $24 billion for children's health care.
Guarantee of meaningful health coverage including full range of benefits to as many as 5
million uninsured children.
Provisions to ensure that states use this investment to provide health care coverage to children
who do not currently have health insurance and that there are adequate cost protections so that
families are not burdened with excessive costs.
CRITICAL LONG-TERM ENTITLEMENT REFORMS
$434 billion in ten-year Medicare savings.
This extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund for at least a decade.
Prepares Medicare for the 21st century -- more choice is provided, competition is injected,
and payment systems are revamped.
$4 billion in preventive benefits to fight diseases like breast cancer, diabetes & colon cancer.
MOVES PEOPLE FROM WELFARE TO WORK & TREATS LEGAL IMMIGRANTS FAIRLY
$3 billion to help states and local communities move people from welfare to work.
$12 billion to restore both disability and health benefits for legal immigrants who are
currently receiving assistance or become disabled, ensuring that they will not be turned out of
their apartments or nursing homes or otherwise left to an uncertain fate.
A MAINSTREAM TAX CUT
On December 15, 1994, President Clinton put forth the Middle Class Bill of Rights which included a $500
Child Tax Credit, an expanded IRA that allows people to withdraw money tax-free and without penalty
for education and a tax deduction for post-high school education expenses. Each of the President's
proposals are included in this budget:
A CHILD TAX CREDIT FOR APPROXIMATELY 27 MILLION FAMILIES.
$500 Per-Child Tax Credit for approximately 27 million families with 45 million children
under 17. The credit begins to phase-out for couples with incomes above $110,000.
Up to 4.8 million working families will now receive the child tax credit who would not have
under the Congressional plans. At the President's insistence, more than $10 billion over 5
years was added to provide a Child Tax Credit for people making under $30,000 like young
teachers, police officers, farmers, and nurses who work hard and play by the rules.
A VICTORY FOR MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS TRYING TO PAY FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S
COLLEGE AND FOR WORKING PEOPLE TRYING TO UPGRADE THEIR SKILLS.
$1,500 HOPE Scholarship to make the first two years of college universally available. The
final agreement includes the President's initiative to advance the goal of making the 13th and
14th grades as universal as a high school diploma is today. Students would be provided a
scholarship of 100% on the first $1,000 of tuition and fees and 50% on the second $1,000.
20% Tuition Tax Credit for college juniors, seniors, graduate students and for working
Americans pursuing lifelong learning to upgrade their skills. The 20% credit will be
applied to the first $5,000 of qualified education expenses through 2002, and to the first
$10,000 thereafter. A major deficiency of the congressional tax bills has been that they did little
to help students in their third and fourth year S of college and they were missing a commitment
to lifelong learning. The President has long understood that the economy is changing and that
people must have the opportunity to enhance their skills throughout their lives. This is why the
President insisted on the 20% tuition tax credit that is in the final bill.
TAX INCENTIVES TO REVITALIZE OUR NATION'S DISTRESSED URBAN AREAS.
A key component of the President's tax cutting agenda has been to spur economic activity in distressed
areas of our nation's cities. This budget reflects the President's agenda:
A New Tax Cut Plan Helps to Clean Up and Redevelop Brownfields. The 3-year
Brownfields tax incentive will reduce the cost of cleaning up thousands of contaminated,
abandoned sites in economically distressed areas by permitting clean-up costs to be
immediately deducted for tax purposes, rather than requiring this spending to be written off over
time. This would, in turn, encourage redevelopment of these areas.
New Empowerment Zones. The budget includes a second-round of EZs -- 15 urban and 5
rural EZs. The new EZs will benefit from a different blend of tax credits than the first-round
communities. For example, the EZs will be eligible for the Brownfields tax incentive, special
expensing of business assets, and qualification for private-activity bonds.
HELPING MOVE PEOPLE FROM WELFARE TO WORK
A Welfare to Work Tax Credit. This provision will give employers an added incentive to hire
long-term welfare recipients by providing a credit equal to 35% of the first $10,000 in annual
wages in the first year, and 50% of the first $10,000 in the second year of employment, paid to
new hires who have received welfare for an extended period. The credit is for two years per
worker to encourage not only hiring but retention.
$3 Billion to Help People in Distressed Areas Move from Welfare to Work. Adds $3
billion to help localities move the most disadvantaged welfare recipients into jobs; the funding
is targeted to high-poverty areas, including inner cities. These funds can be used for job
creation, job placement and job retention efforts, including wage subsidies to private employers,
transportation and other critical post-employment supportive services.
PRESIDENT CLINTON DELIVERS
THE LARGEST SINGLE INVESTMENT IN CHILDREN'S HEALTH
CARE SINCE THE PASSAGE OF MEDICAID IN 1965
The President fought hard to ensure that the Budget Agreement includes $24 billion to provide
meaningful health care coverage to as many as five million of our nation's ten million uninsured children.
This investment includes a meaningful benefits package, ensures that states use this money to cover
uninsured children and not replace existing public or private spending, and guarantees adequate cost-
sharing protections for families.
INVESTS UNPRECEDENTED $24 BILLION FOR UNINSURED CHILDREN. The
President insisted on increasing the investment for children's health from $16 billion to $24
billion by including revenue from a new tobacco tax. Because of the President's leadership, this
budget will contain the largest children's health care budget since the enactment of Medicaid in
1965. Including these additional revenues in the children's health initiative will not only further
reduce the number of uninsured children, but it will serve as a financial barrier to help prevent our
children from starting smoking in the first place.
ENSURES MEANINGFUL HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, WHILE ALLOWING
STATES TO DESIGN THEIR OWN BENEFITS PACKAGE. The President fought hard to
ensure that this investment guarantees the full range of benefits -- from checkups to surgery --
that children need to grow up strong and healthy. The President also worked to ensure that
prescription drugs, vision, hearing, and mental health coverage now offered at the state level are
extended to millions of uninsured children.
GIVES STATES THE FLEXIBILITY TO DESIGN BENEFITS THAT MEET THEIR
NEEDS. States will be able to choose from any of four benefits packages: (1) the FEHPB model;
(2) the benefits package of the most popular state HMO; (3) the state employee plan; and (4) the
actuarial equivalent of any of the three stated benefit plans as long as prescription drugs, vision,
hearing, and mental health services now offered in these plans are guaranteed to equal at least 75
percent of the value of these services.
SUPPLEMENTS NOT SUPPLANTS CURRENT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. Includes
provisions to ensure that states provide health care coverage to children who do not currently have
health insurance. It requires that states maintain their current level of spending to access Federal
dollars to help make sure that this investment is not used to replace public or private money that
already covers children.
ENSURES ADEQUATE COST-SHARING PROTECTIONS. The President fought to
ensure that families are not forced to shoulder excessive costs for their children. The Agreement
guarantees that families under 150 percent of poverty will be protected against overly burdensome
cost sharing.
PRESIDENT CLINTON DELIVERS A $500 CHILD TAX CREDIT
FOR APPROXIMATELY 27 MILLION FAMILIES
MAIN FEATURES OF THE CHILD TAX CREDIT:
Age. Covers children under 17.
Amount per child. $400 in 1998. $500 thereafter.
Income limits. Begins to be phased out for couples making over $110,000 and for one
parent families making over $75,000..
Stacking. Child tax credit will be calculated or "stacked" before the EITC and will
therefore be available for the up to 4.8 million working families who have incomes below
$30,000 and who were denied the child tax credit under the congressional bills.
For families with more than two kids -- Refundability to cover out-of-pocket income and
payroll taxes. Because many large families have little income tax liability, but pay
significant out of pocket payroll taxes, the child tax credit for these families is partially
refundable. These families will receive a child credit for their income taxes plus the extent
to which their out-of-pocket (employee share) payroll taxes exceed their EITC.
Savings Incentive Feature. Taxpayers who are entitled to a child credit would be given
the opportunity to contribute $500 each year to an education IRA. Earnings would
accumulate tax-free in the account and no taxes would be due upon withdrawal for an
approved purpose.
A CHILD TAX CREDIT FOR FAMILIES WHO WORK HARD AND PAY TAXES.
Both congressional plans failed a critical test of fairness by denying the child tax credit to up to 4.8
million hard-working families who pay taxes and earn less than $30,000 a year. These are young
teachers, police officers, farmers, and nurses who work hard and play by the rules.
President Clinton worked to ensure that under any final agreement, these young parents would
receive a child tax credit to make it easier for them to raise their children.
Consider a family of four with two small children: the father is a rookie police officer making
$23,000, and the mother has chosen to stay at home. Both congressional bills would have denied
this family, and millions of others, the child tax credit. The President said all along that this
would be wrong and insisted they be included in any final tax cut. Under the final agreement,
this family will receive a child tax credit of $675.
President Clinton's
Agreement
House Bill
Senate Bill
Proposal
Child Tax Credit for
family of rookie police
$767
$675
$0
$0
officer making $23,000
PRESIDENT CLINTON DELIVERS A BUDGET THAT
STRENGTHENS AND PRESERVES MEDICARE
The Budget Agreement preserves and strengthens the Medicare program, saving $115 billion over five
years and extending the life of the Medicare Trust Fund for at least ten years. It modernizes Medicare by
including new market-oriented reforms that have proved successful in the private sector and $4 billion in
new preventive benefits. As this agreement strengthens and preserves the Medicare program, it also
creates a Medicare Commission to examine the long-term needs of the program so that Medicare will be
prepared for the retirement of the baby boomers.
SAVES $115 BILLION OVER FIVE YEARS. Includes $115 billion in savings over five
years and $434 billion over ten years.
EXTENDS THE LIFE OF THE MEDICARE TRUST FUND FOR AT LEAST TEN
YEARS. This agreement will keep Medicare solvent until at least 2007.
IMPLEMENTS UNPRECEDENTED NEW MARKET-ORIENTED REFORMS
INCLUDING:
(1)
Empowering the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement competitive
market mechanisms;
(2)
Opening up new options that have proved effective in the private sector, including
allowing Medicare to work with Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) and
Provider Sponsored Organizations (PSOs);
(3)
Providing Americans with meaningful choices by reforming annual Medigap
enrollment; and
(4)
Building on the success Medicare has had in controlling hospital costs,
restructuring the entire payment system so that rates are set in advance through a
prospective payment system.
INCLUDES $4 BILLION OVER FIVE YEARS FOR NEW PREVENTIVE
BENEFITS INCLUDING expanding coverage for mammograms and colorectal
screening and improving self-management of diseases like diabetes.
ENSURES NEW PREMIUM PROTECTIONS FOR LOW-INCOME MEDICARE
BENEFICIARIES. The budget agreement invests $1.5 billion over five years to pay the
premiums for beneficiaries up to 135 percent of poverty. Beneficiaries over 135 percent of
poverty to as high as 185 percent of poverty will get assistance as well.
TAKES STEPS TO ENSURE THAT VULNERABLE HOSPITALS ARE
PROTECTED. The Agreement reduces the Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospitals cut
from $2.4 billion in the Senate-passed agreement to $600 million over five years.
ESTABLISHES A MEDICARE COMMISSION. The agreement creates a 17-member
Medicare Commission which contains eight Democrats and eight Republicans and an
additional member that will be selected jointly by the President and the Congressional
leadership to chair the Commission. The Commission will release a report in 1999 and
require a 11 of 17 majority to ensure that its recommendations are bipartisan.
PRESIDENT CLINTON DELIVERS TAX CUTS
TO CLEANUP AND REVITALIZE URBAN AREAS
THE BROWNFIELDS TAX INCENTIVE WILL REDUCE THE COST OF
CLEANING UP THOUSANDS OF CONTAMINATED, ABANDONED SITES IN
ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS by permitting clean-up costs to be immediately
deducted for tax purposes, rather than requiring this spending to be written off over time.
This would, in turn, encourage redevelopment of these areas. The tax incentive will be
available for three years.
THIS PROPOSAL IS A MAJOR PRIORITY FOR MANY OF AMERICA'S MAYORS.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, writing recently on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
urged Ways and Means Chairman Archer to include the President's Brownfields proposal in
the tax bill: "This is a high priority for communities across the nation." [Letter to Chmn. Archer,
6/11/97]
CREATES NEW EMPOWERMENT ZONES. Under the President's 1993 Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities initiative, participating communities develop a strategic
plan to spur economic development, and they receive Federal tax benefits, social service
grants and flexibility in use of Federal funds in order to put these plans into effect. The EZs
and ECs are urban or rural areas with high poverty and unemployment rates.
A Strong Start since 1994. The 105 communities selected as EZ/ECs in 1994 amassed
over $8 billion in public-private commitments. In the six urban Empowerment Zones, the
private sector has made or pledged $2 billion in new investments.
A Second Round to Build on Our Successes. In response, the President proposed,
and the bill includes, a second-round of EZs-- 15 urban and 5 rural EZs. The new
EZs will benefit from a different blend of tax credits than first-round EZs. They
will be eligible for the Brownfields tax incentive, special expensing of business
assets, and qualification for private-activity bonds.
AND TO MOVE PEOPLE FROM WELFARE TO WORK
A WELFARE-TO-WORK TAX CREDIT. This provision will give employers an added
incentive to hire long-term welfare recipients by providing a credit equal to 35% of the first
$10,000 in annual wages in the first year, and 50% of the first $10,000 in wages in the second
year of employment, paid to new hires who have received welfare for an extended period.
The credit is for two years per worker to encourage not only hiring but retention.
$3 BILLION TO HELP THE MOST DISADVANTAGED MOVE FROM WELFARE
TO WORK. Adds $3 billion to help localities move the most disadvantaged welfare
recipients into jobs; the funding is targeted to high-poverty areas, including inner cities.
These funds can be used for job creation, job placement and job retention efforts, including
wage subsidies to private employers, transportation and other critical post-employment
supportive services. The Labor Department will provide oversight but the dollars will be
placed in the hands of the localities who are on the front lines of the welfare reform effort.
PRESIDENT CLINTON FOUGHT TO PROTECT
OUR MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE
Several provisions in last year's welfare reform bill had nothing to do with the goals of welfare reform.
The President said so at the time and promised to work to correct these provisions. That's why he fought
to ensure that any agreement protects the most vulnerable in our society. The President fought to better
protect:
CHILDREN
KEEPING THE GUARANTEE TO MEDICAID. Preserves the Federal guarantee of
Medicaid coverage for the vulnerable populations who depend on it and contains additional
investments to extend coverage to uninsured children.
LEGAL IMMIGRANTS
CURRENT RECIPIENTS. Restores both SSI and Medicaid benefits for immigrants now
receiving assistance, ensuring that they will not be turned out of their apartments or nursing
homes or otherwise left to an uncertain fate.
CURRENT RESIDENT NONRECIPIENTS Does not change the rules retroactively.
Immigrants in the country as of August 22, 1996 but not receiving benefits at that point who
subsequently become disabled will also be fully eligible for SSI and Medicaid benefits.
REFUGEES AND ASYLEES. Extends the SSI and Medicaid eligibility period for
refugees and asylees from 5 years after entry (the limit in the welfare bill) to 7 years, in
order to give these residents more time to naturalize.
The budget legislation also, pursuant to Administration suggestions, treats Cuban and
Haitian entrants and Amerasians immigrants as refugees for purposes of SSI, Medicaid and
other means-tested benefits, ensuring that they can receive the assistance needed as a result
of the extraordinary hardship many have endured.
POOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED, INCLUDING CITIZENS
RECIPIENTS OF STATE SSI SUPPLEMENTS. Does not include the House-passed
provision that would have repealed the maintenance of effort requirement applying to State
supplementation of SSI benefits, permitting States to reduce or eliminate benefits to almost
3 million poor blind, elderly and disabled individuals.
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK BUT CAN'T FIND A JOB
CHILDLESS ADULTS. Last year's welfare reform bill restricted food stamps for able-
bodied childless adults to only 3 out of every 36 months, unless they are working. This
move ignored the fact that finding a job often takes time. The budget bill provides $1.5
billion to create 235,000 work slots and provide food stamp benefits to those who are
willing to work but, through no fault of their own, have not yet found employment.
ALLOWS STATES TO EXEMPT UP TO 15 PERCENT OF THE FOOD STAMP
RECIPIENTS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE DENIED BENEFITS AS A
RESULT OF THE "3 IN 36" LIMIT.
President Clinton's Historic Balanced Budget Agreement:
Building on His Strong Record of Deficit Reduction and Growth
President Clinton has achieved a balanced budget agreement that includes critical investments in education,
health care, and the environment while strengthening and modernizing Medicare and Medicaid -- just as he
promised last year. This achievement finishes the job of balancing the budget, a key priority for the President
since he took office.
ONLY FOUR YEARS AGO. In 1993, the President inherited a budget deficit of $290 billion that was
expected to explode to over one-half trillion dollars in 2002. A decade of large deficits had weakened the
foundation of our economy and sapped our power and prestige abroad. Unemployment was 7.5% in 1992, and job
growth was sluggish.
THE PRESIDENT PASSES HIS 1993 ECONOMIC PLAN. President Clinton addressed this problem of fiscal
instability immediately on a pledge to cut the deficit in half. Working with Democrats in Congress, he
implemented an economic program designed to reduce the deficit and to invest in critical priorities, such as
education and training. The 1993 economic plan has exceeded all expectations: the deficit has fallen by 77%,
dropping for a likely fifth year in a row to an expected $67 billion in 1997; equipment investment has been the
strongest since Kennedy was President; the economy has produced over 12.5 million new jobs; and the
unemployment rate this year is the lowest in 24 years.
THE PRESIDENT ACHIEVES BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT TO FINISH THE JOB. The President began
his second term determined to fulfill his goal of balancing the budget. As we head into the next century, this
bipartisan agreement protects our priorities, solidifies the nation's economic foundation, restores faith in our
ability to govern ourselves, and bolsters America's preeminent position in the world economy. The balanced
budget agreement includes $900 billion in 10 year net deficit savings and delivers the first balanced budget in a
generation.
President Clinton Delivers the First Balanced Budget in a Generation
Year
1993 Deficit Projection
Current Deficit Path
1993
$310
$255
1994
$302
$203
1995
$301
$164
1996
$298
$107
1997
$347
1998
$387
1999
$429
2000
$475
2001
$521
2002
$576
BUDGET STAYS IN BALANCE. In addition to delivering a balanced budget in 2002, the budget
agreement delivers budget surpluses for each of the second five years of the budget window, 2003-2007,
putting the nation on a solid fiscal path at a critical time as the baby boom generation edges toward retirement.
Year
Surplus
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
budgtps. 728
Page 1
PRESIDENT CLINTON DELIVERS THE FIRST BALANCED
BUDGET IN A GENERATION AND A MAINSTREAM TAX CUT
President Clinton has achieved an historic balanced budget that promotes our values, providing
critical investments for education, health care, and the environment while strengthening and
modernizing Medicare and Medicaid. It also provides middle-class families a tax cut to help
raise their kids and send them to college. We have cut the deficit by 77%, from $290 billion in
1992 to $67 billion or less this year. This historic budget finishes the job, while meeting our
goals.
ONLY FOUR YEARS AGO. In 1993, the President inherited a budget deficit of $290
billion that was expected to explode to over one-half trillion dollars in 2002. A decade of
large deficits had weakened the foundation of our economy and sapped our power and prestige
abroad. Unemployment was 7.5% in 1992, and job growth was sluggish.
THE PRESIDENT PASSES HIS 1993 ECONOMIC PLAN. President Clinton addressed this
problem of fiscal instability immediately on a pledge to cut the deficit in half. Working with
Democrats in Congress, he implemented an economic program designed to reduce the deficit and
to invest in critical priorities, such as education and training. The 1993 economic plan has
exceeded all expectations: the deficit has fallen by 77%, dropping for a likely fifth year in a row
to $67 billion or less in 1997; equipment investment has been the strongest since Kennedy was
President; the economy has produced over 12.5 million new jobs; and the unemployment rate
this year is the lowest in 24 years.
THE PRESIDENT ACHIEVES FIRST BALANCED BUDGET IN A GENERATION TO
FINISH THE JOB. The President began his second term determined to fulfill his goal of
balancing the budget. As we head into the next century, this bipartisan balanced budget protects
our priorities, solidifies the nation's economic foundation, restores faith in our ability to govern
ourselves, and bolsters America's preeminent position in the world economy.
$900 Billion in Net Ten-Year Savings to keep us on the path of fiscal responsibility and
help prepare the nation for the retirement of the baby boom generation.
Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children Since the Passage of
Medicaid in 1965. Today, ten million children have no health insurance. The
balanced budget takes dramatic and concrete steps to right this wrong. Health
care coverage will be extended to up to 5 million children
Critical Long-Term Entitlement Reforms including $434 billion in ten-year Medicare
savings to keep the Medicare Trust Fund Solvent for at least a decade. Importantly, these
savings are achieved in a way that prepares Medicare for the 21st century -- more choice
is provided, competition is injected, and payment systems are revamped and preventive
benefits are included.
Largest Increase in Higher Education Funding Since the G.I. Bill of 1945, including
budgtps. 728
Page 2
$1,500 HOPE Scholarship to make the first two years of college universally available and
a 20% Tuition Tax Credit for college juniors, seniors, graduate students and for working
Americans pursuing lifelong learning to upgrade their skills.
$500 Per Child Tax Credit to make it easier for approximately 27 million families to
raise their children.
Helping Move People from Welfare to Work. The budget adds $3 billion, the full
amount requested by the President for the Welfare-to-Work Jobs Challenge, to the TANF
block grant to fund welfare-to-work efforts in high-poverty, high-unemployment areas.
Protects our Nation's Most Vulnerable People. The budget includes $12 billion to
restore both disability and health benefits for legal immigrants who are or become
disabled, ensuring that they will not be turned out of their apartments or nursing homes or
otherwise left to an uncertain fate.
07/29/1997 12:20 8472568954
KB:
PAGE 01
825 Green Bay Road, Suite 270
NAGPS
National Association of
Wilmette, IL 60091
Graduate-Professional Students
Voice (847)256-1562
Fax (847)256-8954
Toll Free 1-888-88-NAGPS
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.magps.org/NAGPS/
TO:
Bob Shireman + NEC
CC:
FROM:
Kevin Boyer Executive Director
DATE:
7/29/97
FAX# (202) 456 - 2223
RE:
Please tell me that the n not true Grad
students worked SO HHRD on then tax pachage L
we really desire the Sec 127 benefit ex tension for
grad students. The $ value is Fairly low, but the "psych "value high
/ MORE PACES
07/29/1997 12:20
8472568954
KB:
PAGE 02
07/28/97 17:38:03
SWIFT-1789->
8472568954 via5167592008 79408 Page 002
M
002
07/28/97 MON 17:06 FAX 1 202 835 0004
NAICU
111
National Association
of Independent
Calleges and Universities
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Section 127 Working Group
FROM:
Matt Hamill MYI
DATE:
July 28, 1997
RE:
Update on Negotiations
Negotiators worked through the weekend in an effort to reach accord
on a balanced budget agreement. and an accompanying tax package. Significant
progress was made, a few details need to be worked out, but it appears that an
announcement of a final agreement will occur within the next 24 hours.
The agreement that has been reached on education related tax
provisions would extend section 127 until May 31, 2000. This Was the
recommendation of the Republicans negotiators, made to the White House late last
week. Unfortunately, the extension does not restore the exclusion for graduate
classes.
1
I expect that a deal will be announced sometime tomorrow, and will
continue to keep you posted on further developments.
?
White gave Home why here
na
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036-5405 202/715-8866 FAX: 202/835-0003
07/31/97
09:01
002
07/30/92 19:01 To:Gene Sperling
From:Stephanie
ACCT, Wash., DC
Page 2/2
AACC
American Association of Community Colleges
Association of Community College Trustees
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Budget and Tax Agreement Increases Access
for Millions of Community College Students
Washington, DC (July 30)- In separate press conferences held at both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue yesterday, President Clinton and Congressional leaders announced
final agreement on spending and revenue bills to bring the federal budget into balance by
the year 2002.
The final plan, expected to clear Congress prior to the recess beginning August 4,
is especially good news for the nation's community college students. The budget deal
provides significant financial support in the form of a tax credit for the first two years of
college, a lifelong learning credit beyond the first two years of college, extension of the
tax deduction for employer-provided educational assistance, and a partial restoration of
the deduction for student loan interest.
Final education components agreed to yesterday include:
A modified Hope Scholarship Tax Credit for four years of college available
beginning in tax year 1998;
Years 1 and 2: 100% of the first $1,000 of tuition, 50% of the nexi $1,000
Years 3, 4 and beyond: 20% of up to $5,000 of tuition, increasing to $10,000 after
2002
A three-year extension for Employee Educational Assistance to undergraduate
students (through May 31, 2000) found in Section 127 of the I.R.S. Code:
The partial restoration of the Student Loan Interest Deduction, up to $2,500 per year;
Tax-free state prepaid tuition plans;
Education IRAs for college expenses:
Penalty-free withdrawals for educational expenses from existing IRAs; and
Elimination of origination fees on direct student loans.
Both the American Association of Community Colleges and Association of
Community College Trustees support the agreement reached yesterday between the
White House and Congress and urge its immediate adoption. For more information,
contact David Baime (AACC) at 202/728-0200, ext. 224, or Noah Brown (ACCT) at
202/775-4667.
###
AACC, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 728-0200 FAX (202) 833-2467
ACCT, 1740 "N" Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 775-4667 Fax (202) 223-1297
Page 2
Provision
Effective
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2008
2007
1997-02
1997-07
B. Other Education-Related Tu Provisione
1. Extend employer-provided education assistance for
undergraduates through 5/31/00 (1)
tyba 12/31/96
...
-534
-369
.250
-
...
;
-
--
--
--
2. Repeal $150 million lemit on tax-exempt section
-1,153
-1,153
501(c)(3) bonds for new capital expenditures
1/1/98
-
-6
-45
-75
-69
-99
-106
-115
-125
-138
-162
-315
3. Enhanced deduction for corporate contributions of
962
computer technology and equipment for grades K- 12;
JUL 31'97 11:52
sunset after 3 years
lyba 12/31/97
...
-46
.48
77
-49
-5
-1
---
-
!
i
-225
-227
4. Raise small issuer arbitrage rebate exception for
governmental bonds used to finance education
facilities from $5 million 10 $10 million
bia 12/31/97
-
.1
.4
-7
"
-14
-27
-30
-33
-36
-38
5. Treatment of cancellation of certain student loans; with
-36
-199
modification
Da DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
6. Tax credit for holders of qualified education bonds
(limited to $400 million par year in loans). 2-year sunset
Dia 12/31/97
--
to
-27
-43
-47
-47
-47
-47
-47
.47
.47
-172
-408
SUBTOTAL OF EDUCATION TAX INCENTIVES
-
-2,966
-7,983
9,170
-9,572
-9,595
-10,893
-11,379
-11,872
-12,379
-12,917
-39,394
-90,635
1b. SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT TAX INCENTIVES
A. Individual Retirement Arrangements
1. IRA - Increase deductible IRA income limits by $10,000 lot
joint filers in 1998 ($5,000 kr single filers in 1998) and by
$1,000 per year through 2002; in 2003 increase to
$40,000 IDI single Hers and $60,000 for joint filers and by
$5,000 per year thereatter until Amits are $50,000
$60,000 for single liters and $80,000 $100,000 for joint
filers (phase out range increases to $20,000 when lower
Arriel reaches $100,000); penalty-free withdrawals for
educational purposes and first-time home purchase only;
create IRA PLUS; impose phase-out range of $95,000
$110,000 for single hiers and $150,000- $160,000 for joint
filers: impose $150,000 - $160,000 income phase-out for
RM#162JUL.31_'97_01 01:52PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
spouse) IRAs: provide that aggregate contributions to
deductible and condeductible retirement IRAs may not
exceed $2,000
tybe 12/31/97
-
-367
-345
86
-346
860
-1,630
-3,292
-3,042
-4,424
-5,004
B. Capital Gaine Provisions
-1,832
-20,225
1. Capital gains: (a) 20%/10% note structure: (b) retain
maximum 28% for collectibles; (c) section 1250 recapture
at maximum of 25%: (d) symmetric AMT treatment: (e)
exclusion for gain on personal residence (including
remainder interests): (I) capital gains rate structure of
18%/8% for assets held more than 5 years after 2000, with
mark-lo-market in 2001: assets quality for 8% in 2001 I
held for 5 years regardless of when asset was acquired;
(g) permit rollover of qualified small business stock if railed
over into another qualified small business stock within 60
days; and (h) retain 28%/15% rate sinclude for capital assete
held more than 12 months but less than 18 months
various
1,254
6,371
171
-2,954
-2,934
-1,785
-3,742
-3,981
-4,179
4,424
-4,958
123
-20,061
SUBTOTAL OF SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT
TAX INCENTIVES
1,254
6,004
.174
-2,868
-3,280
-2,645
-5,572
-7,273
-8,021
-8,848
-9,962
-1,709
-41,388
Page 3
11:53 NoP.3/17P.02
Provision
Effective
1997
1998
1099
2000
2001
2002
2000
2004
2005
2008
2007
1997-02
1997-07
IV. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX PROVISIONS
1. Exemption from allemative minimum tax for small
corporations
lyba 12/31/97
--
-97
-171
131
-100
-П
.59
-45
-34
-28
-20
-577
-762
2. Conform AMT depreciation lives to the regular tax
ppisa 12/31/98
-
-
-580
-1,653
-2,230
-2,358
-2,561
-2.622
-2,350
-2,044
-1,920
-6,821
-18,317
3. Reverse IRS position on AMT treatment of certain
installment sales by farmers
di tyba 12/31/87
8
-15)
-158
-167
-164
-157
-148
22
22
21
21
-811
-872
SUBTOTAL OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
PROVISIONS
do
254
-909
-1,951
-2,194
.2,592
-2,700
-2,645
-2,353
-2,049
-1,919
-0,209
-19,961
V. ESTATE, GIFT AND GENERATION-SKIPPING
JUL 31'97
TAX PROVISIONS
A. Estate and Gift Tax Provisions
1. Increase united estate and gilt law cvedit 10 $625,000
in 1998; $650,000 in 1999; $675,000 in 2000 and
2001; $700,000 in 2002 and 2003, $850.000 in 2004,
$950,000 in 2005; $1 million in 2006 end thereafter;
and index other provisions beginning M 1999; cap
family owned business exclusion with unified credit al
$1.3 million annually (exclude $675,000 in 1998,
$650,000 in 1999, $625,000 in 2000, $625,000 in
2001, $600,000 in 2002 and 2003. $450,000 in 2004.
$350,000 in 2005; $300,000 an 2006 and thereafter)
dda 12/31/97
643
-1,259
-0.816
-2.013
-2,596
-2,997
-5,650
.1.219
-8.638
-5,931
-33,097
2. Reduce section 660 10) interest rale to 2% for first $1
million of faxable closely-held business interests,
remainder subject to lax at 45% al present-law interest
rales, and all interest under section 6166 made
nondeductible
dda 12/31/97
--
--
9
-17
-25
-33
-41
-47
.33
-58
-66
-84
349
3. Provide up to $500,000 estate tax exclusion (phasein
by $100,000 annually beginning in 1998) for treatment
of land subject lo a qualified conservation easement
01:52PM RM#16JUL_1_`97_01:52PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
coordinated with exclusion of family larms (expanded
treatment of lend with severed mineral rights) and
business relief used
dda 12/31/97
--
--
.7
-15
-25
-35
-48
-51
-56
-60
-64
-82
-381
4. Extension of treatment of certain rents under section
2032A to lines) descendants
rea 12/31/76
--
-25
2
2
.2
-2
.2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-33
-43
5. Clarification of judicial review of eligibility for extension
of time for payment of estate tax
dda DOE
--
--
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-14
-12
.11
-60
-127
6. Gifts may not be revalued for estate tax purposes after
expiration of statute of limitations
gma DOE
-
-
-16
-10
-21
-26
-32
-38
-45
-53
-61
-01
310
7. Repeal certain throwback rules applicable 10 domestic
liusts: exclude pie-1984 multiple trusts from repeal
You 12/31/97
11
-11
11
-11
.11
-11
-11
-11
-11
-44
-99
B. Estate tax relief for money going to ESOPs in existence
on 8/1/96 and decedents dying before 1/1/99
DOE
--
.8
-15
...
-
-
-
--
-
...
,23
-23
B. Generation-Skipping Tax Provision
1. Expand exception from generation-skipping Liansfer
tax for transfers to Individuals with deceased parents
gsta 12/31/97
-
4
-4
-4
-4
4
-5
.5
5
-6
-15
-41
SUBTOTAL OF ESTATE, GIFT AND GENERATION-
SKIPPING TAX PROVISIONS
-
33
-922
1141
-1919
2139
.2749
-3168
-5842
7480
-6858
-6354
-34450
Page 4
Provision
11:53 No P.4717'.03
Effective
1997
1998
1009
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1997-02
1997-07
VI. EXPIRING TAX PROVISIONS
1. Research tax credit through 6/30/98
6/1/97
-151
-020
639
-294
-204
-123
-33
-
2. Contributions of appreciated stock to private
-
--
i
-2,241
-2,274
foundations through 6/30/98
6/1/97
-
-99
is
-4
...
--
-..
--
-
-
3. Extend @ modified work opportunity tax credit
-
-112
-112
through 6/30/98 (5): include SSI recipients
wpoilhma 9/30/97
...
-140
-131
-73
-29
-11
4. Orphan drug law credit (permenent)
-2
--
-
--
-
383
6/1/97
-365
-
-29
-28
-30
32
-34
-35
37
-39
-40
-42
152
-346
SUBTOTAL OF EXPIRING TAX PROVISIONS
-191
-1,088
-807
-401
-264
-150
-70
-37
-39
-40
-42
-2,680
3,117
VM. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAX INCENTIVES
JUL 31'97
1. Designate existing D.C. enterprise community end
consus tracts with greater than 20% poverty (with
revised residency requirement) as the O.C. Enterprise
Zone, eligible for modified present-law empowerment
zone incentives (20% wage credit, increased 179
expensing. and expanded tex-exempt linancing);
sunset 12/31/02
1/1/98
-
-71
-110
-113
-118
-127
-45
2. Provide 0% capital geins rate on enterprise zone
3
2
16)
-2
339
-582
business property in D.C. centus tracts with greater
than 10% poverty held for al least 5 years; sunse)
12/31/02
1/1/98
-
-1
.s
-12
-21
33
3. $5,000 tax credit for Drst-lime homebuyer in D.C., with
-48
85
-90
-99
-107
-73
-502
phaseout of $110,000. $130,000 to joint Nore ($70,000
$90,000 for single filers), and sunset 12/31/00
po/e DOE
-
-10
-21
-27
-16
161
16)
18]
[6]
(6)
(6)
-74
-74
SUBTOTAL OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAX INCENTIVES
-
È
-136
-152
-155
-160
-83
&
-68
-99
-109
-$86
-1,158
VIII. WELFARE-TO-WORK TAX CREDIT
01:53PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
Administration's welfare-to-work tax credit, as modified:
(a) wage credit is 35% on first $10,000 of wages in
the first year of employment, and 50% on $10,000
of wages in the second year of employment;
(b) effective for hires made through 4/30/99
wpolthms 12/31/97
-
-12
,30
-29
-15
-10
4
-2
-I
-
-
-99
-108
.
OX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Exclae Tax Provisions
1. Repeal excise tax on recreational motorboat diesel fuel
1/1/98
--
-4
-5
.5
-1
-1
1
-I
2. Modify excise tax on imported halons
-1
-0
-1
-16
-22
DOE
17)
[7]
(7)
(7)
3. Transfer the 4.3 cents/gation transportation motor fuels
[7]
[7]
[7]
M
[7]
M
17)
1
I
tax on highway motor luels 10 the Highway Trust Fund
10/1/97
No Revenue Effect
4. Modily excise tax deposit rules for gasoline and special
motor fuels, diesel fuel and kerosene, aviation fuels,
and air cargo laxes la suspend deposits due 8/1/98 10
9/30/98 until 10/5/98
DOE
-
-6,359
6,359
-
-
--
i
i
--
5 Equatize the excise law rates among alternative motor
--
-
Avels except CNG
DOE
.2
-15
16
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
6 Treat certain gasoline retailers as wholesale distributors
-21
-22
23
-82
-186
under gasoline tax refund rules
DOE
Nagliguble Revenue Effect
7 Reduce excise tax rate on draft cider 10 the small
producer beer rate
10/1/97
-
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
-I
-1
-1
-1
2
7
Page 5
11:54 IoP,5/17P.04
Provision
Effective
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2000
2004
2005
2008
2007
1997-02
1997-07
B. Require study on simplified collection of distilled spirits
lawes
--
No Revenue Effect
9. Codify Bureau ol Alcohol, Tobacco. and Firearms
regulations on wine labeling: with modification
DOE
No Revenue Effect
10. Uniform excise tax on vaccines; add 3 new vaccines
($0.75 per dose)
10/1/97
-16
-15
-15
-15
-14
-14
-14
B. Cleanter Relief Provisions
-14
-14
-14
-74
-146
1. Disaster losses - postponament of IRS deadlines and
loss valuation: permit extension of statute of limitations
acty
Negligible Revenue Effect
2. Modify tax treatment of Investock sold on account of
certain weather-related conditions
sea 12/31/96
...
-12
-2
-2
.2
-1
-1
J
-1
3. Loosen mongage revenue bond requirements in
-1
1
-18
-23
JUL 31'97
Presidentially declared disaster areas for 2 years: permit
2-year period to place morigages
[8]
--
3
-7
8
-8
-1
-6
-0
-5
4. Abstement of interest on underpayments by taxpayers
-4
-4
-33
-50
in Presidentially declared disaster areas (1997 disaster
areas only)
1/1/97
-5
-
...
-
...
-
-
-
C. Provisione Relating to Employment Taxes
-
--
--
S
-5
1. Worker classification of securities brokers lor income
and employment tax purposes
spa 12/31/97
Negligible Revenue Effect
2. Impose movatorium an issuance ol Treasury regulation
relating 10 sell-employment tax (SECA) through 6/30/98
DOE
No Revenue Effect
3. SECA for insurance agents
pa 12/31/97
D. Provisions Relating 10 Small Businesses
Magligible Revenue Effect
1. Delay penalties for ladure to make payments through
EFTPS until sher 6/30/99
DOE
No Revenue Effect
2. Definition of principal place of business for home
office deduction
lyba 12/31/98
...
1
-119
244
-253
-263
-274
-285
3. Increase deduction for health insurance expenses of
-295
-306
-318
-680
-2,358
self-employed individuals: 50% in 2000 and 2001, 60%
in 2002. 80% in 2003 through 2005; 90% in 2006, and
100% in 2007 and thereafter
lybs 12/31/96
-
-
39
-120
RM#16JUL'3i`'97 01:53PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
E. Other Provisions
-224
-605
-882
-601
-404
504
383
3,479
1. Shilnkage allowance for inventory accounting
--
-
.7
-20
20
-25
-27
2. Include liability to pay compensation under workmen's
29
-31
33
-35
-37
-100
268
compansation acts within rules relating to cenain
personal liability assignments
cla DOE
-
-1
-2
.5
-8
3. Clarify fax-exempt status of certain State workmen's
-12
-17
-23
-29
-32
36
-27
-164
compensation funds
lyba 12/31/97
--
[6]
(6)
.1
-1
-1
4. Allow grandfathered publicly traded partnerships to
+
-1
-1
-1
.1
-2
P
elect to pay A publicly traded partnership lax; with
technical modifications
lyba 12/31/97
5. Exclusion from UBTI los certain corporate sponsorship
Revenue Neutral
payments, with technical clarification
psera 12/31/97
6. Allow timeshare associations lo elect to be taxed as
Negligible Revenue Effect
homeowner associations al 32% rele and modify
detinition of property for timeshares
tybe 12/31/96
-
-1
-1
-1
-1
7. Deferral of gain an seles of stock In farm product
.2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
7
.17
relining firms 10 fairn coops which supply the hm with
raw farm products for refining
508 12/31/97
-
.2
-68
-5
9. No information reporting on sales of principal
$
-4
-4
.
4
Y
,
-84
-104
residences less than $250,000 of $500,000 (married
ling joint return)
DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
Page 6
No P.6/17P.05
Provision
Effective
1997
1980
1090
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2008
2007
1997-02
1097-07
9. Increase the business meals deduction to 80% in 5%
increments every other year for persons subject to
Federal hours of service limitation, with darification of
section 119 meals
tyba 12/31/97
--
8
-17
-27
-37
-49
-62
-76
-91
-108
-125
-138
.600
10. Provide an above-the-line deduction for certain
State and local official's expenses
1/1/87
...
-10
-4
-4
-4
-5
-5
-6
-6
-7
-7
-27
-58
11. Raise the chantable mileage rate from 12 cents/mile
31'97 11:54
to 14 cents/mile; no indexing
tyba 12/31/97
-
do
-56
-58
-6)
-64
-68
-71
-75
-78
-82
-247
-621
12. Expense "Brownlields" redevelopment costs in
empowerment zones, enterprise communities and EPA
demonstration sles; add censue tracts with greater
than 20% poverty. 3-year sunset
(9)
-
-57
-132
-165
à
(7)
2
9
17
19
10
-417
-362
13. Administration's proposal to add 20 urban
empowerment zones with modified incentives (including
interaction with Conference Brownfields proposal)
DOE
;
-82
-121
-121
-99
-79
-58
-44
-41
-36
-25
-502
-706
14. Designate 2 supplemental empowerment zones as
JUL
regular empowerment zones, with present-law
incentives (phaseour of wage credit beginning in
2004)
1/1/00
-
!
-
-38
-88
.92
-98
-78
-53
-25
-13
-215
-483
15. Examption for incremental cost of clean-luel vehicle
from luxury tax and limits on depreciation
DOE
(8)
-1
-1
(6)
(6)
[6]
(6)
(6)
(6)
161
16)
-2
-2
16. Exclude from gross income certain surviver benefits
attributable to a public safety officer who is killed in the
line of duty
[10]
-
(6)
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-4
-12
07. Suspend 100% net income fimitation with respect to
percentage depletion on oil and gas property for
marginal producers for 2 years
tyba DOE
-
21
-35
-14
--
--
--
i
--
!
i
TO
-70
18. Allow refunding of certain tax-exampt Virgin Islands
bends 111)
bia DOE
-
-2
4
-5
5
-5
J
-1
-3
-4
+
21
-37
(9. Purchasing of receivables by tax-exempt hospital
cooperative service organizations.
tybe 12/31/96
Negligible Revenue Effect
20 Medification of empowerment zone and enterprise
community criteria in the event al future designations
RM#162JUL_31_'97 01:54PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
of additional zones and communities
DOE
No Revenue Effect
21. 3-year income averaging for termers
tyba DOE ab 1/1/01
-1
-10
-53
-54
-50
---
--
-
-
i
i
-168
-168
22. Prior year estimated tax nafe harber (100% in 1998,
105% in 1999 through 2001, and 112% in 2002}
-
-
-7,400
4,000
...
-
4,400
-1,000
-
I
|
-
1,000
I
23. Montana simplihed lax and wage reporting system
(5-year demonstration)
No Revenue Effect
24. National Passenger Rail (Amirak) NOL provision
DOE
...
-1,162
-1,162
-
-
i
-
i
-
-2,323
-2,323
SUBTOTAL OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
-15,162
8,516
-852
-B63
3,530
-2,265
-1,538
-1,261
-1,071
-1,286
4,850
-12,274
X. REVENUE-INCREASE PROVISIONS
A. Financial Products
I Require recognition of gain on certain appreciated
positions in personal property, with technical
modifications
csa 6/8/97
-
367
121
68
73
19
85
94
III
018
127
708
1,243
2. Gains or losses from certain terminations with respect to
property; with technical modification and effective date
with medifications
30da DOE
15
27
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
117
242
3 Determation ol original issue discount where pooled
debt obfigations subject to acceleration
lyba DOE
76
275
368
319
283
100
105
109
114
118
1,311
1,857
Page 7
11:55 No P.7717'.06
Provision
Effective
1997
1990
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1997-02
1997-07
4. Denial al interest deduction on certain debi instruments
iia 6/8/97
-
5
16
29
43
55
62
63
64
65
6. Corporate Organizations and Reorganizations
67
148
469
1. Tax treatment of certain extraordinary dividends
da 9/13/95
---
44
-93
-54
-10
45
77
81
89
95
101
-68
2. Require gain recognition on certain distributions of
375
controlled corporation stock (with modifications for
intragroup distributions); with binding contract
modification
da 4/16/97
--
301
243
216
107
158
130
101
13
46
10
3. Tax treatment of redempliens involving related
1,105
1,465
corporations
da/a 6/8/97
--
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
36
60
4. Modily holding period for dividends-received deduction
with 2-year transition period
dross 30da DOE
...
11
13
15
16
18
16
17
C. Other Corporate Provisions
17
17
10
"
156
JUL 31'97
1. Registration and other provisions relating to confidential
corporate tax shellers
IsoaiTg
-
15
37
38
39
41
42
43
44
2. Certain preferred stock treated as "bool," with
46
47
170
392
clarification
to 6/8/97
***
35
37
39
"
43
D. Administrative Provisions
10
to
II
11
12
194
248
1. Reporting of certain payments made (o altorneys
pma 12/31/97
--
--
3
0
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
2. Decrease of threshold for reporting payments to
12
31
corporations performing services for Federal agencies
rd 90da DOE
...
--
7
8
9
10
"
11
3. Extend disclosure of tax return information for
12
12
13
34
93
administration of certain Veterans' programs [12]
dna 9/30/98
-
i
22
27
31
36
36
--
-
-
-
. Modify levy exemption and provide continuous levy on
116
152
certain payments
lia DOE
--
332
327
256
213
157
117
102
5. Consistency requirement for returns of beneficianes of
86
82
70
1,285
1,750
estates and trusts
na DOE
-
3
3
3
3
3
3
E. Exclas Yes Provisions
4
4
4
4
15
30
1. Extend and modify Airport Trust Fund excise taxes:
a. Extend domestic air passenger ticket tax: reduce lak
rate from 10% 10 9% of ticket price and impose an
additional fax of $1.00 par Hight segment for 10/1/97
through 9/30/98; 8% and $2.00/segment for 10/1/98
RM#162JUL_31_'97 01:54PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
through 9/30/99; and 7.5% after 9/30/99 with
additional tax of $2.25/segment for 10/1/99 through
12/31/99. $2.50/segment in 2000, $2.75/segment
in 2001. end $3.00/eegment in 2002. and in years
thereafter index the $3.00/segment tax to changes in
the CPI (last indexing adjustment on 1/1/03)
10/1/97
4,633
4,659
5,031
b. Modify airline ticket tax deposit rule to suspend
5,433
5,870
6,275
6,684
7,117
7,580
8,059
25,826
61,542
deposits due 8/15/97 10 9/30/97 unli 10/10/97,
and suspend deposits due 8/15/98 ID 9/30/98 until
10/5/98
DOE
-1.017
-199
1,216
-
i
--
C. Reduce Bar passenger ticket tax 10 7.5% of licket
-
-
-
-
price (and omil segment tax) for Night segments (a/
from certain rural airports [13]
10/1/97
-
-26
-27
-26
.27
d. Extend international departure tax: increase tax from
-27
-28
-30
-31
-32
33
-133
289
$6.00 to $12/passenger, tax arrivals a) the same rale,
and index the $12 tax to changes in the CPI (fust
indexing adjustment on 1/1/99). but retain present-law
$5.00/passenger departure tax for domestic Bights
to/from Alaska and Hawaii, and Index the $6.00
deperture tax 10 changes in the CPI (first indexing
adjustment on 1/1/99)
10/1/97
788
879
948
1,026
1.114
1,209
1,307
1,411
1,526
1,653
4,754
11,859
Page 8
Provision
Effective
1907
1698
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1897-02
1697-07
JUL 31'97 11:56 No P.8/17.07
e. Impose 75% tax rate on cash payments to alrlines
for air travel under credit card and similar programs
10/1/97
-
68
73
77
82
67
1. Extend current air caigo excise tax
92
98
104
110
116
384
904
10/1/97
-
304
347
377
409
463
9. Extend current laxes on noncommercial aviation
481
522
567
615
662
1,880
4.732
gasoline and noncommercial jet fuel
10/1/97
--
84
87
69
91
h. Dedicate 4.3 cents/gation of tax on aviation fuel to
90
95
97
99
102
104
446
943
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
10/1/97
2. Tax kerosene in the same manner as diesel fuel; modify
No Revenue Effect
to address home heating in Alasha
7/1/98
-
44
43
49
46
44
43
44
3. Reinstate LUST excise Ink and extend through
47
49
52
226
461
3/31/05
10/1/97
--
129
129
128
129
101
134
4. Apply 0% telephone excise lax to certain prepaid phone
136
67
--
-
645
983
cards, with technical modification
DOE
-
19
28
38
49
60
S. Replace Iruck excise tax deduction for time value with
71
83
101
113
124
190
684
las credit for excise tax paid on this
Sa 12/31/97
...
66
94
96
97
99
F. Provisions Relating to Тах-Ехепра
101
102
105
108
110
.
452
979
Organizations
I. Modify confiol test and include attribution rules to
determine UBIT consequences of certain payments
tyba 12/31/98 &
from subsidiaries of tax-exempt organizations
lybe 2ya DOE
-
(7)
[7]
(7)
3
5
2. Repeal 1985 Act grandlather rules for pension business
5
4
4
4
4
8
29
of TIAA-CREF and Mulual of America
tyba 12/31/97
-
(7)
82
116
124
120
G. Foreign Provisions
133
140
$49
160
174
450
1,208
1. Inclusion of income from national principal contracts
and slock lending transactions under subpart F
lybe DOE
-
9
20
21
21
21
21
2 Further restrict Mis-kund exchanges involving foreign
22
22
22
20
92
202
personal property
Ta dolca
--
4
B
"
13
15
17
19
3 Impose holding period requirement for claiming foreign
21
23
25
51
158
tax credits with respect to dividends
dpoaa 30da DOE
-
23
48
50
53
56
58
61
4 Limitation on treaty benefits for payments to hybrid
64
68
71
230
552
entities
DOE
!
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
5. Interest on underpayment reduced by loveign (ax credit
I
1
5
10
RM#162JUL 31 '97 01:54PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
carryback
# lyba DOE
---
B
10
2
I
1
I
1
1
6. Determination of penod of limitations relating to foreign
1
I
22
27
tax credits
Itpoa tyba DOE
-
1
2
I
1
1
1
1
1
7. Repeal special rule which permits certain companies to
1
1
6
"
eliminate their AMT liability
tybe DOE
-
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
H. Pension end Employee Benefit Provisions
5
5
22
47
I. Provide employers the option 10 other tax-free employee
parking or taxable cash compensation 1141
tybe 12/31/97
-
3
0
11
12
12
13
14
2. Repeal of 15% excess distribution and excess
14
15
16
46
118
tybe 8
socumulation taxes
dda 12/31/96
-
-10
-19
.7
18
18
16
16
14
3. Increase in probibited transactions excise tax
13
II
0
62
ploa 00E
-
2
n
4
4
4
4
4
4
4. Basis recovery method
4
4
14
34
aba 12/31/97
-
1
3
6
1. Other Revenue-Increase Provisions
9
11
15
18
21
24
27
30
133
1. Termination ol suspense accounts for family farm
corporations required 10 use socrual method of
accounting (15)
[16]
-
29
33
35
36
37
39
40
41
2. 2-year carryback and 20-year canyforward for not
43
44
#70
377
operating losses with an exception related 10
Presidentially declared disaster areas
NOLgi tybe DOE
-
42
303
361
256
179
136
112
100
J Modification of treatment of company-owned life
93
90
1.141
1,672
insurance - pro rata disallowance of interest on debt to
fund We insurance
cia 6/8/97
-
20
53
93
140
193
247
299
349
399
447
500
2.240
Page 9
11:56 Nop:9/17P.08
Provision
Effective
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2906
2006
2007
1997-02
1997-07
4. Modify the basis ellocation rules for distribute partners,
with technical modifications
pda DOE
--
26
52
55
57
59
61
64
66
69
72
249
581
5. Eliminate the substantial appreciation requirement for
inventory of a partnership. with technical modification
sepda DOE &
and binding contract exception
effocieo 6/8/97
-
30
66
69
73
77
80
84
89
93
98
316
760
6. Earned income credit compliance provisions: deny
eligibility for prior acts of recklessness; recertification
required when EIC deniedin past. and due diligence
requirement for paid preparers
tyba 12/31/96
[7]
18
25
24
21
21
21
21
21
21
68
193
7. For the purpose of the Earned Income Credit (EIC)
phaseout, include in AGI nontaxable distributions of
JUL 31'97
IRA, pensions, and annuilies, and tax-exempt interest;
and addback 75% of business losses 1171
tybe 12/31/97
-
(7)
72
75
79
85
89
92
94
99
102
312
788
8. Provide that workfare payments de not quality as
esmed income for the purposes of the earned income
credit
DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
9. New EIC compliance proposals [18]:
a. Federal case register data
10/1/99
-
-
-
10
20
30
40
60
65
105
30
350
b. SSA parent SSNs
180da DOE
-
-
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
40
90
c. Additional appropriation for EIC enforcement
DOE
No Revenue Effect
10. Restrict income forecast method and allow 3-year
MACRS for rent-to-own property: with clanfication for
home computers and cellular phones
tybe DOE
--
29
41
62
70
38
27
25
17
17
18
246
352
11. Extend FUTA surtax and increase the statutory limit on
the FUA Trust Fund from .25% of covered wages to
50% [12]
Ipo/a 1/1:99
-
-
1,063
1,763
1,797
1,733
681
-73
-71
-74
.73
8.356
6,726
12. Limitation on charable remainder foust annual payouts;
require charitable remainders 10 have 0 minumum value
OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
of 10% of trust
Ta 6/18/97
-
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
30
60
19. Limit carryback period for general business credits to I
year: extend carryforward period to 20 years
cai tybe 12/31/97
I
182
300
BI
-60
-32
6
5
15
21
25
471
527
14. Extend the 5-year time Innit for taxing pre-contribution
gain to 7 years and grandfather binding contracts in
effect on 6/8/97
pcpa dofce
I
--
i
---
i
2
10
"
"
12
12
2
58
15. Expansion of requirement Unal Involuntanty converted
property be replaced with property acquired from an
unrelated person
icoa defce
i
1
4
6
8
"
13
15
17
19
21
30
115
16. Repeal installment sales grandfather rules of 1986 Act
tyblya DOE
!
44
97
106
106
64
21
22
20
24
353
507
SUBTOTAL OF REVENUE-INCREASE PROVISIONS
I
7,522
11,013
10,602
11,217
11,676
10,970
10,766
11,409
12,092
12,665
51,230
109,350
XI. FOREIGN TAX PROVISIONS
A. General Provisions
1. Simplify foreign tax credit limitation for individuals
tyba 12/01/97
-
(19)
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
4
6
2. Simplity translation of foreign laxes
-
I
(19)
119]
(19)
[19]
[19]
(19)
[19]
(19)
1091
(19)
1191
1191
3. Election to use simplified foreign tax credit limitation for
alternative minimum tax purposes
tybe 12/31/97
--
(19)
(19)
(19)
(19)
(19)
[19]
(19)
[19]
(19)
(19)
.1
2
4. Simplily treatment of personal transactions in foreign
curenty
tyba 12/31/97
I
(19)
1191
(19)
(19)
(19)
(19)
(19)
(19)
(19)
(19)
-1
-2
5. Simplily foreign tax credit limitation for dividends from
10/50 companies to provide leek-through starting in
2000
lyba 12/31/02
-57
-24)
-215
-227
-242
-982
Page 10
Provision
Effective
1997
1998
1690
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1997-02
1997-07
11:57 No P.10/17.09
8. General Provisions Attecting Treatment of
Centrolled Foreign Corporations.
various
-
-2
'P
-7
is
-10
-10
-10
-12
-13
-14
-30
-90
C. Modification of Passive Foreign Investment
Company Provisions to Eliminate Overlap
With Subpert F and 10 Allow Mark-to-Market
Election, and to Modify Asset Measurement
Rule
tybe (2/31/97
-
-20
-23
-24
-26
-27
-28
-29
-31
33
-35
-124
-260
D. Simplify Formation and Operation of
International Joint Ventures, with Technical
Modifications
various
-
[6]
[6]
-1
.1
-1
.1
-s
-1
-1
-2
J
B
E. Modification of Reporting Threshold for Stock
Dwnership of a Foreign Corporation
1/1/90
-
(10)
-1
is
-2
-2
-2
9
7
4
?
-7
-20
F. Other Foreign Simplification Provisions
JUL 31'97
1. Transition rule for cenain trusts
ail SBJPA
-
-1
is
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
d
-5
-5
-19
-44
2. Simplify application of the stock and securities trading
safe harbor
tyba 12/31/97
-
(6)
[6]
[6]
[6]
(6)
[9]
[6]
(6)
[6]
[6]
(6)
(6)
3. Clarification of determination of foreign taxes deemed
paid
DOE
--
(6)
(6)
16)
(6)
(6)
(6)
[6]
(6)
[6]
(6)
[6]
[6]
4. Clantication of foreign las credit limitation for financial
services income
DOE
-
161
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
[6]
(6)
161
16)
[6]
(6)
(6)
G. Other Foreign Provisions
1. Foreign sales corporation benefits for computer
soltware
gra 12/31/97
--
.27
-02
-146
-173
-180
-191
202
-227
-252
-277
568
-1.717
2. Increase dollar fimilation on section 911 exclusion and
index after 2007
1/1/98
-
-15
-30
-50
-57
-62
-97
-103
-111
-119
-127
-24-4
-801
3. Exception from U.S. property definition under subpart F
for certain securities positions
tybe 12/31/97
-
-I
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
.2
-2
-2
is
-19
4 Examption from subpan F for active financing income
tybi 1998
--
-23
60
3
-
!
-
-
-
i
--
94
-94
5. Treat service income of nonresident abon individuals
eamed on foreign ships as foreign source income and
diseagard the U.S. presence of such individuals; with
amendment 10 rule disregarding U.S. presence
tyba 12/31/97
...
-2
4
-3
-3
-3
3
is
-3
in
-3
-15
-30
RM#162ILL_31_'97_01:55PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
SUBTOTAL OF FOREIGN TAX PROVISIONS
-
-95
-178
-244
-280
-313
-397
-600
-690
-659
-711
-1,122
-4,102
XN. SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS RELATING
TO INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES
A. Provisions Relating to Individuals
1. Deduction allnbutable to unearned income of
dependent filers: greater of (a) present law; or (b)
earned income plus $250; delink dependent AMT hom
parent's AMT position.
1/1/98
...
-2
-38
8
-35
-35
-35
-35
-38
-37
-36
-146
327
2. Increase de minimis threshold for estimated tax 10
$1,000
lybe 12/31/97
-
-134
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
-22
-24
-25
-26
-208
-326
3. Treatment of certain reimbursed expenses of rural mail
carriers
tybe 12/31/97
---
161
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
.1
-1
-5
=
4. Treatment of travel expenses of certain Federal
employees engaged in criminal investigations
Bei Iyea DOE
...
16}
161
[6]
(6)
161
(6)
(6)
|6]
(6)
(6)
-I
.2
5. Permit payment of laxes by any commercially
acceptable means: and prohibil payment of less by
Treasury
DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
Page 11
11:58 No P.11/17.10
Provision
Effective
1997
1998
1099
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1997-02
1997-07
B. Provisions Relating to Businesses Generally
I. Modily look-back method for long-term contracts
cci lyea DOE
---
-1
-2
-3
-4
-4
-4
1
-5
in
5
-14
-37
2 Minimum tax treatment of certain property and casualty
Insurance companies
lyba 12/31/97
-
.1
-2
-
3
is
is
-3
is
-3
3
-12
-27
3. Provide for exclusion for construction allowances
provided 10 lessees, with technical modification
leia DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
c. Partnership Simplification Provisions
1. Simplied reporting to partners
lyba 12/31/97
...
6
8
8
8
0
9
9
9
9
9
38
2. Simplified audit procedure for large partnerships
83
wba 12/31/97
...
[?]
(7)
(7)
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
2
8
3. Due date for furnishing information to partners of large
partnerships
tybe 12/31/97
No Revenue Effect
JUL 31'97
4. Returns required on magnetic media for partnerships
with 100 partners or more
tybe 12/31/97
Negligible Revenue Ellect
5. Other partnership audit rules
tybe 12/31/97
-
2
[6]
(6)
161
(61
(6)
161
[6]
6. Closing partnership taxable year with respect to
(6)
[6]
3
-5
deceased partner
tyba 12/31/97
-
(6)
16)
(6)
(6)
(6)
D. Provisions Relating to Real Estate
(6)
(6)
(a)
(6)
[6]
-1
-1
Investment Truets
1. Alternative penalty for failure 10 request information
from shareholders
tyba DOE
Nagfigible Revenue Effect
2 De minimis lule for tenant services income
lyba DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
3. Allinbution rules applicable to tenant ownership
lyba DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
4. Credit for les paid by REIT on retained capital gains
lyba DOE
Nagligible Revenue Effect
5. Repeal 30% yess income requirement
tybe DOE
i
-4
-5
s
-6
-7
-7
0
9
-10
-11
6. Modification ol earnings and prolits rules for determining
-26
.72
whether REIT has earnings and profits from non-REM
year
tyba DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
7. Treatment of foreclosure property
tybe DOE
Megligible Revenue Effect
8. Payments under hedging instruments
tyba DOE
01:56PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
9. Excess noncash income
Negligible Revenue Effect
tyba DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
10. Prohibited transaction safe harbor
tybe DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
11. Shared appreciation morigages
tybe DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
12. Wholly owned subsidiaries
tybe DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
E. Provision Relating to Regulated
Investment Companies
1. Repeal 30% gross income limitation for regulated
investment companies
tybe DOE
--
-17
-23
-27
8
-38
F. Taxpayer Protections
-45
-53
-61
71
62
-138
-450
1. Provide "reasonable cause' exception for penalties
tyba DOE
2. Cirrification of period for Bing claims los refunds
Nagligible Revenue Effect
tyes DOE,
3. Repail authority to disclose whether a prospective
Negligible Revenue Effect
jurer has been audited
pca DOE
No Revenue Effect
4. Clarily statute of limitations for pass-thiough entilies
tybe DOE
5. Clarify procedure for administrative 0051 awards
No Revenue Effect
aca DOE
No Revenue Effect
SUBTOTAL OF SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS
RELATING TO INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES
-
-155
-80
-84
&
-99
-100
-116
-131
-142
-154
614
-1,167
KN. ESTATE, GIFT AND TRUST SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS
D. Gifts to charities of over $10,000 exempt from gift las
liling requirements
gma DOE
2. Clarification of waiver of certain rights of recovery of
Negligible Revenue Effect
estate fax from OTIP trust
dda DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
Page 12
Provision
Effective
1997
1030
1999
2000
2001
11:58 No.Pu12/17.11
2002
2003
2000
2005
2006
2007
1897-02
1097-07
3. Transational rules under section 2056A
aiñ OBRA'90
4. Estate and gift tax treatment of short-tarm 010
Negligible Revenue Effect
instruments
dda DOE
5 Certain revocable trusts treated as pan of estate
Negligible Revenue Effect
dda DOE
3
3
3
J
in
-3
6. Distributions during first 65 days of faxable year of
-3
0
is
-3
-15
-30
estate
lyba DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
7. Separate share rules available lo estates
dda DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
8. Executor of estate and beneficiaries weated as related
persons los disallowance of lesses
tyba DOE
9. Treatment of funeral trusts
Negligible Revenue Effect
need DOE
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10. Adjustments for certain gifts within 3 years of
2
2
2
10
20
decedent's death
dda DOE
No Revenue Effect
11. Clarification of treatment ol survivor annuities under
JUL 31'97
qualified terminable interest rules
dda DOE
12. Treatment under qualified domestic INSI rules of forms
Negligible Revenue Effect
of ownership which are not trusts
ddla DOE
Negligible Revenue Ellect
13. Opportunity to correct certain failures under section
2032A
DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
14. Authority to waive requirement of United States trustee
for qualified domestic trusts
dda DOE
No Revenue Ellect
SUBTOTAL OF ESTATE, GIFT AND TAUST
SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS
-
-1
.9
.1
.1
-1
-0
-I
-1
-1
-1
-5
-10
XIV. EXCISE TAX AND OTHER SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS
A. Excles Tax Simplification
1 increase de menimis NOTAL for after-market alterations for
heavy truck and luxury car excises
DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
? Credit or refund for imported bottled distilled spirits
OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
returned to distilled spirts plant
kg DOE r 160 days
Negligible Revenue Effect
3. Authority to cancel or credit export bonds without
submission of records
log DOE + 180 days
No Revenue Effect
4. Repeal of required maintenance of records on premises
of distilled spirits plant
log DOE , 180 days
No Revenue Effect
5. Fermented material from any brewery may be received
at , distilled spints plant
Icq DOE , 180 days
Negligible Revenue Effect
6. Repeal of requirement for wholesale dealers in liquors
to post sign
DOE
No Revenue Effect
7, Refund of tax to wine returned to bond not limited 10
unmerchantable wine
log DOE + 180 days
Negligible Revenue Effect
8. Use of additional ameliorating material in certain wines
Ica DOE , 180 days
No Revenue Effect
9. Domestically produced beer may be withdrawn Iree of
(ax for use of foreign embassies, legabons, etc
Icq DOE . 180 days
Nagligible Revenue Effect
10. Beer may be withdrawn free of tax for destruction,
Icq DOE 0 180 days
Negligible Revenue Effect
11. Authority to allow drawbank on exported beer without
submission of records
kg DOE . 180 days
No Revenue Effect
12 Imported beer of wine transferred in bulk to brewary of
unnery without payment of lax
Icq DOE , 180 days
Negligible Revenue Ellect
13 Authority for IRS 10 grant examption from excise tax
registration requirements
DOE
No Revenue Effect
14. semption from truck excise lan for certain wrecked
truck falles and truck modifications
1/1/98
.5
do
.8
do
9
is
.10
-10
-11
-11
-38
-89
Page 13
11:59 No P.13/17.12
Provision
Effective
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1997-02
1997-07
15. Repeal registration requirement for tax-free sales of
bucks for resale
1/1/98
Negligible Revenue Effect
16. Regeal of excise tax "deadwood" provisions
DOE
No Revenue Effect
17. Move taxation of arrows from tax on assembled allows
to lax OR component parts of 12.0%
1/1/98
Negligible Revenue Effect
18. Clarify tax treatment of skydiving flights as
noncommercial aviation; with lechnical modifications
10/1/97
Negligible Revenue Effect
19. Efiminate double taxation for certain purchases of
aviation fuel from fixed-based operators: with technical
modifications
10/1/97
Nagligible Revenue Effect
B. Tax-Exempt Boad Provisions
JUL 31'97
1. Repeal $100,000 limitation on unspont proceeds from
tax-exempt bondissues under year exception from
rebate
bis DOE
-
[6]
-2
-3
-5
-6
-
is
-10
-11
2. Exclusion from embitrage rebate for earnings on bona
-12
.17
-65
bde debt service fund under construction band rules
bia DOE
-
(6)
-I
-2
-3
3
-4
5
-6
3. Repeal of debt service-based limitation on investment
-6
-7
is
-37
in certain nenpurpose investments
bia DOE
Megligible Revenue Effect
4. Repeal of expired student loan bond arbitrage rebate
provisions
DOE
No Revenue Effect
C. Tax Court Procedures
1. Clarify jurisdiction of Tax Count with respect to
overpayment determinations
DOE
--
3
-3
-3
is
is
3
-3
,
2. Clarily Tax Court julisdiction over Interest determinations
is
is
-15
-30
DOE
No Revenue Effect
3. Clarily net worth requirements for awards of
administrative or origation costs; $4 miltion for joing
returns
DOE
i
-1
.7
-2
-2
-2
.2
-2
-2
-2
4, Clarily Tax Coun jurisdiction for independent
-2
is
-19
contractors with technical modification
DOE
D. Other Provideions
Nagligible Revenue Effect
1. Extend due date for first quarter estimated fax by
RM#162JUL 31 '97 01:57PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
private foundations
tyba DOE
--
-2
(6)
(6)
(6)
2. Clarification of authority to withhold Puerio Rico income
16)
(8)
[6]
(6)
16]
16}
-2
is
taxes from selance of Federal employees
1/1/98
-
-2
3
1
1
-I
-1
3. Certain notices disregarded under provision increasing
-1
-1
-I
-1
-8
.13
Interest sale on large corporate underpayments
1/1/98
-
.1
-1
.1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-5
-10
SUBTOTAL OF EXCISE TAX AND OTHER
SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS
-
-14
-20
-20
-20
-25
-20
-31
8
-35
-37
-103
-268
XV, PENSION SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS
A. Miscellaneous Provisions Relating to
Pensions and Other Provisions
I. Water districts made eligible for 401(h) plans even if
State or local entity
1/1/98
-
[19]
.1
-1
-1
2. Extend moratorium on nondiscrimination rules for public
-2
.2
2
-2
-2
-3
6
15
pension plans (permanent). with technical modifications
DOE
3. Treatment of certain disability benefits received by
Negligible Revenue Effect
former police officers or firefighters
DOE
-
-10
-I
I
!
i
-
4. ESOP provision - Modify prohibited transaction rules
-
Al
-11
relating to employee stock ownership plans of S
corporation; with modifications
tybe 12/31/97
Negligible Revenue Effect
Page 14
Provision
Effective
1997
1998
1999
2800
2001
2002
2000
2004
2006
2006
2007
1997-02
0997-Q7
12:00 No P.14/17.13
5. Repeal UDIT on income from en S corporation 10 an
ESOP; with technical modification
tybe 12/31/97
-
-8
-23
-34
-01
44
-46
-46
-50
-52
-54
-149
-400
6. Pension provision increase in full funding limit with
20-year amortization; with technical modification
pyba 12/31/98
--
-4
-12
-14
.18
-19
-23
-23
-25
-25
-48
-164
7. Deduction for contributions made by ministere to
retirement plans
tyba 12/31/97
Negligible Revenue Effect
8. Exclusion of ministers from discrimination testing of
nondenominational retirement plans
tybe 12/31/97
Negligible Revenue Effect
9. Diversification of 401(h) investments; with 1 year delay
of effective date
DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
10. Exempt police and firefighters from section 415 dollar
limitation; with clarification
yba 12/31/96
Negligible Revenue Effect
11. Modify section 415 limits for State and local plans; with
JUL 31'97
modifications
lyba 12/31/97
--
-9
-25
-25
-26
-26
-28
-27
-27
27
-28
-111
-246
12. ESOP promsion permit cash distributions in lieu of
stock in the S corporation
tyba 12/31/97
Megligible Revenue Effect
13. Increase the amount from $3,500 to $5,000 on
involuntary cash out from pension plans with no
indexing of dollar amount
dma DOE
(7)
2
6
7
7
7
B
a
9
9
10
29
73
14. Treatment too partnership items of individual retirement
accounts
tybe 12/31/97
No Revenue Effect
15. Church plan exception to prohibition on discrimination
against individuals based on health status
DOE
Negligible Revenue Effect
16 Exclse tax penalties for failure of group health plan to
provide certain maternity and mental health benefits
pybola 1/1/98
Negligible Revenue Effect
17. Date for adoption of plan amendments
DOE
No Revenue Elled
B. Pension Simplification Provisions
1. Maiching contributions for sell-employed individuals not
weated as elective defenrals
tyba 12/31/97
-
(19)
(19)
1191
(19)
[19]
(19)
(19)
(19)
(19)
1991
[20]
121)
2. Contributions to IRAs through payroll deductions
tyba 12/31/97
No Revenue Effect
3. Plans not disqualified merely by accepting rollover
contributions; with modification
lyba 12/31/97
Nagligible Revenue Effect
4 Modification of prohibition on assignment of alienation
DOE
Nagligible Revenue Effect
RM#162IU-_31_'92_01:57PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
S. Eliminate paperwork burdens on plans
tyba DOE
No Revenue Effect
6. Modifications to section 403(b) exclusion allowance to
contorm to section 415 modifications
tybe 12/31/98
--
--
[19]
(19)
(19)
(19)
119)
(19)
(19)
[19]
[19]
[20]
[2"]
7. New technologies in retirement plans
DOE
No Revenue Effect
8. Modification of 10% tax on nondeducable contributions
tybe 12/31/97
---
2
is
-3
3
?
-3
J
-3
is
is
-14
-29
9. Modify funding rules for certain plans
cda 12/31/97
Negligible Revenue Effect
SUBTOTAL OF PENSION SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS
-
-27
-51
-68
-78
-86
-88
-95
&
-100
-100
-310
-792
XVI. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS PROVISIONS
1 Oklahoma technical on Indian wage credits and
development incentives for property with 10-year lives
of less, with modification
dwcoript 3/18/97
---
-10
-2
1
2
2
I
,
1
1
I
-8
-2
SUBTOTAL OF TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS PROVISIONS
-
-10
-2
I
2
?
1
,
1
1
1
9
-2
Page 15
12:00 No P.15/17.14
Provision
Effective
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2000
2004
2005
2005
2007
1997-02
1997-07
XVR. TRADE PROVISION- GSP extension through
6/30/98 [12]
6/1/97
-
-370
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-378
-375
TOTAL AEVENUE EFFECT OF H.A. 2014
60 -9,083 9,687 27,937 20,329 -23,055 -34,966 -36,519 38,652 . -39,809 -41,551 -100,444 -292,045
XVIII. REVENUE PROVISIONS (N N.A. 2015
I. Increase small cigarettes tax by $0.10 per pack in 2000
JUL 31'97
and 2001, and $0.15 per pack in 2002 and thereafter
with proportionate increase in other lobacco products
excise faxes
10/1/97
1,173
1,720
2. Misoellaneous FUTA provisions [12]
2,272
2,280
2,290
2,300
2,310
2,320
various
5,167
---
3
16,687
3. MedicarePlus MSAs
j6)
[6]
16)
[6]
(6)
16)
16]
(6)
lybe 12/31/97
[6]
1
i
Nagligable Revenue Effect
TOTAL REVENUE EFFECT OF H.R. 2019
-
3
(6)
1,175
1,720
2,272
2,280
2,290
2,300
2,310
2,320
5,169
16,667
GRAND TOTAL: RECONCILIATION REVENUE PROVISIONS
60 9,460 -9,887 -26,762 -27,400 -21,590 -32,606 -34,321 -36,253 -37,499 39,231 -95,276 -275,370
Joint Committee on Texation
NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding
Enactment date is assumed to be August 15. 1997,
Legand for 'Ellective' column:
ab = and before
aba at annoilies beginning alter
efbcieo = exception for binding contracts in effect on
RM#162JUL.31 '97 01:58PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
pyba - plans years beginning after
esa = expenses incurred after
BCA . actions commenced after
1. = expenses incurred in
pybo/s - plans years beginning on OF after
aül OBRA'90 = as il included in the Omnibus Budget
rd - returns due
Reconcification Act of 1930
log DOE . 180 days . first day of the calendar quarter
de - returns filed after
aim SBJPA = as if included in the Small Business Job
that begins at least 180 days after date of enactment
Protection Act of 1996
ftpoa = foreign taxes paid or accrued in
ros . rentals occurring after (for returns open
on date of first committee action)
Boty . all open laxable years
gma - gifts made after
Se - sales after
bis . bonds issued after
gra - gross receipts after
605 N. sales 01 exchanges after
cai - credits arising in
gsia = generation skipping translers after
septs = sales end exchanges, and certain
oci = contracts completed in
Icoa = involuntary conversions occurring alter
partnership distributions other
iia = instruments issued alter
oda = contributions due atter
apa at services performed after
da a claims Red after
faie - leases entered into alter
to . transactions after
to = levies issued after
cia # contracts issued after
Ta - transfers after
CSA . constructive sales after
Ipo/a = tabor performed on or after
tybe = taxable years beginning after
da = distributions after
NOLgi = net operating losses generated in
oia = obligations issued after
tybo/a = lazable years beginning on or after
Da . discharges after
da/a - distributions and acquisitions after
ACE = proceedings commenced after
tyblys = laxable years beginning 1 year above
tybe = laxable years beginning in
dda . decedents dying after
pcpa F property contributed to partnership after
tyes tax years ending other
di - dispositions in
pda = partnership distributions alter
(souiTg = tax shelters offered alter issuance of
dine - disclosures made after
pma = payments made after
Treasury guidance
po/a = purchases on DI alter
wpoithme . wages paid or incurred for hires made after
flegend continued and Footnotes for JCX-39-97 appear on the following page)
Page 16
12:01 No.Po16/17.15
Legand continued and Footnoles for JCK-39-97:
DOE = date ol enactment
poida = payments of interest due after
ybe - years beginning after
dolca = date of first committee action
ppisa = property placed in service after
30da - 30 days efter
dpoaa . dividends paid or accrued after
psora = payments solicited or received after
90da = 90 days after
didaa = dividends received or accrued after
ploa = prohibited transactions occuring after
180ds - 160 days after
dweartpi = depreciation and wages claimed on
2ya = 2 years after
returns filed prior to
(1) Estimate considers interaction with HOPE tax credit proposal
(2) The refundable portion of the chad credit is equal to $4,281 million for lisc years 1990 - 2002 and $10,022 million for fiscal years 1998 - 2007.
PI Estimate includes interaction with estate and gift taxes.
JUL 31'97
141 Considers interaction with IRA PLUS proposal.
151 stimate includes interaction with wellare-to-work fax credit.
(6) Loss of less than $500,000.
PI Gain of less than $500,000.
(8) Effective for bonds issued after 12/31/96 and bonds issued before 1/1/99.
19) Effective for expenses in taxable years ending after date of enactment and before 1/1/01.
1101 Effective for payments received in taxable years beginning after 12/31/96 with respect to individuals dying after such date.
1193 Assumes prior OF concurrent passage of legislation 10 allow Virgin Island financing on parity basis.
(12) Estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office.
[13] Rural airports would be delined as (1) mirports receiving "essential air service" assistance on date of enactment and having fewer than 100,000 enplanements in the previous calendar
year. and (2) dhes airports having lewer than 100,000 passenger enplanements in the previous calendar year. excluding those within 75 miles of airports having more than 100,000
passenger enplanaments in the provious year.
[14] Estimate does not include increase in compipts to Social Security trust fund (821 million for liscal years 1997 2002. $51 million for fiscal years 1997 - 2007).
[15] The provision would eliminate the present-law requirement that a portion of the suspense account be restored to income whenever the gross receipts of the corporation decline.
(16) Prevision would be effective for taxable years ending after 6/8/97 for new suspense accounts. and taxable years beginning after that date for existing
accounts. Balances in new accounts would be included in income over a 10-year period. and balances in existing accounts over a 20-year period. For existing accounts. the
amounts included in income in any year would not exceed 50% of the taxable income of the taxpayer before the inclusion.
(17) Estimate includes outlay reductions of $254 million for 1997 2002 and $650 million for 1997 2007.
[16] slimate does not include effect on oullays. Outlays will be provided by the Congressional Budget Office
(15) Loss of less than $1 million.
1201 Loss of less than $5 midion
RM#16:JUL 31 '97 01:58PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
(21) Loss of less than $10 million.
12:02 No.17/17.16
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
July 30, 1997
JCX-39-97
ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT ON THE REVENUE PROVISIONS OF H.A. 2010,
THE "TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 1997"
Fiscal Years 1997 2007
(Millions of Dollars)
Provision
Effective
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2000
2004
2005
2006
2007
1997-02
1997-07
JUL 31'97
1. CHILD AND DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDITS;
HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN
1. Tax credit for children under age 17 ($400 in 1998, and
$500 thereafter; $75,000/$110,000 AGI phaseout for
credit: nonrefundable for small tamilies, refundable
and limited 10 lak plus employee FICA minus EIC for
farge lamities 11) [2]
1/1/98
i
-2,710
-18,119
-21,549
-21,401
-21,258
-20,901
-20,430
-19,702
2. Expand State high-risk pools to include spouses and
-18,997
-18,317
-05,037
-183,384
children of high-risk individuals
tyba 12/31/97
.1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
do
.2
.2
-2
B
-17
SUBTOTAL OF CHILD AND DEPENDENT CARE
TAX CREDITS; HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN
-
-2,711 -16,121 -21,561 -21,403 -21,260 -20,903 -20,432 -19,704 -10,999 -08.319 -85,045 -163,401
(4. EDUCATION TAX INCENTIVES
A. Fax Benefits Relating 10 Education Expenses
1. Administration's HOPE credit for first 2 years: 100%
credit for first $1,000 of eligible expenses: 50% credit for
next $1,000: 20% credit for third and fourth year
students for up to $5,000 of expenses: for years after
RM#16JUL 31_'97__01:58PM OFFICE OF DEPUTY SEC
2002, expenses are increased ID $10,000 (ellective
date of the 20% credit is 7/1/98): eligible expenses for
HOPE credit are indexed in 2001: income limits for both
pma &
credits indexed in 2001
lyba 12/31/97
!
-2,083
-6,469
7,393
7,907
-7,707
-8,620
2. Expand State-sponsored prepaid tuition and State
-8,754
8,890
-9,035
-9,160
-31,559
-75,041
savings programs to include room and board (3)
lybe 12/31/97
-36
-107
.118
-130
-143
3. Student loan interest deduction: $1,000 above-the-line
-157
-173
-190
.209
-230
-533
-1,491
deduction in 1998, $1,500 in 1999, $2,000 in 2000,
$2,500 in 2001 and thereafter; phaseout $40,000
$55,000 single filers ($60,000 $75,000 joint filers):
income limits indexed beginning in 2003
poida 12/31/97
I
-18
-69
-122
-204
.277
-308
0. Penalty-free withdrawals from all IRAs for
-328
345
-368
-39)
-090
-2,429
undergraduate, post-secondary vocational, and
graduate education expenses
tyba 12/31/97
!
-78
-201
-181
-175
-177
5. Education BRA permit contributions to Education IRA
-179
-182
-184
-185
-189
-812
-1,732
for a child under age 10; annual contributions kmited to
$500 per child; impose phaseout sange of $95,000
$110,000 for single tilers and $150,000 $160,000 for
joint filers (4)
tyba 12/31/97
!
-156
-644
-912
-1,050
-1,126
-1,448
-1,752
-2,054
-2,360
-2,680
-3,899
-14,190
07/30/97 19:01 To:Gene Sperling
From: Stephanie
ACCT, Wash., DC
Page 1/2
To:Bob To: Bob Shireman
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
Date:
7/30/97
Time:
16:29:46
Pages:
2
To:
Gene Sperling
Company:
The White House
Fax #:
4562878
From:
Stephanie
Title:
Giesecke
Company:
Assoc. of Community College Trustees
Address:
1740 "N" Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
USA
Fax #:
(202) 223-1297
Voice #:
(202) 775-4667
Copyright Cheyenne Software, Inc. FAXSERVE
07/30/97 19:01 To:Gene Sperling
From: Stephanie
ACCT, Wash., DC
Page 2/2
AACC
American Association of Community Colleges
Association of Community College Trustees
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Budget and Tax Agreement Increases Access
for Millions of Community College Students
Washington, DC (July 30) -- In separate press conferences held at both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue yesterday, President Clinton and Congressional leaders announced
final agreement on spending and revenue bills to bring the federal budget into balance by
the year 2002.
The final plan, expected to clear Congress prior to the recess beginning August 4,
is especially good news for the nation's community college students. The budget deal
provides significant financial support in the form of a tax credit for the first two years of
college, a lifelong learning credit beyond the first two years of college, extension of the
tax deduction for employer-provided educational assistance, and a partial restoration of
the deduction for student loan interest.
Final education components agreed to yesterday include:
A modified Hope Scholarship Tax Credit for four years of college available
beginning in tax year 1998;
Years 1 and 2: 100% of the first $1,000 of tuition, 50% of the next $1,000
Years 3, 4 and beyond: 20% of up to $5,000 of tuition, increasing to $10,000 after
2002
A three-year extension for Employee Educational Assistance to undergraduate
students (through May 31, 2000) found in Section 127 of the I.R.S. Code:
The partial restoration of the Student Loan Interest Deduction, up to $2,500 per year;
Tax-free state prepaid tuition plans:
Education IRAs for college expenses:
Penalty-free withdrawals for educational expenses from existing IRAs: and
Elimination of origination fees on direct student loans.
Both the American Association of Community Colleges and Association of
Community College Trustees support the agreement reached yesterday between the
White House and Congress and urge its immediate adoption. For more information,
contact David Baime (AACC) at 202/728-0200, ext. 224, or Noah Brown (ACCT) at
202/775-4667.
###
AACC, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 728-0200 FAX (202) 833-2467
ACCT, 1740 "N" Street, NII, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 775-4667 Fax (202) 223-1297
May 23, 1997
Dennis D. Berkey, Ph.D.
Provost
Boston University
143 Bay State Road
Boston, Massachusetts 02215
Dear Dennis:
I enjoyed reading your letter to the editor of
the Boston Globe regarding the HOPE Scholarship
provision requiring students to earn at least a
B-minus average in their first year. I deeply
appreciate your warm words of support and your
articulate defense of my Administration's
efforts to open the doors of college in
this way.
Thanks again. You have my best wishes.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
BC/LIJ/RSM/JAD/lynn-lynn (Corres. #3508425)
(5.berkey.dd)
CC: Wayna Wondwossen, 93 OEOB
CC: Robert Shireman, 235 OEOB
Xeroxed copy of personally signed original to NH
through Todd Stern
CLEAR THRU TODD STERN
PRESIDENT TO SIGN
JUL-23-1997 18:59
WINBURN 8 JENKINS
P.02
PREPAID TUITION PLANS FOR PRIVATE COLLEGES
Current law: Internal Revenue Code section 529 (enacted as part of the Small Business
Job Protection Act of 1996 with bipartisan support) permits States to set up prepaid
tuition programs. These programs permit parents or grandparents to contribute to an
account (established by a State) amounts actuarially computed to fund college tuition
expenses of a child. In addition, regardless of the amount actually accumulated in the
account at age 18, the program guarantees that the child can attend college tax-free even
if tuition rises faster than anticipated or if earnings are less than anticipated. The earnings
within the account accumulate free of taxation until the money is withdrawn to be used to
pay tuition expenses. Private colleges can not set up these accounts. States have shown
no interest in setting these programs up for the private colleges in each state (only Texas
has one) because they want to only provide incentives to their State institutions.
Current situation: The States are now asking for tax-free treatment when the amounts
are withdrawn from the account for tuition. In addition, the States also want to be able to
fund for room and board expenses. The cost of these two items is over $2 billion over 10
years. The consensus GOP offer includes both of these items. Private colleges,
especially the smaller ones, are concerned that these tax advantages given to the States for
State institutions will cost them a severe drop in attendance. Private colleges want equal
treatment. Private colleges want to be able to offer similar savings incentives for parents
to save for private colleges. The consensus GOP offer includes a proposal to permit
private colleges to offer a limited type of prepaid tuition plan with tax-free build-up of
earnings but withdrawals would still be taxable when used for college. Based upon
previous estimates, this proposal should cost around $400-500 million Technical tax
staff at the Treasury Department are opposing permitting private colleges from offering
prepaid tuition programs as well as opposing tax-free withdrawals for State programs.
Proposed solution: Private colleges need to compete on an equal footing with State
institutions. Assuming money, as always, is an issue in these negotiations, the private
colleges need to achieve equal treatment first before anything more is given to the State
programs Treasury's policy concerns over tax-free treatment for withdrawals from State
programs is understandable because it is a new tax-free benefit and costs over $1 billion.
However, private colleges are asking for nothing more than tax deferral of the earnings
which is less than half the cost. Treasury and the White House have already supported
this tax deferral in the 1996 Small Business legislation and to oppose it now for private
colleges makes no sense. States also want expand current law to save for room and board
(which also costs over $1 billion). While this would create a difference between private
and State institutions, it would not have the competitive impact that tax-free treatment
would have and presumably would not have the tax policy concerns raised by tax-free
withdrawals. The overriding goal of these negotiations should be to equalize tax
treatment for private colleges and State institutions to the greatest extent possible.
TOTAL P.02
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
16 pgs.
The California State University
1997
FACTS
ABOUT THE
California
State
Did
You
University
Know.
California State University, is with the
326,000 largest system of senior higher in
that the students and 22 campuses, education
the world.
more people graduate with bachelor's
California than from all other
that State University universities and
degrees colleges in the state combined.
that the of
exciting, innovative, creative California things
are happening University. the
State the at CSU hundreds that are of
CSU
next century.
400 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Suite 873
Washington, D.C., 20001-1512
July 25, 1997
The Honorable Bill Clinton
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We represent The California State University which has over 315,000 students attending classes
on 23 campuses. CSU is the largest higher education system in the nation. It faces significant
expansion challenges which are being seriously impeded by the $150 million cap on the issuance
of tax-exempt bonds.
Enclosed are two letters signed by 48 of the 52 Members of the California House Delegation
calling for repeal of the bond cap. The Republican House-Senate negotiators on Wednesday of
this week agreed to repeal the cap prospectively.
Years ago the California Legislature established policies making each of our campuses
responsible for building and operating certain facilities, such as bookstores, dormitories,
dining halls, and athletic fields. Based upon these policies, each campus established 501(c)(3)
Auxiliaries to perform these functions. One bond cap applies to all of the Auxiliaries throughout
our system. Thus, the cap is significantly hindering our ability to offer educational opportunities
to California's growing college-bound population.
We would appreciate greatly your continued support for repeal.
With warm regards.
Sincerely,
Nummer
Bute
Peter Hoagland
Beth B. Buehlmann
Outside Counsel
Director, Federal Relations
The California State University
The California State University
Enclosures
- 2
cc:
The Honorable Robert E. Rubin
The Honorable Franklin D. Raines
The Honorable John L. Hilley
The Honorable Gene B. Sperling
Congress of the United States
Mashington, BC 20515
July 15, 1997
The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1235 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you know, 39 Members of the California Congressional Delegation signed a July 11,
1997 letter to you expressing their strong support for repeal of the cap on issuance of tax-exempt bonds by
501 c(3) organizations.
The Delegation wrote the letter, in part, because of concerns about the impact of the
bond cap on future development of The California State University -- a 23 campus system with more than
325,000 students. The bond cap inhibits the ability of the University to raise revenues for non-state funded
facilities, such as dormitories.
We wish to join our colleagues to express support for repeal of the bond cap. Time
prohibited us from signing the July 11th letter, a copy of which is attached.
Sincerely,
Jali Dispon
EGostallys
Some Borb
Her a.Walman
Rechard Pambo
Roce Jay Kim
John T. Doolitte
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Congress of the United States
Mashington, BC 20515
July 11, 1997
The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1235 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4307
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As members of the California Congressional Delegation, we want to express strong
support for language in the Senate tax bill that would repeal the 501c(3) bond cap of $150
million. We urge you to recede to the Senate on this issue, which we regard as vital to higher
education in our state. In particular, we are concerned about the ability of the California State
University (CSU) to respond to the future education needs of Californians.
With a student body of 325,000 students attending classes on 23 campuses, CSU is the
largest higher education system in the nation. It faces enormous expansion challenges in the
future. CSU must maintain the current high quality of its educational programs while growing to
meet the needs of California's college-bound population.
Increased bond authority is necessary if CSU is to keep up with the demand for
bookstores, residential living halls, dining areas and athletic facilities -- all important features of
a modern university.
Your support for removing the bond cap, as proposed in the Senate bill, would be deeply
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Plane Hon
Jerry Lewis
Mill G Maiting
Jane Him me George YS { Brown
San Fan
B.6 Filner
Za Jops
Shoo
Nancy Peloni
Lymn Waslsey
TomLanto
Relat J. Matini
Walter Capps
Ken Calval
Howard Buck
airis Cat
Maxine Waters California
Vii Fgin
Lonald Kellam
Bai 1 Hg
Dans Robiatrach Fund RaS
Joach Sauchez
Graye Mike
001
07/30/97 WED 12:21 FAX 202 408 8184
AAU
Association of
American Universities
voice: 202-408-7500
fax: 202-408-8184
1200 New York Avenue, NW Suite 550 Washington, DC 20005
to: Bob Shireman
from: lery Soler
subject:
date: 7/30/97
Bob,
Here is the AAU statement on the
far bill. A Strong outcome - thanks
for your good work. please
Shae this, as you see fit.
Leny
07/30/97 WED 12:21 FAX 202 408 8184
AAU
002
AAU
NEWS
THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES
1200 NEW YORK AVENUE NW, SUITE 550, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
Phone: 202-408-7500 Fax: 202-408-8184
WWW site: www.tulane.edu/~aau
Contact:
For Release:
Peter Smith
July 30, 1997
202-408-7500
Statement by Cornelius J. Pings
President, Association of American Universities
On the higher education provisions in the final tax reconciliation bill
The agreement reached by Congress and the Administration on higher education
tax provisions represents one of the most important investments in higher education
ever enacted by the federal government, comparable in scope and importance to the
GI Bill and the Higher Education Act.
Throughout the debate, we have consistently argued that any higher education tax
package, to be most effective, should include the following six items: a Hope Tax Credit,
an additional credit for lifelong learning, savings incentives, extension of employer-
provided educational assistance for all students, reinstatement of a student loan interest
deduction, and elimination of the tax-exempt bond cap. We are delighted that the final
agreement completely addresses five of these six elements, and we look forward to
working with Congress and the Administration in the future to ensure that graduate
students are once again allowed to receive employer-provided educational assistance on
a tax-free basis.
The higher education tax package could not have been completed without the
support of both the Administration and Congress-beginning with President Clinton's
bold initial proposal and continuing with other important initiatives advanced by
members of Congress. On behalf of the Association of American Universities, I want to
express our gratitude for this bipartisan effort.
should
this
change
Distribution of Higher Education Tuition Tax Credits by Student's State of Legal Residence 1/
(Beneficiary Calculations FY 1998/Dollar Amounts FY 1999)
Dollar Difference:
Number of Beneficiaries 2/
Dollar Amounts of Benefits
(in millions)
Agree
areat
(in thousands)
Difference
Agreemed,
(in millions)
President Compared to
President
House/Senate
House
Senate
House
Senate
Alabama
195
87
108
$111.6
$78.2
$72.3
$33.4
$39.3
Alaska
27
12
15
15.4
10.6
9.8
4.8
5.6
Arizona
244
108
136
139.4
97.0
89.6
42.4
49.8
Arkansas
79
36
43
45.3
32.0
29.5
13.4
15.8
California
1,654
733
922
944.9
656.9
605.8
289.0
339.1
Colorado
219
97
122
125.0
86.7
80.0
38.3
44.9
Connecticut
149
66
83
85.1
58.8
54.2
26.3
30.9
Delaware
42
18
23
23.8
16.4
15.2
7.4
8.7
District of Columbia
74
32
41
42.0
28.9
26.7
13.1
15.3
Florida
553
246
306
316.1
220.6
203.8
05.5
112.3
Georgia
266
119
147
152.0
106.3
98.2
45.7
53.8
Hawaii
61
27
34
35.0
24.1
22.2
10.9
12.8
Idaho
51
23
28
29.3
20,6
19,0
8.8
10.3
Illinois
669
296
374
382.2
264.6
244.4
117.6
137.8
Indiana
259
115
144
148.2
103.1
95.3
45.1
52.9
lowa
150
67
83
85.9
59.9
55.4
25/9
30.5
Kansas
151
67
84
86.5
60.2
55.6
26.3
30.9
Kentucky
154
69
85
88.3
61,9
57.2
26.3
31.0
Louisiana
166
75
91
94.9
67.0
62.0
27.9
33.0
Maine
50
22
28
28.7
20.0
18.5
8.7
10.3
Maryland
243
108
136
138.9
96.2
88.9
42.7
50.1
Massachusetts
383
169
214)
218.4
151.2
139.6
67.3
78.9
Michigan
493
219
274
281.4
95.6
180.7
85.8
100.7
Minnesota
258
115
143
147.4
102.5
94.7
44,9
52.7
Mississippi
97
44
53
55.4
39.3
36.3
16.2
19.1
Missouri
259
115
144
148.3
103.3
95.4
45.0
52.9
Montana
32
18
18
18.6
13.1
12.1
5.4
6.4
Nebraska
104
46
58
59.2
41.1
38.0
18.0
21.2
Nevada
61
27
34
34.5
23.8
22.0
10.7
12.6
New Hampshire
57
25
32
32.8
22.7
21.0
10.1
11.8
New Jersey
304
134
169
173.5
120.3
111.1
53.2
62.4
New Mexico
87
39
48
49.9
35.0
32.3
15.0
17.6
New York
897
402
495
513.5
360.0
332.7
153.5
180.7
North Carolina
333
148
186
190.4
132.1
122.0
58.3
68.3
North Dakota
34
15
19
19.3
13.5
12.5
5.7
6.7
Ohio
482
214
267
275.2
191.9
177.3
83.3
97.9
Oklahoma
156
70
86
89.1
62.6
57.8
26.5
31.3
Oregon
147
65
82
84.2
58.5
54.0
25.7
30.2
Pennsylvania
545
242
303
311.3
216.5
200.0
94.8
111.4
Rhode Island
67
30
37
38.4
26.6
24.6
11.7
13.8
South Carolina
150
67
83
85.9
60.0
55.4
25.9
30.5
South Dakota
31
14
17
17.6
12.4
11.5
5.2
6.1
Tennessee
212
94
117
121.1
84.5
78.1
36.6
43.0
Texas
841
374
467
480.5
334.8
308.3
145.7
171.2
Utah
126
56
70
72.3
50.5
46.7
21.8
25.6
Vermont
31
14
17
18.0
12.5
11.6
5.5
6.4
Virginia
321
142
179
183.3
127.1
117.4
86.2
65.9
Washington
255
113
142
145.8
101.3
93,6
44.5
52.3
West Virginia
75
34
41
42.8
30.0
27.7
12.8
15.1
Wisconsin
277
122
165
158.2
109.6
101.2
48.6
57.0
Wyoming
27
12
15
15.4
10.7
9.9
4.7
5.5
US Totals
12,600
5,600
7,000
$7,200.0
$5,012.0
$4,630.0
$2,188.0
$2,570.0
1/ Includes HOPE Scholarship plans and the President's 20% tax credit for lifelong learning.
Calculations do not include interest deductions and tax benefits that could be received
in outyears from savings incentives in all three plans.
2/ The number of beneficiaries is the same under the House and Senate plans, though the amounts of benefits differ.
Source: Education Department estimates based on State-level enrollment and Pell Grant recipient data.
Methodology of State-by-State Analysis
Using a nationally-representative sample of postsecondary students and data on Pell Grant recipients, an
estimate was derived for the proportion of the total national number of recipients of the tax benefit in 1998.
Using that ratio, the number of recipients for each State was determined. Based on the Joint Tax Committee
and Treasury revenue estimates of the three plans for 1999, a dollar amount for each State was derived using the
same ratio as the State/national number of beneficiaries.
Distribution of Higher Education Tuition Tax Credits by Student's State of Legal Residence 1/
(Beneficiary Calculations FY 1998/Dollar Amounts FY 1999)
Dollar Difference:
Number of Beneficiaries 2/
Dollar Amounts of Benefits
(in millions)
(in thousands)
(in millions)
President Compared to
President
House/Senate
Difference
President
House
Senate
House
Senate
Alabama
195
87
108
$111.6
$78.2
$72.3
$33.4
$39.3
Alaska
27
12
15
15.4
10.6
9.8
4.8
5.6
Arizona
244
108
136
139.4
97.0
89.6
42.4
49.8
Arkansas
79
36
43
45.3
32.0
29.5
13.4
15.8
California
1,654
733
922
944.9
655.9
605.8
289.0
339.1
Colorado
219
97
122
125.0
86.7
80.0
38.3
44.9
Connecticut
149
66
83
85.1
58.8
54.2
26.3
30.9
Delaware
42
18
23
23.8
16.4
15.2
7.4
8.7
District of Columbia
74
32
41
42.0
28.9
26.7
13.1
15.3
Florida
553
246
306
316.1
220.6
203.8
95.5
112.3
Georgia
266
119
147
152.0
106.3
98.2
45.7
53.8
Hawaii
61
27
34
35.0
24.1
22.2
10.9
12.8
Idaho
51
23
28
29.3
20.6
19.0
8.8
10.3
Illinois
669
296
374
382.2
264.6
244.4
117.6
137.8
Indiana
259
115
144
148.2
103.1
95.3
45.1
52.9
lowa
150
67
83
85.9
59.9
55.4
25.9
30.5
Kansas
151
67
84
86.5
60.2
55.6
26.3
30.9
Kentucky
154
69
85
88.3
61.9
57.2
26.3
31.0
Louisiana
166
75
91
94.9
67.0
62.0
27.9
33.0
Maine
50
22
28
28.7
20.0
18.5
8.7
10.3
Maryland
243
108
136
138.9
96.2
88.9
42.7
50.1
Massachusetts
383
169
214
218.4
151.2
139.6
67.3
78.9
Michigan
493
219
274
281.4
195.6
180.7
85.8
100.7
Minnesota
258
115
143
147.4
102.5
94.7
44.9
52.7
Mississippi
97
44
53
55.4
39.3
36.3
16.2
19.1
Missouri
259
115
144
148.3
103.3
95.4
45.0
52.9
Montana
32
15
18
18.6
13.1
12.1
5.4
6.4
Nebraska
104
46
58
59.2
41.1
38.0
18.0
21.2
Nevada
61
27
34
34.5
23.8
22.0
10.7
12.6
New Hampshire
57
25
32
32.8
22.7
21.0
10.1
11.8
New Jersey
304
134
169
173.5
120.3
111.1
53.2
62.4
New Mexico
87
39
48
49.9
35.0
32.3
15.0
17.6
New York
897
402
495
513.5
360.0
332.7
153.5
180.7
North Carolina
333
148
186
190.4
132.1
122.0
58.3
68.3
North Dakota
34
15
19
19.3
13.5
12.5
5.7
6.7
Ohio
482
214
267
275.2
191.9
177.3
83.3
97.9
Oklahoma
156
70
86
89.1
62.6
57.8
26.5
31.3
Oregon
147
65
82
84.2
58.5
54.0
25.7
30.2
Pennsylvania
545
242
303
311.3
216.5
200.0
94.8
111.4
Rhode Island
67
30
37
38.4
26.6
24.6
11.7
13.8
South Carolina
150
67
83
85.9
60.0
55.4
25.9
30.5
South Dakota
31
14
17
17.6
12.4
11.5
5.2
6.1
Tennessee
212
94
117
121.1
84.5
78.1
36.6
43.0
Texas
841
374
467
480.5
334.8
309.3
145.7
171.2
Utah
126
56
70
72.3
50.5
46.7
21.8
25.6
Vermont
31
14
17
18.0
12.5
11.6
5.5
6.4
Virginia
321
142
179
183.3
127.1
117.4
56.2
65.9
Washington
255
113
142
145.8
101.3
93.6
44.5
52.3
West Virginia
75
34
41
42.8
30.0
27.7
12.8
15.1
Wisconsin
277
122
155
158.2
109.6
101.2
48.6
57.0
Wyoming
27
12
15
15.4
10.7
9.9
4.7
5.5
US Totals
12,600
5,600
7,000
$7,200.0
$5,012.0
$4,630.0
$2,188.0
$2,570.0
1/ Includes HOPE Scholarship plans and the President's 20% tax credit for lifelong learning.
Calculations do not include interest deductions and tax benefits that could be received
in outyears from savings incentives in all three plans.
2/ The number of beneficiaries is the same under the House and Senate plans, though the amounts of benefits differ.
Source: Education Department estimates based on State-level enrollment and Pell Grant recipient data.
Methodology of State-by-State Analysis
Using a nationally-representative sample of postsecondary students and data on Pell Grant recipients, an
estimate was derived for the proportion of the total national number of recipients of the tax benefit in 1998.
Using that ratio, the number of recipients for each State was determined. Based on the Joint Tax Committee
and Treasury revenue estimates of the three plans for 1999, a dollar amount for each State was derived using the
same ratio as the State/national number of beneficiaries.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Fact Sheet on Higher Education Tax Cuts
II.
A Comparison: Higher Education Tax Cuts
III.
State-by-State Analysis of Benefits
IV.
Greater Benefits for More Families (examples)
V.
Endorsement from Higher Education
Organizations
VI.
Distribution Analysis of Alternative Tax Plans
NAGPS
National Association of Graduate-
Professional Students, Inc.
July 3, 1997
President Bill Clinton
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Clinton:
On behalf of the nation's 2.5 million graduate and professional students, I want to thank
you for proposing a tax cut plan which truly aids education, reduces graduate debt, and
mitigates against increasing college costs. The National Association of
Graduate-Professional Students (NAGPS) supports the elements below in your tax cut
plan, and we are grateful that you are working with the Congressional Conference
Committee reviewing H.R. 2014, and S. 949 to ensure that these aspects of your tax cut
plan are included in the final legislation:
1) Preservation of Section 117(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, providing a tax
exemption for tuition and fee waivers given to employees of educational organizations as
a function of their employment;
2) Establishment of a Student Loan Interest Deduction which allows students to deduct
the value of interest payments made on their student loans each year;
3) Permanent extension for both undergraduates and graduate students of the Internal
Revenue Code Section 127 tax exemption for the first $5250 of employer-provided
educational assistance;
4) Creation of a Tuition Tax Credit for up to 20% of $5,000 ($10.000 after the year
2000) in tuition and fees paid each year, for which graduate and professional students are
eligible.
825 Green Bay Road
Suite 270
Wilmette, IL 60091
(847) 256-1562
FAX (847) 256-8954
President Clinton
July 3, 1997
Page 2 of 2
Your plan is the only one which includes a provision for a tuition tax credit that includes
graduate/professional students. All of these provisions can help significantly reduce costs
for students and the need to rely on student loans to pay for education. These provisions
help make graduate/professional school an affordable and accessible opportunity for
people throughout the US We see great hope for a bipartisan bill that includes all of
these pro-student provisions and we are encouraged that you are taking a vigorous role
in helping graduate students.
We, the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students, thank you for your
support of graduate and professional education. Please know you have our support as
you seek tax relief for students at all levels of learning through their lifetimes.
Sincerely,
Beyan Hannega
Bryan Hannegan, President
National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
Ph.D. Candidate, University of California-Irvine
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
July 3, 1997
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President
The United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I write on behalf of the higher education associations listed below to express our
appreciation for the agreement you reached with the congressional leadership to devote
a significant portion of any tax cuts to education-related tax incentives. We are grateful
that you and the congressional leadership agree that this goal is consistent with the
objectives of balancing the federal budget and enhancing the nation's investment in
human capital.
We deeply appreciate your continued efforts in this area. The plan you outlined
earlier this week will help make higher education more affordable for middle-income
students and families. This plan builds upon your proposals to create a Hope
Scholarship tax credit and to encourage lifelong learning by incorporating a number of
complementary provisions that are widely supported in the higher education community.
On June 6th, I sent a letter to Chairman Archer expressing our belief that any
truly effective tax package must include six elements:
A Hope Scholarship tax credit available to needy as well as middle-income
students for the first two years of college. This program would guarantee
students access to at least two years of an undergraduate education and should
be the central feature of any plan.
A provision to encourage lifelong learning for undergraduate and graduate
students.
Meaningful incentives to families with young children to save for college expenses.
Permanent extension of Section 127 of the tax code for employer-provided
educational assistance for both undergraduate and graduate education to ensure
that working adults can participate in higher education without adverse tax
consequences.
Reinstatement of the student loan interest deduction to help students repay their
loans following graduation. The deduction should be "above the line" to ensure
that the broadest number of students can benefit. Further, certain types of
student loan forgiveness should be excluded from income when college graduates
pursue community service and other low-paying careers.
One Dupont Circle, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1193
tel: (202) 939-9310
fax: (202) 659-2212
The Honorable William J. Clinton
July 3, 1997
Page 2
Elimination of the tax-exempt bond cap for all colleges and universities so that
they can maintain their campus facilities, keep up with the rapid growth of
technology, and offer their students and faculty state-of-the-art classroom and
research facilities.
Your proposal addresses each of these issues, and, we believe, represents a much
needed and extraordinarily valuable set of tax cuts for middle-income families. We are
pleased that the Senate-passed bill also encompasses a similar set of issues, and we
urge you to work with the Congress to develop a final bill that includes these elements.
In addition, we encourage you to strongly oppose provisions that would impose
new taxes on tuition assistance, such as phasing out Section 117(d), and on retirement
benefits offered to the higher education community through TIAA-CREF. Both of these
provisions run counter to the efforts to make higher education more affordable, and to
make teaching a career that attracts our most outstanding scholars.
Again, we thank you for the abiding leadership you have demonstrated in
support of higher education. We urge you to continue your work with Congress on these
important matters to ensure that this historic opportunity for America's college students
does not pass us by.
Sincerely,
Stanley O. Ikenberry
President
This letter is sent on behalf of the following associations:
American Council on Education
American Association of Community Colleges
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
Association of American Universities
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
Alternative Tax Cut Proposals
A Comparison of Distributional Impact
Income by Quintile
President Clinton
House
Senate
Lowest
1.2%
0.6%
0.4%
Second
10.1
2.5
2.7
Third
22.2
9.6
10.2
Fourth
34.6
20.0
21.3
Highest
31.5
66.8
65.0
Top 10%
11.7
47.3
42.3
Top 5%
6.5
34.9
28.2
Top 1%
2.6
18.8
12.5
Middle 60%
66.9%
32.1%
34.2%
(Second, third, fourth quintiles)
Source: U.S. Department of Treasury
Tables assumes fully phased-in (2007) law and behavior, in 1998 dollars. It includes major tax cut provisions in each of the plans:
HOPE Scholarship, tuition credit, Section 127, Student loan interest deduction, child tax credit, Kidsave accounts, capital gains
provisions, home office deduction, distressed areas initiatives, Puerto Rico tax incentives, individual and corporate AMT changes,
prepaid tuition programs, IRAs, DC tax incentives, safe harbor for independent contractors, modifications of treatment of company
owned life insurance.
Change in Income Tax: Comparison of Current Law With
The President's Proposal and the House and Senate Tax Bills
Single Mother with Income of $62,000 and Three Children
Oldest Child Enrolled Full Time in Community College
Tuition of $1,000 and Book Expenditures of $500
(1999 Tax Parameters)
President's
House
Senate
Current Law
Proposal
Tax Bill
Tax Bill
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI)
62,000
62,000
62,000
62,000
Itemized Deductions (18% of AGI)
11,160
11,160
11,160
11,160
Personal Exemptions
11,200
11,200
11,200
11,200
Taxable Income
39,640
39,640
39,640
39,640
Income Tax Before Credits
6,562
6,562
6,562
6,562
Child Credit
0
867
1,000
1,000
*
HOPE Credit
0
400
0
0
Income Tax After Credits
6,562
5,296
5,562
5,562
Tax Savings Compared to Current Law
1,267
1,000
1,000
Department of the Treasury
July 18, 1997
Office of Tax Analysis
*
Under the Senate Bill, the child credit is available for children aged 13 to 16 (13 to 17 after 2002) only to the extent it is saved for education in a specified manner.
To: Bob
07/25/97 15:09
002
P.1/7
JUL 25 '97 02:47PM DOE/OFC OF SECRETARY
OF
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WATED STATES AND OF AMERICA
THE SECRETARY
FAX TRANSMITTAL
GENE SPERLING
TO
FAX
456-2878
PHONE
DICK RICEY
FROM
PHONE
FAX
401-2098
PAGE (S) TO FOLLOW
DATE
MESSAGE:
URGENT!
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED FOR AND RESTRICTED TO THE NAMED
ADDRESSEE ONLY. IT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED
INFORMATION. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, YOU ARE
NOTIFIED THAT YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM READING, COPYING, OR
DISSEMINATING THE TRANSMISSION. PLEASE CALL 202-401-3000 TO
ARRANGE FOR RETURN OF ANY TRANSMISSION SENT IN ERROR. THANK YOU.
600 INDEPENDENCE AVE.. S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20202-0100
JUL 25 '97 02:47PM DOE/OFC OF SECRETARY
JUL 25 97 11:02 FR
003
TO 94012098
P.52%!
BOB GRAHAM
COMMITTEES:
FLORIDA
FINANCE
ENVIRONMENT AND
PUBLIC WORKS
United States Senate
VETERANS AFFAIRS
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0903
INTELLIGENCE
ENERGY AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
July 23, 1997
EVE CORBIN
The Honorable Richard Riley
224-4662
Secretary
United States Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, Southwest
Washington, D.C. 20202
Dear Dick:
Thank you for your assistance in promoting state-sponsored
prepaid college tuition programs and savings plans. By the end
of this year, 21 states will have active programs, and the
remaining 29 states either have legislation pending or are
studying the feasibility of establishing such programs.
As you are aware, earlier this year Senator McConnell and :
introduced the College Savings Act of 1997, which would clarify
the taxation of state-sponsored prepaid college tuition programs
and college savings plans. Specifically, participants would not
be taxed on any earnings transferred to the state if the
distributions are used for qualified college costs. Thus, the
benefits of state prepaid college programs would be completely
tax-free. In addition, under the bill, states would have the
flexibility to provide the same tax treatment for room amo board
contracts as they can for tuition contracts.
Both the House and Senate versions of the Revenue Reconc: liation
Act contain the basic goals of the College Savings Act. However,
Secretary Rubin has expressed scme concerns regarding these
provisions. on page two of the attached letter, Secretary Rubin
questions whether these plans place sufficient limits OI..
contributors' incomes, whether sufficient limits are placed on
amounts contributed, and whether the tax benefits go to those who
need real relief from the costs of higher education.
It is unclear whether these concerns are aimed specifically at
prepaid tuition programs or at all of the education savings
initiatives. Moreover, I do not feel qualified to assess their
accuracy with respect to IRAs. However, let me address these
concerns as they relate to state-sponsored prepaid tuition
programs:
Insufficient Income Limits: The discipline and security
offered by these programs provide the incentive that many
07/25/97
15:10
004
TO 94012096
P.O.S.
JUL 25 '97 02:48PM DOE/OFC OF SECRETARY
low and middle income families need to afford college. In
Florida (which has the largest program), although the median
income of families with college students is $50,000, over 70
percent of participants in the state tuition program have family
incomes of less than $50,000. Similarly, based on a random
sample, Ohio (with the second largest program) has found that
marketing strategies geared toward lower-middle income families
have helped its Tuition Trust program shift the income
demographics to 70 percent of participants at or below a family
income of $70,000.
In addition, most plans allow monthly installments which
permit parents to afford college tuition for their children
within the confines of their budget. For example, Florida
families can prepay four years of state university tuition
in monthly payments as low as $48. Accordingly, it is not
clear to me whether income limits are necessary to make sure
that high income families do not receive a disproportionate
amount of the benefits.
+
Insufficient Contribution Limits: Most states have built-in
contribution limitations within their programs. For
instance, prepaid tuition plans limit investment to the
level necessary to pay qualified educational expenses and
impose penalties for amounts beyond these costs. These
built-in limitations provide states with the flexibility
needed to ensure that families set aside the appropriate
amount of money for their children's education.
*
Assurance that Benefits Go to Those Who Need Real Relief:
State-sponsored tuition programs actively recruit early
college savings and offer a safe, simple, and affordable way
for families to stop procrastinating. Different taxpayers
have different needs. For families with college-aged
children, tax credits may be the best way to meet their
needs. For families with small children, however, these
programs provide them with the opportunity to start early in
saving for their children's future, to be self-sufficient in
financing college for their children instead of relying on
loans and grants in the future.
In Florida, for example, nearly one in ten prepaid contracts
is purchased by families with annual incomes below $20,000.
The performance of Florida's program attests to the ability
of low- and middle-income families to prepare for their
children's education.
Furthermore, by encouraging families to prepare for college
within their means, these programs free up scarce federal
resources for the truly needy. Those who find themselves
unprepared for the costs of their children's schooling would
benefit from the greater availability of federal funds.
15:11
JUL 25 '97 02:48PM DOE/OFC OF SECRETARY
TO 94012098
005
P.OP.4/7
Dick, as I am sure you are aware, over the last 15, years the cost
of college tuition rose dramatically (234 percent) while the
median household income increased by much less (82 percent) over
the same period. At the same time, federal financial assistance
for education was scaled back through limitations on the amount
of grant aid for middle-income families. Consequently, many
states created these plans as one way to increase access to
higher education.
As a former governor, you understand that each state has unique
needs and requires sufficient flexibility in finding the most
appropriate solution to the tuition crisis within its boundaries.
In Florida, for example, we instituted the Florida Prepaid
Tuition Program and have had overwhelming success in addressing
the needs of our citizenry. It is important that we reward
families who work hard, save diligently, and persevere on behalf
of their children. Hard-working families deserve every
opportunity to invest in their children's future, and allowing
the benefits of these programs to be completely tax-exempt helps
these families and our economy as a whole.
Again, thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please let
me know if I can provide you with more information or details.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
DoLGratom
United States Senator
BG/EC
Enclosures
07/25/97
15:11
006
JUL 25 '97 02:48PM DOE/OFC OF SECRETARY
TO 94012098
P.P.5/?
Reasons to Support This Legislation
The advantages of prepaid college tuition programs and college savings plans are numerous,
including the following:
Locked-in Prices. Prepaid tuition programs guarantee that tomorrow's tuition will be
locked in at today's rates. By pooling the investments of many contributors, the
programs generate a rate of return that keeps pace with tuition inflation and guarantees
future tuition payments.
Regimented Saving. These programs establish and encourage participation in a
regimented savings plan. Funds cannot be withdrawn early without serious penalty.
Monthly payment plans foster a savings ethic SO that families will be able to pay for
college within their own means.
Low Cost. Since state programs operate on a non-profit basis, the overhead COSTS are
low. This allows the plans to be offered at a more affordable cost to low- and middle-
income families.
Portability. Portability of benefits allows beneficiaries to attend the college or
university of their choice. All prepaid programs allow portability of benefits to out-of-
state and private institutions. Generally, the only stipulation is that the benefits paid
will be equal to the tuition rates of the state plan in which the contributor initially
invested.
Plan Options. Most programs offer several options in order to meet the varied needs
of our nation's families. For example, Kentucky allows payments as low as $25, and
Ohio allows payments of $15. Most plans, however, require families to contribute a
predetermined monthly amount ranging from a period of five years to the full span of
primary and secondary education.
State Flexibility. These innovative programs help families deal with the spiraling cost
of higher education without having to rely on student-indebredness. The federal
government should encourage states to meet the needs of their families by getting the
IRS out of the way.
Downward Pressure on Tuition Rates. Increased participation in state tuition
will also produce downward pressure on tuition rates at all colleges. States
programs that sponsor these programs guarantee that if earnings in the funds do not exceed
increases in tuition rates, then the states will fund the difference. Thus, states have an
incentive to encourage cost efficiency throughout their state systems. For example,
since the establishment of Florida's plan, tuition at our state university system has
increased at an average of six percent - a full two percentage points below the national
average.
JUL 25 '97 02:49PM DOE/OFC OF SECRETARY
TO 94012098
P.P.6/7
07/07/97 MON 11:51 FAI 202 622 0534
TREAS LEG AFFAIRS
002
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON. D.C.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
July 3, 1997
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Conferee:
We are pleased that substantial progress has been made toward implementing the terms of the
historic bipartisan budget agreement between the President and the Gengress We look forward
to continuing bipartisan cooperation as we work together to produce a tax-cut package that
fulfills the agreement and best serves the American people. To that end, I would like to share
with you the Administration's views on major issues in conference on the tax portions of revenue
reconciliation In addition, we expect to communicate further with you regarding provisions not
addressed in this letter.
In general, as we have previously indicated, the Administration strongly believes that any tax-cut
package must meet four basic tests to reflect sound policy. First, the tax cuts must be fiscally
responsible by avoiding an explosion in revenue costs in later years. Second, the tax cuts must
provide a fair balance of benefits for working Americans. Third, the tax cuts must encourage
economic growth Fourth, the tax package must reflect the terms of the bipartisan budget
agreement, including a significant expansion of opportunities for higher education for Americans
of all ages. Neither bill meets these tests.
While the Senate bill is an improvement over the House bill, both bills provide too little tax relief
to middle-income families. Lr both the House and Senate bills, the middle sixty-percent of
families receive just one-third of the tax ait; these families would receive twice as large a share
under the President's proposal.
Education Tax Incentives
We are pleased that each bill contains a version of the President's HOPE Scholarship proposal
Nonetheless, both the House and Senate bills are inconsistent with the bipartisan budget
agreement because they fall far short of meeting the specific agreement of providing roughly $35
billion over five years of higher education incentives along the lines of the President's HOPE
Scholarship credit and tuition deduction proposals.
While the HOPE Scholarship credit as modified in the Senate bill is an improvement over the
version in the House bill, each bill significantly reduces the value of education benefits for millions
of students attending low-cost institutions by cutting the percentage of expenses covered by the
credit (50% in the House bill, 50% to 75% in the Senate bill).
JUL 25 '97 02:49PM DOE/OFC OF SECRETARY
007
TO 94012098
[email protected]/?
07/07/97 MON 11:52 FAX 202 #22 0534
TREAS LEG AFFAIRS
003
Neither bill includes & widely evailable doduction or wash to the first budget TWO
years of higher education that is consistors
proposal We are particularly concerned that neither bill
signaficantly
long learning,
which we believe is a oritical component of education in our changing essuemy. In addition,
neither bill offers low-income students and students who work to pay nition meaning 41 help
beyond the first two years of higher education. Inssead, the bills require taxpayers to have the
funds available to put into savings in order LO be entitled to any assistance other than for the first
two years.
We also object to the education IRAS and prepald tuition account providings of both bills. These
provisions fail to place sufficient limits on the income of contributors, emounts contituted,
and the uses of funds to ensure that the tax benefits go to those who need real valied trom the
costs of higher education Because most workers already have an opportunity to contribute to tax
deductible IRAs and the President has proposed to allow penalty-fice IRA withdrawals to be used
to finance higher education expenses, the iducation IRAS and prepaid tuition plans in the House
and Senate bills will largely become vehicles to provide 18% breaks for saving by upper income
taxpayers that would have occurred anyway, We also object 10 the prévimen in the Senate bill
that allows tax-free withdrawals from these accounts for primary and secondary school oullion,
because it provides Federal subsidies to parents who send their children to private elementary and
secondary schools.
Overall, as compared to the President's proposats, bolb packages direct more benefits toward
upper-income families while reducing the benefits to families, particularly those
who rely on their earnings to finance higher education. The rages are clearly incogristent with
the bipartisan budget agreement
Administration Position:
HOPE Scholarship and 20 percent Tuitles Condit: The Administration remains suongly
committed to the principle that the education tax Incomeives must be fair, must genuinely
expand educational opportunities for Americans, and must promote life learning. TO
accomplish these objectives, the Administration believes the conferees should provide
roughly $35 billion over Five years for higher education by adopting the HOPE
Scholarship, which gives 4 credit of 100 percent of the first $1,000 of tuition and fees, and
50 percent of the next $1,000 in 1989 through 2002. Students must attend school at least
half time in the first two years of a degree or certificate program If a
student is not eligible for the HOPE Scholarship but is pursuing o degree
or certificate or is enrolled in classes to improve job skills, a smdit for auition
and fees up to $5,000 through 2000 and $10,000 thereafter should be granted.
This proposal addresses Congressional concerns in two ways: is lessens concerns about
tuition inflation by limiting the rearging jubsidy of the HOPE Scholarship to 50 cents on
the dollar (rather than dollar for dollars the gudenes with Juition between $1,000 and
2
** TOTAL PAGE.07 **
07/23/97 17:40 202 456 1605
WHITE HOUSE NEC +++ WW1
5.
002/002
JUL.23.1997 4:18PM GRADUATE SCHOOL
NO.881
P.2/2
DEPARTMENT COSTRAC
PHONE 219-631-4291
VICE PRESIDENT
+
INTERNET [email protected]
GRADUATA STUDIES AND RASEARCH
Fix 219-631-6630
312 MAIN BUILDING
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
July 23, 1997
NOTRE DAME, INDIANA 16556-5602
Gene Sperling, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
and Director. National Economic Council
The White House, Second Floor West Wing
Washington, D.C. 20502
Dear Mr. Sperling,
I have recently become aware of legislation (HR 2014) introduced by Rep. Bill Archer,
Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would do great harm to higher
education in this country. Archer's bill concerns taxing graduate students' tuition
remission, which would be financially ruinous for graduate students and graduate
programs everywhere. I represent graduate education at the University of None Dame, a
truly national university with a large and loyal alumni(ae).
Most graduate students already struggle to make ends meet financially. They live in sub-
standard housing, they have poor health-care insurance (if any): often their income
approaches the poverty level. They put up with these conditions because they recognize the
value of the degree for their future economic stability and for the personal career
satisfaction that usually follows. To add to their burdens by taxing their tuition remission
would be disastrous; it would in many cases at least double their tax burden, pushing them
beyond the limit that they might think represents an acceptable sacrifice. Yet these are the
academic, business, and industry leaders and visionaries of the next generation, trained by
a system of scholarly inquiry and creativity that is considered to be the finest in the world.
It is hard to think of any idea that would stand to do greater harm to graduate education,
and hence to the future well being of our nation, than this one.
I hope that you will continue to insist on legislation that is broad and supportive for higher
education in this country, as you have done in the past. In particular, I respectfully ask that
you work to DEFEAT the proposed repeal of Section 115(d) of the Tax Code, "Qualified
Tuition Reductions".
Sincerely yours,
James I Merz
James L. Merz
Vice President for Graduate Studies & Research
208 Hurley Hall
The University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
SENT BY : ACE
: 7-24-97 ; 4:32PM :GOVT. REL. /PUB. AFF.
2024562223:# 1/4
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
ONE DUPONT CIRCLE, NW, SUITE 835
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-1193
TELEPHONE: 202/939-9355
FAX: 202/833-4762
http://www.acenet.edu.
TO: Bob Shirinan
FAX NUMBER: 456-2223
DATE: 7-24-97
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 04
FROM:
DIVISION STAFF
x
TERRY W. HARTLE, VICE PRESIDENT
SHELDON E. STEINBACH, VICE PRESIDENT & GENERAL COUNSEL
BECKY H. TIMMONS, DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
JACQUELINE E. KING, DIRECTOR FEDERAL POLICY ANALYSIS
DIANE C. HAMPTON, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
WANDA FORD SMITH, OFFICE MANAGER
BETH A. WALLIS, GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS ASSISTANT
ROSA M. LOTT-HAWKINS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
PAUL MASSEY, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
MESSAGE:
FOR SIGN ON BY:
PLEASE RESPOND BY:
URGENT
PER OUR CONVERSATION
PER YOUR REQUEST
PLEASE REVIEW & COMMENT
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
National Association
of Independent
Colleges and Universities
June 9, 1997
Background Information on Selected Price/Cost Issues at
Colleges and Universities
Of 3,688 colleges and universities in the United States, 61 (1.7 percent) have
tuition and fees of $20,000 or more in 1996-97.
216,000 students are enrolled in colleges and universities with tuition and
fees of $20,000 or more; after adjusting for students who receive financial aid,
only an estimated 72,000 students actually pay $20,000 or more in tuition.
These 72,000 students are just one-half of one percent of the total
undergraduate enrollment (12.3 million) in higher education.
In 1996-97, tuition and fees at independent four-year colleges and
universities averaged $11,112. More than three times as many independent
institutions have tuition and fees below $8,000 as above $16,000.
In recent years, average annual increases in tuition and fees at independent
colleges and universities have fallen to 5 percent. However, the increase in
net tuition -- what the student pays after institutional and federal grant aid
is considered -- is 3.5 percent.
70 percent of full-time undergraduates at independent colleges and
universities receive some form of financial aid.
For every increase of 1 percent in tuition and fees at independent colleges
and universities since 1986-87, there has been an increase of 2.2 percentage
points in student financial assistance from the institutions' own resources.
Independent colleges and universities now provide more than $8 billion is
student financial aid from their own resources. The portion to undergraduate
students alone is more than three times as much grant aid as received from
all the federal Title IV grant programs combined.
Committed to access, independent colleges and universities enrolled (in 1994)
the same proportion of students from families earning less than $25,000 per
year as from families earning more than $75,000 per year.
In public and independent colleges and universities combined, 70 percent of
students who received financial aid had attained their degree or were still
enrolled five years after starting college, compared to 54 percent of students
who did not receive financial aid.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036-5405
202/785-8866
FAX: 202/835-0003
National Association
of Independent
Colleges and Universities
nacu
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036-5405
Sarah A. Flanagan
Vice President for Government Relations and
Policy Development
202/785-8866
INTERNET:
[email protected]
10 202/835-0003
Facts
About Tuition at
Independent Colleges
and Universities
A Report from the
National Association of Independent Colleges
and Universities
© 1997 by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. For more
information about this report, contact NAICU at 1025 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite
700, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 785-8866.
Ten Facts about Tuition at
Independent Colleges and
Universities
The Difference Between Price (Tuition) and the Cost
of Education
There are important differences between the terms "cost" and "price" as they
relate to colleges and universities.
"Cost" and "price" are often used as if they were synonymous. Certainly stu-
dents and parents who receive tuition bills seldom distinguish between the cost
of their education and the price that they pay. But in the context of higher educa-
tion finance, these terms have very different meanings. The "cost" of education
is what the institution spends to educate a student. It includes not only current
operating expenses, such as faculty salaries, new acquisitions for the library, and
student advising services, but capital expenditures, such as the cost of new
buildings and certain scientific and technological equipment. The "price" is the
published tuition -- the amount charged to the student -- which is often reduced
by financial aid.
No student pays the full cost of education at independent colleges and universi-
ties.
The actual cost to the institution of providing a student's education is higher
than the published tuition. Case studies at independent institutions show that
tuition covers approximately 60 percent of the cost of education. The balance is
covered by such things as philanthropy, alumni gifts, and endowment earnings.
1
About This Study
In order to provide explanations for the complex relationships among factors
that account for cost and price increases at independent colleges and universi-
ties, and describe the impact of student financial aid particularly from an inde-
pendent institution's own resources - NAICU commissioned the Human
Capital Research Corporation to conduct a study. What follows are the results of
a multivariate statistical analysis of data, supplemented with data from a survey
of NAICU member colleges and universities, to examine the elements that most
significantly contribute to tuition and fees at independent colleges and universi-
ties.
Combined with a recent NAICU survey of independent colleges and universi-
ties, the results demonstrate emphatically that federal student financial aid does
not contribute to tuition and fee increases in independent higher education.
Instead, other factors, such as education-related costs and institutionally pro-
vided student aid, are the major determinants of tuition and fee increases. The
analysis also shows that, as total enrollment at independent colleges and univer-
sities has increased, individual institutions have been able to maintain access for
students from low- and moderate-income families largely due to student finan-
cial aid provided from the institutions' own resources. Federal grant aid also
plays an important role in helping low- and moderate-income students attend
college. Indeed, independent colleges and universities enroll a slightly higher
proportion of students at the lowest income levels than do four-year public insti-
tutions.
2
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
Fact
Instead of causing increases in tuition, federal grant aid to
students actually helps to slow the rate of tuition growth at
independent colleges and universities.
#1
Federal grant aid to students has a significant moderating effect on increases in
tuition and fees in independent higher education. Data analyses of a representa-
tive sample of 580 four-year independent colleges and universities, enrolling
approximately 2 million of the 2.9 million students in independent higher edu-
cation, demonstrate emphatically that increases in federal student grant aid actu-
ally lower the rate of tuition growth. But as the availability of federal student
grant aid has decreased, the rate of tuition growth has increased.
The figure below shows that independent institutions with less than 5 percent of
their total student grant aid from federal sources have the highest average
tuitions, while institutions with more than 23 percent of total student grant aid
from federal sources have the lowest average tuitions. Additional evidence of
the moderating effects that federal student grant aid has on tuitions is found in
the results of the statistical analysis in the methodology section of this study.
Average Tuition Decreases as Percentage of Federal Grant Aid
Increases
$20,000
Average Tuition
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
0-5%
5-9%
9-13%
13-17%
17-23%
23%+
Federal Grants as % of Total Grant Aid
Source: Human Capital Research Corporation, 1997.
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
3
Fact
The majority of undergraduates at independent colleges
and universities do not pay full tuition because of grant
and scholarship assistance.
#2
Although public attention is focused on the published tuition in higher educa-
tion, most undergraduate students attending independent colleges and universi-
ties do not pay it. Two-thirds of all full-time, full-year undergraduates in
independent colleges and universities receive some form of grant assistance
from institutional, federal, state, and/or private sources.
Nearly all (97 percent) full-time, full-year undergraduates with family incomes
of less than $15,000 receive some form of grant assistance to attend an indepen-
dent institution, as do 95 percent of students with family incomes between
$15,000 and $30,000 and 86 percent of students from families earning between
$30,000 and $45,000.
Percentage of Students Who Received Grant Aid at Independent
Institutions
97%
95%
86%
75%
67%
46%
41%
Average
$0-$15K
$15-30K
$30-45K
$45-60K
$60-$75K
$75K+
Family Income
Source: Estimates are for FY 1996, derived from NPSAS and Fisop Reports, U.S. Department of
Education, FY 1990, '93, and '95.
4
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
Fact
Actual out-of-pocket tuition expenses have changed at a
rate substantially slower than the rate of growth for
published tuition levels.
#3
Although published tuition has increased faster than the rate of the Consumer
Price Index, net tuition (after grant and scholarship aid) has increased at a much
slower rate than the published tuition. In fact, between 1993 and 1996, average
annual increases in net tuition, after adjusting for inflation, were just one-quar-
ter of the increase in the published average tuition. Moreover, students from
low- and middle-income families have experienced little or no increase in net
tuition after adjusting for inflation. Independent colleges and universities have
used their institutional aid policies to maintain or expand their accessibility to
low- and middle-income students.
Estimated Average Annual Change in Net Tuition at Independent
Colleges and Universities (FY 1993-96)
$589
Current Dollars
$470
CPI Adjusted Dollars
$390
$298
$251
$252
$210
$184
$152
$100
$65
$74
$28
$36
-$57
-$9
Average
$0-$15K
$15-$30K
$30-$45K
$45-$60K
$60-$75K
$75K+
Average
Net
Published
Family Income
Tuition
Source: Estimate derived from NPSAS, IPEDS Finance, and Fisop Reports, U.S. Department of
Education, FY 1990, '93, and '96.
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
5
Fact
The tuition that families actually pay at independent
colleges and universities is based on financial need.
#4
On average, undergraduate students who receive grant aid pay just 61 percent of
the published tuition at independent colleges and universities. Net tuition varies
according to a student's particular financial situation. Families who demonstrate
the greatest financial need (those with incomes of less than $15,000) pay only
26 percent of the published tuition, while students from families earning
$45,000 to $60,000 pay an average of 58 percent of the published tuition.
Average Reduction in Tuition After Grant Aid at Independent
Colleges and Universities
74%
66%
52%
39%
42%
21%
12%
Average
$0-$15K
$15-$30K
$30-$45K
$45-$60K
$60-$75K
$75K+
Family Income
Source: Estimate derived from NPSAS, IPEDS Finance, and Fisop Reports. U.S. Department of
Education, FY 1990, '93, and '96.
Comparison of Average Published and Net Tuition at
Independent Colleges and Universities
$15,540
$14,051
$13,340
$12,216
$12,512
$11,233
$9,313
$13,710
$7,444
$7,797
$11,164
$6,009
$2,376
$3,862
Average
$0-$15K
$15-$30K
$30-$45K
$45-$60K
$60-$75K
$75K+
Family Income
Net Tuition
Published Tuition
6
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
Fact
The difference in out-of-pocket expenses for public and
independent colleges and universities is less than you might
think.
#5
The average difference in published tuitions between four-year public and inde-
pendent colleges and universities was $9,400 in 1996. However, after taking
into account the grant aid that students attending four-year public and indepen-
dent institutions receive, the difference declines to approximately $5,600. More
significantly, the price difference (after grant aid is considered) diminishes
sharply as family resources decline.
On average, a student whose family income is less than $30,000 will receive
sufficient institutional grant assistance to reduce the price difference between an
independent and public institution to about $3,200, while a middle-income stu-
dent will pay approximately $5,000 more than at a public institution. At higher
family income levels (more than $60,000), where students at independent col-
leges and universities have very limited eligibility for federal grant aid, aid poli-
cies coupled with the subsidies provided by state taxpayers to public institutions
cause the gap between independent and public colleges to expand.
Average Difference in Net Price Between Four-Year Public and
Independent Colleges and Universities
$9,405
$8,289
$7,277
$5,612
$4,969
$4,187
$3,045
$3,283
Average Net
$0-$15K
$15-$30K
$30-$45K
$45-$60K
$60-$75K
$75K+
Average
Published
Family Income
Source: Estimate derived from NPSAS, IPEDS Finance, and Fisop Reports, U.S. Department of
Education, FY 1990, '93, and '96,; and College Board Trends in Student Aid.
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
7
Fact
The cost of educating students is the largest determinant of
tuition growth at independent colleges and universities.
#6
Educational costs (such as faculty salaries and academic computing equipment)
are the single largest factor associated with tuition growth at independent col-
leges and universities. By themselves, educational costs account for 36 percent
of the increase in tuition and fees.
Corroborating this evidence, in a recent NAICU survey of its members, most
respondents reported that items such as technological improvements on campus,
faculty and staff salaries, the decrease in the amount of federal student aid,
increasing student recruitment expenses, and expenditures for campus facilities
maintenance were among the leading causes (excluding institutionally provided
aid) of tuition and fee growth at independent colleges and universities.
Factors Having a "Great" or "Moderate" Impact on Tuition and Fee
Growth at Independent Institutions
Great Effect
Moderate Effect
35%
25%
53%
35%
41%
55%
38%
50%
26%
31%
16%
14%
Cost of
Increasing
Increasing
Decrease in
Spending for
Increasing
Technological
Institutional
Faculty
Federal
Student
Expenses for
Improvements
Student Aid
Salaries
Student Aid
Recruitment
Facilities
Maintenance
Source: A Commitment to Affordability, NAICU, 1997.
8
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
Fact
Independent colleges and universities use their
institutional student aid policies to maintain a commitment
to access for students from a diversity of economic
#7
backgrounds.
The profile of dependent students by family income at four-year public and
independent colleges and universities is very similar, except among middle-
income families. Independent colleges and universities use their institutional aid
policies to provide resources to students with the greatest financial need. In FY
1993, dependent students from families earning less than $45,000 were equally
represented in public and independent colleges and universities. However, fami-
lies earning between $45,000 and $60,000, who generally do not qualify for
federal or state need-based grant aid, but who would have difficulty using cur-
rent income to meet college expenses at independent colleges and universities,
are disproportionately represented at public institutions where their tuitions are
subsidized by state taxpayers.
Distribution of Dependent Students at Four-Year Institutions
24%
23%
21%
19%
18%
18%
16%
14%
15%
14%
9%
8%
$0-$15K
$15-$30K
$30-$45K
$45-$60K
$60-$75K
$75K+
Family Income
Independent
Public
Source: Distribution is for full-time, full-year dependent students, from NPSAS, FY 1993, custom
tabulation.
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
9
Fact
The increase in institutionally provided aid is the fastest
growing determinant of tuition and fees at independent
colleges and universities.
#8
By itself, the expansion of student aid from independent higher education's own
resources currently represents one-third of the growth in tuition. In combination
with educational costs mentioned above, these two factors account for 70 per-
cent of the growth in tuition and fees.
For students from low- and moderate-income families, increases in tuition are
offset by growth in institutionally provided aid. Moreover, in the face of rising
financial need and little or no grant aid from public sources for students from
middle-income families, institutionally provided aid now substitutes for aid
from public sources and accounts for 90 percent of the growth in scholarship
and grant expenditures for middle-income students.
As is noted in the results of the NAICU survey of its member institutions
(please see "A Commitment to Affordability: A Survey of Independent Colleges
and Universities"), the basic dilemma for independent colleges and universities
has always been to maintain affordable access to a quality educational program.
The commitment to provide access to needy and talented students through
increased institutional expenditures for financial assistance is matched by con-
tinuing efforts to maintain and increase the level of quality in their academic
programs and the services provided to students.
Distribution of Independent Institutions by Change in
Institutionally Provided Aid as % of Growth in Tuition and Fees
(FY 1994 to FY 1995)
25%
25%
22%
20%
18%
% of Institutions
15%
13%
10%
10%
7%
5%
5%
0%
Decreased
0%-19%
20%-39%
40%-59%
60%-79%
80%-100%
Above
Aid
100%
% of Tuition Growth
Source: IPEDS Finance, Enrollment, and IIC Reports, U.S. Department of Education.
10
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
Fact
Gift and endowment income at independent colleges and
universities helps hold the line on tuition growth.
#9
It is universally accepted that state appropriations to public colleges and univer-
sities offset the need to set higher levels of tuition. Tuition at public institutions
is low because they are subsidized by state appropriations. Private gifts and
endowment income have the same relationship (statistically speaking) to tuition
growth in independent higher education. Institutions that have endowments and
gift income use this revenue for educational costs, making it possible to hold
down the growth in tuition and fees.
Fact
Although independent colleges and universities will always
need to rely on tuition, institutions are attempting to
reduce the pressure on tuition and are broadening their
#10
revenue sources.
Independent colleges and universities are taking actions to increase revenue
without relying solely on tuition growth. A recent NAICU survey found that the
most frequently mentioned actions taken that have had a "great" or "moderate
effect" are increasing full-time enrollment, increasing efforts to obtain volun-
tary contributions, improving cash management practices and investment earn-
ings, and reducing student attrition.
Actions Taken to Increase Revenue at Independent Institutions
% of Survey Respondents
29%
Moderate Effect
39%
41%
35%
Great Effect
36%
20%
16%
15%
Increased
Increased
Increased
Reduced
Full-time
Efforts for
Investment
Student
Enrollment
Donations
Earnings
Attrition
Source: A Commitment to Affordability, NAICU, 1997.
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
11
About the Database and Study Methodology
The data used in this study were from publicly available databases from the U.S.
Department of Education. One source was the National Postsecondary Student
Aid Study (NPSAS), 1990 and 1993. Custom tabulations were constructed to
examine the financial aid packages by family income for all full-time, full-year
dependent students attending public and independent four-year colleges and
universities. Family income categories were adjusted to 1995 by using the Con-
sumer Price Index. Estimates of grant awards, percent of students receiving aid,
and net price figures for fiscal year 1996 were developed by adjusting the aver-
age institutional grant aid data reported in 1993 and projected for future years.
The projection assumes that in aggregate, institutional grant award rates will be
unchanged. This rate was applied to the average published tuition as reported by
the annual survey of tuition by the College Board.
Two other sources of data were from the Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS) for information on finance, enrollment, and institutional
characteristics for fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995, data from institutional
(FISOP) reports to the U.S. Department of Education on the use of federal stu-
dent aid funds. Information includes aggregated tuition revenue for undergradu-
ate and graduate students, the number of students applying for financial aid,
total state grant aid, and Pell Grant and Supplemental Education Opportunity
Grant funds. These databases were merged after matching or reconciling differ-
ences in the identification numbers of the institutions.
In merging the data files, any institution that did not respond to one of the
reports for the three year period was dropped from the analysis in order to
ensure a consistent set of data over time. In contrast with other cross-sectional
analyses that appear in the literature, this analysis of tuition, institutionally pro-
vided aid, and educational costs is based on full-year equivalent (FYE) enroll-
ments that equate published tuition with aggregate undergraduate tuition
revenue. This definition ensures that published tuition levels will be properly
related to educational costs and investment in financial aid.
The FYE variable itself was constructed first by adjusting the FISOP and under-
graduate and graduate aggregate tuition revenues to match aggregate tuition as
reported in the IPEDS finance report. On average, these two sources of aggre-
gate tuition differed by one or two percent. Aggregate undergraduate tuition rev-
enue was then divided by the published tuition for undergraduate students for
each institution as reported in the IPEDS institutional characteristics report.
After the databases were merged and the FYE variable was constructed, a vari-
able designed to reflect educational costs (EC) was constructed to reflect direct
and indirect educational costs funded through the institutions' current operating
12
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
budget. The EC variable was constructed from the following expenditure cate-
gories as follows:
[Instruction/Instruction + Research + Public Service) X (Academic Support, Manda-
tory Transfers, Institutional Support, and Physical Plant Operations and Maintenance)]
+ Instruction + Academic Support
The educational cost variable is intended to "net out" institutional expenditures
for research and public service and a proration of overhead that would be asso-
ciated with these two budget categories. The EC variable thus offers a basic
measure of educational service and related support expenditures that are ren-
dered directly or indirectly to students.
The data files were then sorted and a small number of institutions with values
that appeared to be incorrect because of data entry errors or some other reason
(e.g., educational costs of more than $150,000 per student) were eliminated
from the analysis. In all, the merged database resulted in usable data for 580
four-year independent colleges and universities, which enroll approximately 2
million of the 2.9 million students in independent higher education. More than
25 key variables for each of the three years of analysis were used.
A series of multiple regression analyses were employed to explore the relation-
ship between tuition and selected variables including educational costs, institu-
tion size and type, state and regional markets, composition of revenue sources
including federal grant aid and student financial aid characteristics.
The results of one of the regression analyses used to support the conclusion of
this study are shown below:
Sample Size: 580 institutions
Adjusted Squared Multiple R: .818
STD
STD
Prob
Variable Name
Coefficient
Error
Coefficient
T-Statistic
(2-tail)
Constant
6,995.60
349.72
0.00
20.00
0.00
Educational Costs per FYE
0.21
0.02
0.35
10.29
0.00
Institutional Aid per FYE
0.63
0.05
0.35
13.45
0.00
Gifts and Endowment Income
per FYE
(0.18)
0.03
(0.18)
(5.56)
0.00
State Grant Aid per FYE
(0.17)
0.14
(0.03)
(1.16)
0.25*
% of Students with Incomes >
$60,000 Applying for Aid
3,460.55
1,886.08
0.08
3.19
0.00
Pell and SEOG
(0.91)
0.26
(0.08)
(3.43)
0.00
Total FYE Enrollment
0.05
0.03
0.04
1.54
0.13*
Research/Doctoral Univ. Dummy
1,773.75
389.86
0.13
4.45
0.00
Master's Univ. Dummy
622.63
179.71
0.07
3.47
0.00
Baccalaureate I Dummy
2,695.65
232.71
0.28
11.58
0.00
Region 1 Dummy
1,432.34
248.74
0.12
5.76
0.00
Region 4 Dummy
(846.36)
226.25
(0.07)
(3.74)
0.00
Region 5 Dummy
(1,009.25)
201.40
(0.10)
(5.01)
0.00
Region 6 Dummy
(2,340.90)
290.37
(0.16)
(8.06)
0.00
Region 7 Dummy
(2,311,28)
293.99
(0.16)
(7.86)
0.00
* Not statistically significant
Ten Facts about Tuition at Independent Colleges and Universities
13
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 785-8866
A Commitment to Affordability
A Survey of Budget Priorities at
Independent Colleges and Universities
Summary Report
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
Washington, D.C. February 1997
A Commitment to Affordability
A Survey of Budget Priorities at Independent Colleges and Universities
Introduction
College and university financing issues always seem to be on the minds of the
public, policymakers and the media -- issues that include tuition increases, the
ability of students to pay for college, and efforts by institutions to curb
expenditures or increase revenues. A major aspect of NAICU's mission is to
collect, analyze, and provide information to explain practices in these areas as
they relate to independent higher education.
In the fall and winter of 1996, NAICU asked its members for information on
revenues and expenditures at independent institutions, and other factors
associated with tuition and fee increases during academic years 1994-95, 1995-96,
and 1996-97. About 425 institutions (54 percent) responded.
The results demonstrate emphatically that federal student financial aid does not
lead to increases in tuition and fees at independent colleges and universities.
These institutions are committed to controlling expenditures while maintaining or
increasing their quality of instruction.
The basic dilemma for independent colleges and universities has always been how
to maintain affordable access to a quality educational program. In the last two
decades, independent colleges and universities have dramatically expanded their
historic commitment to providing access to needy and talented students through
increased institutional expenditures for financial assistance. (In academic year
1995-96, independent colleges and universities provided an estimated $8.2 billion
in student financial aid from their own institutional resources.) This commitment
is matched by independent institutions continuing efforts to maintain and increase
the level of quality in their academic programs and the services provided to
students.
Growth in Tuition and Fees
The top three factors that accounted for tuition and fee growth at
independent colleges and universities during the last three years include:
technological improvements on campus (mentioned by 85 percent of survey
respondents), institutionally provided student financial aid (80 percent), and
faculty salaries and benefits (79 percent).
Other factors cited as having either a "great" or "moderate effect" were the
decrease in the amount of federal student financial aid (mentioned by 66
percent of respondents), increase in administrative staff salaries (62
percent), increasing student recruitment expenses (57 percent), and
expenditures for campus facilities maintenance (52 percent).
Although respondents did not say that they necessarily took any of these
specific actions, the factors most frequently mentioned as likely to have only
a "slight" or "no effect" on tuition increases were: making up for shortfalls in
research funding (cited by 96 percent of respondents), decreases in
voluntary/philanthropio support (77 percent), growth in the status or
popularity of the institution (71 percent), tuition charges at "peer"
institutions (60 percent), and general administrative costs (58 percent).
Expenditure Growth
Eighty-three percent of respondents characterized their institution's current
ability to control operating expenditures as "excellent" or "good" (27 percent
and 56 percent, respectively). Fifteen percent responded "fair" and 1
percent reported "poor".
When asked what expenditures had increased faster than the rate of
inflation during the last three years, respondents most often mentioned
institutionally provided student financial aid and academic computing
equipment (both cited by 70 percent of respondents), and administrative
computing equipment (59 percent).
Other expenditures that increased faster than inflation were: student
recruitment costs (49 percent of respondents), faculty salaries and benefits
(43 percent), telecommunications upgrades on campus (43 percent), and
fund-raising costs (40 percent).
Around half the respondents said that the costs of energy (53 percent),
student services (50 percent), and insurance (44 percent) were increasing at
the same rate as inflation.
Controlling Expenditures
The uppermost challenge facing the respondents was balancing the need to
maintain and enhance quality while controlling expenditures. There has
been greater focus on strategic planning, emphasizing institutional mission
Page 2
and goals, quality of instruction, student services, and efficient resource
allocation.
Independent colleges and universities have taken a wide variety of actions
to control expenditures during the last three years. The actions taken that
were most often reported as having a "great" or "moderate effect" were
implementing institution-wide budget cuts (45 percent of respondents),
increasing the operating efficiency of the physical plant (42 percent),
restructuring institutional debt and deferring maintenance of campus
facilities (both 39 percent), eliminating administrative positions (37
percent), and not filling open faculty positions (35 percent).
Previous research by NAICU ("Balancing Quality Improvement and Cost
Control in Independent Higher Education," 1994) corroborates responses in
this survey that indicated that institutions, while concerned about the need
to manage and control expenditures, are also concerned that these efforts do
not harm the quality of academic programs.
Increasing Revenues
Sixty-nine percent of respondents characterized their institution's current
ability to obtain the necessary level of revenue as "excellent" or "good" (19
percent and 50 percent, respectively). Twenty-six percent responded "fair,"
and 5 percent reported "poor."
The actions taken to increase revenue at independent colleges and
universities that were most frequently mentioned as having a "great" or
"moderate effect" were: increasing full-time enrollment (65 percent of
respondents), increasing efforts to obtain voluntary contributions (59
percent), improving cash management practices and investment earnings
(57 percent), and reducing student attrition (50 percent).
Page 3
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 785-8866