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
12000346
label
1974/08/21 HR69 Education Amendments of 1974 (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12000346
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1974/08/21 HR69 Education Amendments of 1974 (3)
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
subjects
Busing for school integration
Education
Federal aid
Legislation
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12000346
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-08-31
month
8
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-08-01
month
8
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
94fab8c01eaea755
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "1974/08/21 HR69 Education
Amendments of 1974 (3)" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 2 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.: 515
Date: August 15, 1974
Time:
6:00 p. m.
FOR ACTION:
James Cavanaugh
CC (for information): Warren K. Hendriks
Fred Buzhardt
Jerry Jones
Bill Timmons
Dave Gergen
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: Monday, August 19, 1974
Time:
2:00 p. m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H. R. 69 - Education Amendments of 1974
BERALD R. FORD LIBRANTA
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
XX
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Kathy Tindle
-
West Wing
No objection
D.C.
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Warren K. Hendriks
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 15 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 69 - Education Amendments
of 1974
Sponsor - Rep. Perkins (D) Kentucky
Last'Day for Action
FORD
August 21, 1974 - Wednesday
GERALD
Purpose
Extends and makes major revisions in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), portions of the Impact Aid
Act (P.L. 81-874), and other education programs, and provides
certain limits on busing for purposes of school desegregation.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
Approval (Signing
statement attached)
Civil Service Commission
Approval
Department of the Interior
Approval
Department of Justice
Defers to HEW
Department of Commerce
No objection
Veterans Administration
No objection
Discussion
H.R. 69 is an omnibus education bill, amending and extending
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and
numerous other education authorities, many of which expired
on June 30, 1973. (By law, the appropriation authorizations
were automatically extended for one year and are now subject
to the continuing resolution.)
2
The enrolled bill is the congressional response to several
major Administration legislative initiatives for reform of
education programs--including the "Better Schools Act"--as
well as to President Nixon's repeated calls for anti-busing
legislation. In its enrolled form, it constitutes a series
of compromises and agreements on all of the major concerns
&
FORD
about the Federal role in elementary and secondary
education.
GERALD
LIBRARY
The Better Schools Act proposed the consolidation of many
separate elementary and secondary education grant programs
into five general purpose groupings: Education of the
disadvantaged, education of the handicapped, vocational
education, assistance for schools enrolling children who
live on Federal property (Impact Aid); and supporting
materials and services. Its key objectives were (1) reform
of the distribution of funds for disadvantaged students to
achieve greater equity, (2) categorical grant consolidation,
(3) decentralization of decisionmaking to State and local
education agencies, and (4) reform of the Impact Aid program
to phase out special support for school districts with
children whose parents live or work on Federal property
("B" children).
HEW also submitted to Congress the "Desegregation Assistance
Act," designed to replace the expiring Emergency School Aid Act.
Under the proposal, instead of a State apportionment program,
assistance would be targeted to school districts to aid
desegregation and elimination of minority group isolation
in districts still in the process of court ordered desegre-
gation or which have undertaken voluntary elimination of
racial isolation.
The third major initiative was proposed legislation to
consolidate numerous discretionary authorities for assisting
State and local school agency programs to educate the handi-
capped, into four broad new authorities.
Although the enrolled bill contains provisions which deal
with each of these issues, it also contains a broad panoply
of other matters. The following are summary highlights of
the bill.
3
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
Busing Provisions
The Administration in 1972 proposed the Equal Educational
Opportunities Act which required. courts and Federal agencies
to give priority, in formulating a remedy for denial of
equal opportunity, to seven specified alternatives to forced
busing, making busing a last resort. H.R. 69 contains this
feature and several other measures to limit busing which
are not in present law, including:
-- prohibiting the use of all Federal funds (except
Impact Aid) for busing activities.
-- allowing the courts to terminate busing orders on
a finding that the school district has and will continue to
comply with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-- prohibiting any new order to bus past the next
nearest school.
GERALD FORD
-- prohibiting orders to bus except at the start of
an academic year.
-- prohibiting busing across district lines or altering
district lines unless, as a result of discriminatory actions
in both school districts, the lines caused segregation.
-- providing school districts a reasonable time to
develop voluntary plans before a court order can be executed.
However, the enrolled bill would severely restrict the basis
for reopening existing busing orders by omitting the
Administration-supported "Esch" provision allowing a
reopening of a court busing order upon a simple request
by a State or school district. The bill would substitute
reopening by parents, States, or school districts upon a
showing that the busing is a risk to the health of the
children or significantly impinges on their educational
process.
The bill and accompanying conference report underscore the
intent of the conferees that all of the remedies--including
the busing remedy--must meet the test of compliance with the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This provision and the
reference in the conference report do not appear to alter the
constitutional test which these alternative remedies would
4
have had to meet in any event. The Justice Department
in its views letter states that "It is therefore unclear
what precise effect will be given to
these provisions.
Thus, the net effect of the bill is to provide less drastic
alternatives--holding busing as a last resort for those
school districts (mostly in the North) where desegregation
is still to be ordered but to almost preclude school
districts now under court-ordered busing (mostly in the
R.
FORD
South) from the same more moderate treatment through the
reopening of existing orders.
GERALD
LIBRARY
Title I (Education of the Disadvantaged)
Under current law, Title I of ESEA authorizes aid to States
and local school districts for the education of disadvantaged
students on the assumption that economic deprivation and
educational disadvantage are related. The 1975 Budget
included $1.9 billion for this program. Title I funds--the
largest single Federal education appropriation--are
distributed through a formula on the basis of the number
of children in the most recent census who come from families
which fail a very strict test of poverty. (Under current law,
only those children from families with an annual earned
income of $2,000 or less can qualify.) The population data
become quickly outdated and the income cutoff in present law
is rigid in nature. Moreover, welfare benefits paid to
families of potentially eligible children are not taken
into account in determining eligibility. By not considering
unearned income (welfare, etc.) many truly disadvantaged
children are not counted. Finally, the distribution fails
to take into account the significantly varying amounts spent
in the various States for education. For example, the cost
of educating one child in New York State annually is twice
that of Mississippi.
As part of the Better Schools Act, the Administration
proposed that the basic Title I formula be modified to
provide for using the poverty criteria in the 1970 decennial
census, which include such variables in the poverty level as
family size, sex of family head, and farm-nonfarm status. A
concentration of funds both among school districts and at
the school level was proposed to assure the establishment of
more effective programs. Three-fourths of the funds were
to be used for basic mathematics and language arts
instruction.
5
FORD
With regard to Title I, H.R. 69 contains the following
GERALD
LIBRARY
features:
-- The formula for Part A of Title I (basic grants)
would authorize grants on the basis of entitlements, subject
to the availability of appropriations. Using the latest
decennial census, the formula would count children in
families whose income is below the "Orshansky" poverty level,
plus 2/3 of the children in welfare families with incomes
over the Orshansky level. (The "Orshansky" index--which
the Administration endorsed--is generally recognized as a
valid measure of relative poverty, and includes variables
such as family size and urban-rural factors.) This figure
would then be multiplied by 40 percent of the State's
average per pupil expenditure, subject to a minimum of
40 percent of 80 percent of the national average and a
maxi um of 40 percent of 120 percent of the national figure.
The Administration had proposed a similar approach.
-- Local educational agencies (LEAs) would generally
be held harmless against losses due to the application of
this formula with a minimum of 85 percent of the previous
year's appropriation, but with the possibility that the
"hold-harmless" may be as much as 90 percent. The Adminis-
tration proposed no "hold-harmless" features.
-- Title I, Part B payments, which are incentive grants
whose purpose is to encourage States to increase their
spending for elementary-secondary education, would be
extended. The Administration was opposed to this provision
as being unnecessary, given the new formula changes.
-- Title I, Part C payments are grants for districts
with highest concentration of low-income families. This
Part would be extended through fiscal year 1975 under a
separate formula and with a separate authorization of
$75 million. The Administration was opposed to this provision.
-- A new "excess cost" provision is intended to reemphasize
that Title I funds are to be used to supplement and not
supplant State and local funds. Under this provision, which
the Administration had opposed, the definition of "excess
costs" would include those costs for Title I programs and
projects of an LEA which exceed its average per pupil
expenditure. However, excluded from this calculation would
6
be expenditures for State and local special programs for
educationally deprived, bilingual, or handicapped children
which are offered on a comparable basis in both Title I
and non-Title I areas. This would be difficult to
calculate and administer.
In summary, the net effect of the enrolled bill on Federal
financial assistance for educating the disadvantaged would
be to substantially improve the formula but extend separate
unnecessary authorities and complicate administration.
&
FORD
Impact Aid
GERALD
LIBRARY
This program was established more than 20 years ago to
provide support to school districts to offset revenue lost
due to the presence of nontaxable Federal land within the
district.
Current law provides for eligibility for funding for three
classes of children under this program:
-- "A" category:
those children whose parents both
live and work on Federal property
-- "B" category:
those children whose parents either
live or work on Federal property
-- "C" category:
those children whose parents either
live or work in public housing
The determination of which categories will be funded and at
what levels has been made through appropriations language.
While "A" and "B" category children have traditionally
received funds, funding has never been provided for "C"
category children.
The Administration had proposed complete reform of the
Impact Aid program to remove the basic inequities by
eliminating the entitlements and payment rates for the "B"
children (whose parents either live or work on Federal
property) since the great bulk of these children live on
private, taxable land. Based upon this proposed reform,
the fiscal year 1975 budget did not include $265 million
which would be necessary if funding for the "B" children
were provided on the same scale as that provided in the
fiscal year 1974 appropriation.
7
is
FORD
With regard to Impact Aid, H.R. 69 would:
GERALD
LIBRARY
-- mandate participation in the funding formula for
the first time of those children whose families reside
in public housing ("C" category). The bill would also
mandate for the first time that the portion of Impact Aid
attributable to the public housing component of the formula
must be used only for compensatory education for the
disadvantaged. It does, however, limit funding of the
entitlement on behalf of such children to 25 percent.
-- provide that children of uniformed military personnel
only who are handicapped or who have learning disabilities
are to be counted at 1-1/2 times the normal entitlement
under Impact Aid. HEW states that, because the military
transfers personnel with handicapped children into posts
within school districts which have strong programs for
the handicapped, this provision " is a means of providing
an incentive for school districts to provide services for
such children and a means of compensating those districts
which are presently providing such services
#
--- specify for the first time in the history of this
program different payment rates for the various categories
of federally-connected children to recognize the varying
degrees of financial impact they have on school districts.
A provision which would eliminate eligibility of out-of-State
"A" and "B" children is aimed at the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area.
-- provide that an LEA shall each year receive not less
than 90 percent of its previous year's allocation in those
districts where a lessening of Federal activity on a military
installation announced after April 16, 1973 has resulted in
a reduction of 10 percent or more of federally-connected
children.
The bill's Impact Aid amendments would be effective in
fiscal year 1976, thereby requiring funding and operations
through fiscal year 1975 under current law.
8
Consolidation of Categorical Grant Programs
Present law has many special categorical grant programs
which prohibit State and local agencies from moving
appropriated funds from one use to another and contain
restrictive specifications in regard to programming local
educational efforts. The Administration's Better Schools
Act proposed the repeal of several statutes, and the
consolidation of numerous grant programs into a system
designed to lessen Federal controls and provide State and
local education officials with flexibility in meeting
i
FORD
their needs.
GENALD
With respect to this aspect of the reform of education
LIBRARY
authorities, H.R. 69 would:
-- consolidate several existing categorical programs
into two groupings: Libraries and Learning Resources and
Educational Support and Innovation. These two consolidations
could only occur if all the existing programs are funded at
the fiscal year 1974 or fiscal year 1973 level--whichever is
higher--beginning in fiscal year 1976 and at the level of the
previous year's consolidated programs thereafter. They must
also be forward funded (i.e., appropriated in the current
year to support the succeeding year's program). If these
conditions are met, 50 percent of the appropriated funds
could be consolidated in fiscal year 1976 with full
consolidation achieved in fiscal year 1977.
-- create, starting in fiscal year 1976, a new "Special
Projects Act," with an annual authorization of $200 million.
This Act would contain two parts: a Commissioner's
discretionary fund (50 percent of the appropriation total)
and a formula grant portion containing six program categories
(the other 50 percent of the appropriation). Among the new
categorical programs authorized under the bill would be:
consumer education, metric education, career education,
gifted and talented children, community schools, and the
Women's Educational Equity Act..
The $100 million authorized as the Commissioner's discretionary
fund would be subject to the submission of a spending plan
which could be disapproved within 60 days by either the House
or Senate education authorizing committees. If either
committee vetoes the plan, the Commissioner would be required
to submit another plan within 15 days which would also be
9
subject to a one-committee veto. The Justice Department's
views letter states: "This Department has frequently
advised that 'Committee veto' provisions violate the
Constitution.' As to whether the Commissioner of Education
could simply not act under this provision and have the
balance of the Act stand (that is, whether the provision
is "severable"), Justice is not certain and defers due to a
lack of time.
While HEW states, "The provisions are clearly severable from
the rest of the bill and could be ignored by the Executive
Branch without fear of invalidating the desirable aspects
of the bill,' HEW does not propose that these provisions
be ignored. They are, in their draft signing statement,
R.
FORD
suggesting that you refer these provisions to the
Attorney General for his advice.
BERALD
LIBRARY
Education of the Handicapped Act
The present Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) contains
a State formula grant program (Part B) and several
categorical discretionary authorities. The Administration
had proposed folding Part B of the Act into the basic
consolidation portion of the Better Schools Act, and also
proposed a separate bill amending EHA to collapse the
remaining discretionary programs into four broad new
authorities which would help teachers identify learning
problems; would provide teachers with special skills to
overcome barriers to teaching; and would accelerate progress
in aiding severely handicapped children.
H.R. 69 would:
-- extend the Part B State formula grants through fiscal
year 1977. In fiscal year 1975 only, the grant funds (subject
to the availability of appropriations) are to be distributed
among States on the basis of the number of all children aged
3-21 multiplied by $8.75, with an authorization of $647
million. These funds may be used for the early identifi-
cation and assessment of children needing services. The
insertion of this formula and the high authorization level
is an effort to compromise with a separate piece of legisla-
tion (H.R. 70) which would mandate a Federal payment of
$600 per handicapped child or $4 billion per year to provide
operational support. In fiscal year 1976, the current
10
formula would again take effect, and the authorization
would be $100 million, rising to $110 million in fiscal
year 1977. The fiscal year 1974 authorization level is
$220 million and the 1974 appropriation was $47.5 million.
FORD
OTHER PROGRAM PROVISIONS
GERALD
LIBRARY
Bilingual Education--Under current law, Federal policy with
regard to the education of bilingual children is one of
providing financial assistance to LEAs to develop and carry
out new and imaginative elementary and secondary school
programs designed to meet the special needs of these
children. The Administration proposed a one-year simple
extension of this authority. However, H.R. 69 would move
this program in the direction of expansion of the types of
programs authorized and the Federal role in supporting them.
The enrolled bill would declare that it is "the policy of
the United States, in order to establish equal educational
opportunity for all children" to encourage bilingual programs
and provide assistance for that purpose. In so stating the
policy, the Federal role is defined in terms of equality of
opportunity--a function of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964-which could bring the Federal program into a new
service mode.
H.R. 69 also creates a new separate authorization to provide
technical assistance to States to assist them in establishing
new programs. Current law has no comparable provision.
Finally, the bill would provide a four-year authorization of
nearly $619 million, which exceeds the previous four-year
authorization span by almost $170 million. For the first
year, the authorization level is the same as for fiscal year
1974, $142 million.
Adult Education--The Administration proposed a simple one-year
extension of current law which expired at the end of fiscal
year 1973. H.R. 69 would provide for a four-year extension
at about the current authorization level. It contains a
"hold-harmless" provision that assures all States at least
90 percent of the amount they received in fiscal year 1973.
In lieu of the current legislation's provision for a 20 percent
Commissioner's set-aside for special projects and teacher
training grants, the bill would establish a new 15 percent
set-aside from State funds for innovative programs and teacher
training.
11
Vocational Education Act--Current law authorizes a Vocational
Education program at $885 million per year for which
appropriations of $546 million are requested in fiscal year
1975.
H.R. 69 provides for two new categorical authorities not
contained in current law, both of which deal with bilingual
education. Specifically, the bill would provide for a new
program of research in bilingual vocational education, with
a one-time fiscal year 1975 authorization of $17.5 million.
The other new authority would provide for a regular program
of vocational education for bilingual students, also with a
$17,5 million authorization.
Indian Education--The bill would extend Parts A and B of the
current Indian Education Act through fiscal year 1978. These
parts support special projects for Indian education, as well
as programs for Indian children in public schools. This
authority is outside the basic Indian Education program
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs which is financed at $219
million in the 1975 budget. The bill would also increase
from 5 percent to 10 percent the set-aside for the support
of Indian-controlled schools, and would authorize a new
separate program with an authorization amount of $2 million
for fiscal years 1975-78 for teacher training. In addition,
200 fellowships would be authorized under Part B of the
Indian Education Act for graduate and professional study by
Indian students. The Administration has opposed separate
fellowship programs for ethnic groups, choosing to rely
instead on general aid to needy students.
Emergency School Aid Act--Current law provides for a national
program to assist local education agencies with special needs
attendant to desegregation and overcoming minority group
isolation in schools. The funds are distributed under a
allocation formula.
The Administration's proposed Desegregation Assistance Act
would have provided a fully discretionary project grant
program to assist school districts in the process of
desegregation. H.R. 69 would extend the current act through
fiscal year 1976.
FORD
LIBRARY
12
National Reading Improvement Program--Within the Office of
Education, there is currently a $12 million demonstration
effort, the Right to Read program, which provides
assistance to State and local agencies to help them achieve
the goal of universal reading ability for all citizens.
The enrolled bill would authorize a cumulative total of
FORD
$413.5 million for fiscal years 1975-78 for a new Reading
Improvement Program, with separate categorical authoriza-
tions for in-school demonstration reading improvement
GERALD
projects, special emphasis projects, reading training on
LIBRARY
public television, the purchase of books, and the
establishment of reading academies. In fiscal year 1976,
if the appropriations for the reading improvement projects
exceed $30 million, the excess is to be a formula grant
distributed to the States based on the school-age
population.
Higher Education Amendments
-- Veterans cost-of-instruction payments: Under current
law, colleges are eligible for assistance if the number of
veterans enrolled is increased by 10 percent over the previous
year. H.R. 69 would make schools eligible for a payment if
10 percent of its undergraduate students are veterans,
provided that such number constitute at least the same
percent of the student body as in the preceding year.
-- Community College and Occupational Education: Current
law provides for grants to States to begin planning for
community colleges. The current authorization expired on
June 30, 1974. The enrolled bill would extend it through
fiscal year 1975. The Administration has never requested funds
for this purpose.
-- "CLEO" program: Under current law this program
provides tuition, fees and stipends to minority law students.
The bill would extend the "CLEO" program for three years.
The Administration had proposed' a one-year extension.
Other Provisions
-- The bill would extend the present Ethnic Heritage
Studies categorical grant program authorization through
fiscal year 1978. The Administration had requested no
extension.
-- The President would be authorized to call and conduct
a White House Conference on Education in 1977. The Adminis-
tration had not sought this authority.
13
MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
The enrolled bill contains an administrative consolidation
feature which would permit single State plans for all
elementary-secondary programs and uniform appeal procedures.
It would, however, also provide numerous new restrictions
on the Executive in the administration of education programs,
none of which are contained in current law. They include
the following:
-- Within 60 days of enactment of any education law, a
schedule for the issuance of rules, regulations and guide-
lines would be required to be submitted to the authorizing
FORU
committees; such schedule would have to provide that all
rules and regulations be promulgated within 6 months.
GERALD
LIORARY
-- Any HEW education regulation, rule, standard, or
requirement would be required to be submitted in advance to
the Congress for a 45-day period, during which the Congress
could indicate disapproval by Concurrent Resolution. As in
the case of the Special Projects Act spending plan discussed
above, Justice has substantial constitutional difficulties
with this provision and is uncertain on severability; HEW
thinks the issue should be referred to the Attorney General
for his advice.
-- The bill would limit the functions of OE Regional
Offices and prohibit any decentralization to these offices
after the retroactive date of June 1, 1973, except as
provided by law and enacted after this bill. HEW believes
that this provision is ameliorated to some extent by the
authority given regional offices to provide "technical
assistance" in Section 503 of the bill. They interpret this
to mean helping to prepare, process and initially review
grant applications but not approval of grants or contracts.
-- The bill also contains a provision whereby if the
Commissioner determines that the present 30-day comment
period for the review of draft regulations will cause
extreme hardship for the intended beneficiaries of any
program, he shall notify the authorizing committees. If
neither committee disagrees within 10 days, the Commissioner
may waive the 30-day comment period. The Justice Department
states that it has traditionally viewed "committee veto"
provisions as violating the Constitution.
14
BUDGET IMPACT
R.
FORD
Authorization Levels--Assuming full entitlement for the
indefinite authorizations, the total appropriation
GERALD
authority would be $29 billion through fiscal year 1978.
LIBRARY
On this same basis, fiscal year 1975 authorizations are
$7.2 billion--$2 billion less than the $9.2 billion level
in fiscal year 1974. Authorization levels affect and
attract appropriations only when there is a strong interest
in funding the programs in question. The gap between total
authorized amounts and actual appropriations is illustrated
by the current Title I authorities of $4.2 billion and the
appropriations against it of $1.7 billion.
Possible Effect Upon Budget--The following table illustrates
the authorization levels in current law and H.R. 69,
together with HEW and OMB estimates of outlay increases over
the President's Budget ceilings for fiscal years 1975 and
1976. OMB believes the Congress will in fact appropriate
about $500 million more than the President's Budget in
fiscal year 1975 and about $750 million more than that amount
in fiscal year 1976.
The major assumptions under which the HEW $247 million impact
estimate is derived for 1975 are as follows:
-- an increase of $50 million--to $97.5 million--in
support of the State grant program under the education of
the handicapped which, under the Mathias amendment, is
authorized at $647 million.
-- no new funds added to the total for Parts B and C
of Title I, ESEA, which are separately authorized.
-- provide for an increase of $300 million in budget
authority in fiscal year 1975 for the "B" category children
under the Impact Aid program.
-- no funds for the two new authorizations for bilingual
vocational education and research.
-- no additional funding for the Reading Improvement
Program authority of $53 million in 1975.
The following assumptions are contained in the HEW estimated
1976 increase of $262 million:
-- an increase of $76.4 million under Consolidation to
increase only to the mandated funding levels prescribed in
the bill.
Budget Impact of H.R. 69
($ in millions)
1/
2/
Curr.
HR 69
FY 75
HEW Estimate
OMB Estimate
Auth.
Auth.
Pres.
Budget Impact
Budget Impact
Level
Level
Budg.
in Outlays
in Outlavs
6
1975
1976
1975
1976
Title I, ESEA
4,173
3,502
1,885
-0-
-0-
+75
+125
Impact Aid
1,194
1,073
340
+209
+81
+209
+300
Consolidation
1,164
745
311
-0-
+60
-0-
+60
Handicapped
493
790
147
+35
+50
+200
+100
Vocational Education
-0- (new)
35
-0-
-0-
-0-
+15
+15
4
Reading Improvement
-0- (new)
53
12
-0-
-0-
+25
+50
3/
Special Projects Act
GERALD
505
200
21
-0-
+10
-0-
+75
?
Adult Education
FORD
236
150
63
-0-
+5
-0-
+5
Studies
LIBRARY
-0-
7
-0-
+2
+5
+2
+5
Bilingual Education
450(71-
619 (75-
70
-0-
-0-
+10
+20
74)
78)
Emergency School Aid Act
990
1,000
75
-0-
+50
-0-
-0-
Indian Education
313
315
42
-0-
-0-
+2
+10
Other
21
13
-0-
+1
+1
-0-
-0-
5/
Total
9,224
7,180
2,966
+247
+262
+538
+765
15
1/ FY 1974 only, unless otherwise indicated.
2/ FY 1975 only, unless otherwise indicated.
3/ FY 1976 figures, first year of the consolidation.
4/ Right to Read appropriation request.
5/ Reflects one-year total, even for those programs whose authorizations are listed in
fiscal year clusters.
6 The 1976 increases are taken against the President's 1976 Budget as the base.
GERALD
FORD
LIBRARY
16
17
-- an increase of $20.5 million to $41 million under
the Special Projects Act against a new authorization of
$200 million.
-- no increase above the current $97.5 million 1975
GERALD FORD LIBRARTY
level for education of the handicapped.
--- an increase of $10 million over the 1975 level of
$63 million in adult education.
--- an increase of $19.9 million for new statistical
efforts and new studies.
These assumptions fail to take into account the following
factors which are in the OMB basis for estimating:
-- the necessity to hold districts harmless and to
provide funds for "B" and "C" students under the Impact Aid
program. (HEW maintains that they will ignore this provision.)
--- the probable increases in fiscal year 1976 for Title I,
ESEA; handicapped; and the Reading Improvement Program.
-- conservative estimates of funding for the new program
authorizations for which HEW estimated no impact.
ARGUMENTS FOR APPROVAL
1. The anti-busing provisions of H.R. 69 are a temperate
compromise and one which is probably the best which could
be hoped for at this time. The enrolled bill would set forth
certain practices already declared by the courts to be
constitutional or statutory violations of equal educational
opportunity, and also stipulate a priority ranked set of
alternative remedies to segregation, holding busing as a
last resort. HEW states that while the Administration would
have preferred a stronger provision to allow courts to
"reopen" existing busing orders, the floor discussion and
the votes in both Houses of Congress make it clear that the
"reopener" feature of this bill is probably the strongest
that might be expected from this Congress.
2. The reform of the existing Title I (disadvantaged) formula
would provide for the distribution of funds in a manner more
nearly reflecting the need toward which the program is addressed.
The new formula does this by: authorizing the use of more
18
recent data and adopting a more realistic definition of
relative poverty; assisting those States whose educational
resources are limited and providing a reasonable ceiling
on the degree to which the formula rewards higher
&
FORD
expenditure States. HEW states that the improvements
made in the formula greatly outweigh the negative aspects
GERALD
of this part of the bill, such as the special grant
LIBRARY
programs under Parts B and C of Title I, described above.
3. The consolidation features of the enrolled bill, along
with the provision for the submission of a single, unified
State plan for State-administered programs, are genuine
improvements in the administration of Federal education
programs. HEW believes that given the congressional
reluctance to eliminate categorical programs and to
consolidate funding authorities, the adoption of these
provisions represents a significant opportunity to advance
toward this long sought goal.
4. The Impact Aid provisions represent the first signifi-
cant congressional step toward reform of this program. The
bill differentiates for fund allocation purposes between
classes of families with different impact on the
tax-expenditure burden of a school district. HEW describes
this change as significant and expresses concern that
failure to enact this bill will result in continuation of
current law for three more years.
5. With regard to budget impact, HEW states that they
do not believe that the authorization levels which are
contained in H.R. 69 pose any threat of increased fiscal
outlays by the Federal Government which would not exist if
the bill were not enacted." There are severe pressures in
the Congress to have the Federal Government: (a) increase
its share of public school costs from less than 10 percent
to 30 percent; (b). continue to provide Impact Aid; and
(c) pay for the extra costs of educating handicapped (and
those of limited English-speaking ability) children.
These pressures can best be fought in the appropriations
process. While the Congress may enact substantial increases
for these purposes, the authorizations in this bill are far
less than those being threatened in other bills now pending
in the Congress and could be used to stave off even greater
pressure for increased Federal assistance.
19
6. Any administrative problems inherent in H.R. 69 are
ameliorated by several other features of the bill.
-- In commenting on the congressional review of
executive actions, for example, HEW expresses concern with
respect to the constitutional validity of such provisions,
but notes that the Nixon Administration, as well as previous
ones, had accepted legislation of this nature on a number of
occasions in the past and has complied with the requirements.
Moreover, the Department states that these provisions "are
clearly severable from the rest of the bill and could be
FORD
ignored by the Executive Branch without fear of
invalidating the desirable aspects of the bill."
CERALD
LIBRARY
-- With respect to the provisions prohibiting
decentralization of functions to the regional offices
without congressional approval, HEW believes that section 503
of the bill makes this less objectionable because it would
allow regional offices to do everything other than grant
and contract approval under a "technical assistance"
authority.
7. With regard to an expanded Federal role, the obligation
of State and local educational agencies to provide equal
educational opportunities to both children with limited
English-speaking ability and handicapped children has been
clearly established by: (a) executive branch interpretation
of the Civil Rights Act; (b) litigation including the recent
Supreme Court case of Lau V. Nichols; (c) legislation in
some States; and, (d) section 504 of the Vocational Rehabil-
itation Act of 1973 which requires that handicapped persons
not be discriminated against under federally assisted programs.
Since this obligation has been imposed partly as a result of
Federal action and with full Federal support, it is
appropriate that the bill provide authority for the Federal
Government to assist State and local agencies to meet those
responsibilities.
8. Strong congressional support for this bill is evidenced
by a Senate vote of 81-15 on the conference report, and
passage in the House by a margin of 323-83 -- votes which
would make it difficult to sustain a veto.
20
9. This bill is the result of very extensive negotiations
between the top officials at HEW and congressional leaders
of both parties such as Congressmen Perkins and Quie and
Senators Pell and Javits. Many provisions with more
serious problems than those remaining were deleted. To
veto the bill would severely disrupt substantial good
feeling that has developed as a result of these
negotiations.
FORD & LIBRARY
ARGUMENTS FOR DISAPPROVAL
1. In its busing provisions, while the bill does provide
less drastic alternatives (holding busing as a last resort)
for those school districts which the law may require to be
desegregated, it almost precludes districts already under
forced busing orders from seeking the same more moderate
remedies by imposing a very difficult reopener test. This
is a substantial equity problem (mostly for Southern
communities) which is really not mitigated by the recent
Supreme Court decision in the Detroit case.
2. Although the bill makes significant changes in the
Title I formula for the distribution of funds for the
education of disadvantaged children, it also provides for
the continuation of two additional categorical programs in
this area; authorizes an "excess cost" provision which would
be extremely difficult to determine and would threaten to
disrupt Title I administration; and contains a hold-harmless
provision which significantly blunts the reforms of the formula.
3. Concerning consolidation, while the significant movement
in some provisions of H.R. 69 toward the Administration's goal
of consolidating elementary, secondary and adult education
programs, this progress is vitiated to a large extent by:
the needless earmarking of funding levels; the numerous new
categorical assistance programs; and the new "Special
Projects Act," which has been described as an "incubator"
for several new categorical programs, such as consumer
education, metric education, career education, programs for
gifted and talented children, community schools, and the
Women's Educational Equity Act.
4. The Impact Aid program is distorted and perpetuated as
a vehicle for compensatory education assistance. Although
H.R. 69 begins to eliminate some of the inequities of the
Impact Aid program which the Administration had proposed
21
with regard to revising the entitlements and payment rates
for the "B" children (whose parents either live or work on
Federal property), these reforms are considerably offset
by other changes in the program, such as:
FORD
-- the mandatory funding of public housing ("C")
children for the first time, which is estimated to cost
approximately $70 million when it becomes effective in
LIBRARY
fiscal year 1976; moreover, the general support purpose
of impact aid is distorted by requiring that these funds
be used for compensatory education. This also duplicates
the purposes of Title I and could distort the new formula
basis for the distribution of these funds;
-- numerous "hold-harmless" provisions which effectively
delay many of the reforms;
--- extension of Impact Aid for three years instead of
one year as the Administration had proposed;
-- a program of assistance for handicapped children of
military personnel;
-- delay of the introduction of the new reforms until
fiscal year 1976, thereby allowing current law to operate
during fiscal year 1975.
5. The budgetary impact of H.R. 69 is significant. While
HEW is prepared to limit their supplemental request to levels
which would result in increased outlays over the fiscal year
1975 budget of $37 million and an increase of $130 million
in fiscal year 1976, these increases are based upon
assumptions which understate what the Congress will probably
appropriate under the new authorities. We believe the
probable outlay increases will be about $500 million in
fiscal year 1975 and approximately $750 million in fiscal
year 1976.
You have indicated that you believe inflation is public enemy
number one and you have under review various possible budget
reductions. H.R. 69 is a prime example of authorization bills
which promise programs and produce pressure for funding them.
6. The bill mandates restrictive administrative structures
and procedures, including the statutory creation of numerous
new bureaucracies, contains an outright prohibition of
decentralization of decisionmaking to regional offices except
22
R.
FORD
as provided by law, and adds cumbersome, time-consuming
and restrictive administrative procedures. Especially
objectionable features are:
LIBRARY
-- submission of timetables for, and one-Committee
vetoes of, the implementation of HEW education regulations,
provisions with which Justice has substantial constitutional
difficulties;
-- the requirement for an annual report to Congress on
the organization of the Office of Education, and its
personnel needs and assignments. This will mandate a formal
direct submission by the agency to Congress of matters which
should properly be handled as part of the budget cycle;
-- the requirement that would limit the functions of
the (E regional offices and retroactively prohibit decentrali-
zation of activities to these offices except as provided by
law.
7. Finally, H.R. 69 continues the expansion of the Federal
role toward greater funding participation in, and a wider
scope of program responsibility for, elementary and secondary
education; especially in the areas of education for the
handicapped, including children of limited English-speaking
ability (bilingual). While there is little question
concerning the duty of State and local education agencies to
provide equal educational opportunities for these children,
the bill provides a possible legislative base for Federal
financing of the extra costs to provide that educational
opportunity. H.R. 69 contains a program for education of
the handicapped which is authorized at $647 million--a
one-year ballooning of authority in fiscal year 1975 only.
In the context of (a) severe pressure to have the Federal
Government assume the financing for the extra cost of
educating these children and (b) a major bill (S. 6/H.R. 70)
pending in the Congress to do just that, accepting this bill
could be the first step in a major new departure in Federal
responsibility for the obligation of financing the extra
costs which are now a part of State and local governments.
HEW argues that they will try to limit the Federal role to
support by, and not substitution of, Federal dollars, but that
boundary has been very difficult to hold.
23
RECOMMENDATIONS
HEW, in arguing for approval of the enrolled bill, states
that, compared to present law and in light of the reluctance
of the Congress to accept many of the Administration's
reforms, H.R. 69 is acceptable.
when the positive aspects of the bill--the
substantial title I reform, the 'real' beginning
of grants consolidation, a start toward impact
FORD
aid reform, and the furtherance of our equal
educational opportunities goals--are compared
with those aspects which we consider to be less
LIBRARY
favorable--the retention of part B of title I,
the public housing portion of P.L. 874, the
limitations on decentralization, and the creation
of a new authorization for State handicapped
programs--our overall conclusion must be that
the bill is a significant step forward in our
quest for improved administration of Federal
education programs and for more effective and
equitable distribution of Federal aid for
education.
"
Justice comments on a number of provisions of H.R. 69 with
which it has substantial constitutional difficulties. These
include
--- Section 402, which requires the Commissioner of
Education to submit to the Senate and House authorizing
committees an annual spending plan under the "Special
Projects Act. " Funds may be expended unless within 60 days
either Committee adopts a resolution disapproving the plan.
--- Section 509, which provides for disapproval by
concurrent resolution of certain rules and regulations.
Justice expresses the view that review of Executive action
by concurrent resolution is not permitted by the Constitution.
Section 516 provides that where the President fails to fill a
vacancy in the membership of a Presidential advisory council,
then the Secretary of HEW shall immediately make the
appointment. Justice believes that, although "this provision
may operate as an undesirable restriction on the President's
discretion, it is not at all clear that it may be objected
to on constitutional grounds
24
With respect to Title II of H.R. 69, the "Equal Educa-
tional Opportunities Act of 1974," Justice believes that
the provision which defines certain practices as denial of
R.
equal educational opportunities essentially incorporates
FORD
various practices already declared by the courts to be
constitutional or statutory violations. Accordingly,
GERALD
the Department supports this provision.
LIBRARY
Justice also notes that many sections of Title II are based
in whole or in part upon provisions proposed by
President Nixon in the "Equal Educational Opportunities Act
of 1972. The Department expresses concern, however, with
regard to Section 203 (b) which, according to the legislative
history, was added in order to protect against holdings of
unconstitutionality. Justice indicates that it is unclear
as to what precise effect this proviso will have upon other
sections in Title II.
CSC, while expressing concern and finding objectionable
several personnel provisions of the enrolled bill, recommends
approval insofar as the personnel provisions are concerned.
The Veterans Administration and Commerce have no objection
to enactment, although Commerce states that its Bureau of
the Census believes that it would be technically impossible
to carry out within the required one year, section 822 (a),
which directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop current
data on the school-age population with respect to the
Title I formula.
OMB RECOMMENDATION
The enrolled bill contains provisions that both move the
Federal Government toward the improvement in the operation
of Federal education programs and provide obstacles to the
full achievement of these reforms.
With respect to revision of the Title I distribution formula,
the anti-busing provisions, consolidation of categorical
grant programs, and some of the reforms of the Impact Aid
program, we believe that H.R. 69 represents a significant
25
step forward in the overall Federal posture with regard
to education programs. Therefore, on balance, we
recommend its approval, with a signing statement indi-
cating those areas which you consider troublesome.
HEW has prepared a signing statement and submitted it
with its views letter on the enrolled bill. We are
working with White House staff on the development of a
revised draft.
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
@
Director
Enclosures
HEALTH.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
USA
AUG 2 1974
Honorable Roy L. Ash
FORD
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
GERALD
LIBRARY
Dear Mr. Ash:
This is in response to your request for a report on H.R. 69, an enrolled
bill "To extend and amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, and for other purposes.'
Because of the length of H.R. 69 and the complexity of the various issues
involved in the bill, this report will be organized into the following
categories which represent the major aspects of the bill: Title I, ESEA;
Impact Aid; Consolidation; General Education Provisions; Miscellaneous
Amendments; Cross Cutting Provisions; and Equal Educational Opportunity.
We shall attempt to frame the discussion of each of those issues within
the context of previous Presidential and Secretarial communications
concerning those issues and we shall also discuss the inclusion, modifi-
cation, or rejection by the Congress of each of those provisions in the
bill concerning which the Administration has heretofore expressed
serious reservations.
To assist in focusing on the framework of the Administration's goals and
requests and the final Congressional response, I have included three tables.
The first (at Tab A) summarizes goals and requests in the President's
Message of January 24, 1974, the Secretary's letter to Senator Williams
of March 5, 1974, and the President's Statement of May 22, 1974, and
compares the outcome of these issues in H.R. 69. The second table (at
Tab B) compares the FY 74 authorization for the programs contained in
H.R. 69 with the four year projection of the amounts authorized in the
bill. At Tab C, is a table showing our cost estimates of this bill and
its impact on the President's budget.
Title I, ESEA
Revision of Title I Formula. One of the most significant and
desirable provisions in the bill is the reform and updating of the title
I formula in section 101. By accepting a title I formula which provides
for the counting of children from families below the level of poverty
is
FORD
Page 2 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
GERALD
LIBRARY
used in the 1970 Census plus two-thirds of the number of children from
families receiving an income above that level from AFDC payments, the
bill would provide for the distribution of title I funds in a manner
which will more nearly reflect the need toward which the program is
addressed. The bill would also lower the Federal percentage used in
determining authorizations from 50 to 40 percent of State average per
pupil expenditures. The floor and ceiling of 80 and 120 percent respec-
tively, of the national average per pupil expenditure used in the formula
would assist those States whose educational resources are limited and
would provide a reasonable limit on the degree to which the formula re-
wards higher expenditure States. These modifications of the formula are
in line with previous Administration proposals, and, as the President
and the Secretary have already indicated, they are clearly desirable.
Private School Children. Another amendment to the title I program
which is desirable is the "bypass" provision in section 101 (a) (6) which
permits the Commissioner to provide services directly to children en-
rolled in private schools where State law prohibits the provision of,
or there is a substantial failure to provide, services to such children.
Although the implementation of this provision may cause some administra-
tive difficulties for the Department, the provision would provide a use-
ful means of resolving long-standing problems in our attempts to ensure
the equitable participation of children from nonpublic schools. Further,
these provisions will allow us remedies for a failure of a State agency
to provide equal opportunity to private school children at something less
than the drastic cut-off of funds solution now available in current law.
Special Grants. Those aspects of the title I amendments which are
less desirable include the extension of special incentive grants under
part B and special grants for urban and rural areas under part C, al-
though the extension of part C will be for only one year, after which
time the program will cease to exist. As extended, those parts would
be improved somewhat by H.R. 69: (1) a strict limitation of $50
million would be placed on the amount of funds which may be used for part
B; and (2) the allocation of part C funds would be more concentrated on
those school districts with the highest numbers of eligible children.
In summary, the improvements made in the title I legislation by this
bill greatly outweigh the few negative aspects of these provisions. The
total result would be a greatly improved title I program that essentially
follows the outlines of the House version of H.R. 69 to which the Presi-
dent and the Secretary gave their support earlier this year.
Impact Aid
Reforms of P.L. 874. Although this bill does not contain the
comprehensive reform of the Impact Aid Program which this Administration,
as well as previous Administrations, has been advocating for a number of
years, it does take the first significant congressional steps toward re-
form of the program. The major points of reform include (1) the
&
FORD
Page 3 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
CERALD
LIBRARY
elimination of entitlements on behalf of children whose parents work on
Federal property in another State, (2) a differential payment rate which
recognizes the varying degree of financial impact which various categories
of Federally connected children have on a school district, and (3) the
establishment of priority funding for those school districts with high
concentrations of children residing on Federal property and whose parents
work on Federal property (so-called "a" children). The Administration
has strongly supported the reforms described under (1) and (3) above.
Payment Provisions. Under this bill those districts with a high con-
centration of "a" children (25 percent or more) would receive 100 percent
of the entitlements generated by such children and this portion of the
program could be funded alone without any need for "point of order"
language. From the remainder of the funds appropriated for P.L. 874, all
districts would then receive 25 percent of their entitlements and any
remaining funds would be distributed in accordance with a descending
payment schedule varying from 65 percent for military "a" children down
to 28 percent of the entitlements on behalf of children with a parent
employed on Federal property situated outside of the county in which the
school district is located. The other categories of children would be
paid for at rates falling between those two figures depending upon the
degree of financial impact such children have on the school district.
Handicapped Children. Two amendments have been adopted to P.L. 874
which were not included in the Department's objectives for this program.
The first sponsored by Mr. Quie provides for payment on behalf of handi-
capped children at a rate equal to one and one-half times that paid on
account of normal children. This provision was primarily motivated by a
Department of Defense decision which eliminated educational assistance
for the handicapped under the CHAMPUS program (Civilian Health and Medical
Program of the Uniformed Services). As a result of that decision, the
public schools in areas heavily impacted with military dependents will be
presented with the problem of providing special education to large numbers
of handicapped children for which they are largely unprepared. Further-
more, those school districts with better than average handicapped programs
usually receive a disproportionately large number of such children because
of the compassionate transfer and assignment policies of the military.
Although the increased payment rate for handicapped children may result in
increased costs for the P.L. 874 program, it is a means of providing an
incentive for school districts to provide services for such children and
a means of compensating those districts which are presently providing such
services and which may, for that reason, experience a greater influx of
such children from the military.
Public Housing Children. The second undesirable provision relates to
funding for children residing in Federally supported low-rent housing pro-
jects. We can see little justification for additional Federal funding for
such children merely because they reside in such projects. However, two
R.
GERALD
FORD
Page 4 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
LIBRACA
amendments were added to the bill which would ameliorate somewhat the
impact of funding for such children. Under the bill that funding will
be provided only at 25 percent of the entitlement on behalf of such
children, and such funds received by a school district will be required
to be used for special projects to meet the needs of educationally
deprived children. This provision would provide for the additional
concentration of funds in school districts heavily impacted with low-income
children in a manner similar to that proposed under the Better Schools Act.
Summary of Impact Aid Provisions. In summarizing the effects of the
impact aid amendments contained in this bill, it is apparent that the move-
ment towards reform, while not massive, is significant. In the first place,
the total entitlements of school districts have been reduced by over $100
million (from $1,038 million under present law to $937 under H.R. 69 for
fiscal year 1976). Secondly, the types of amendments contained in the bill
at least indicate that the Congress has finally begun to have some of the
same concerns which the Administration has expressed for the past five
years. Finally, it may be ventured that failure of this reform to be
enacted will result in continuation of current law for three more years --
a move Mrs. Mink attempted to carry out by having the House conferees
instructed. Notably, the defeat of Mrs. Mink's motion to instruct the
conferees was the first defeat ever suffered by the Impact Aid lobby on
the House floor.
Consolidation
Consolidation of State-administered Programs. The House provision
on consolidation of State-administered Federal education programs has
been adopted in title IV of the bill. This is the provision which the
President and the Secretary indicated earlier this year would be an
acceptable first step as a means of making more rational the Federal
education grant process. Under the consolidation provision contained in
the bill, two broad program areas are established: (1) Library and Learn-
ing Resources and (2) Educational Innovation and Support. The first of
these consolidations would include activities previously funded under
title II, and the testing, counseling, and guidance portion of title III
of ESEA, and title III of NDEA. The second would include activities
formerly authorized by title III and title V of ESEA, and section 807
(Dropout Prevention) and 808 (School Nutrition and Health Services) of
that Act.
Implementation of Consolidation. The foregoing consolidation would
not go into effect unless (1) the programs were forward funded and (2)
the amount appropriated was equal to at least 100 percent of the amount
appropriated for each consolidated program. These funding levels would
operate independently for each consolidated area. During the first year
in which the consolidation is funded, old program activities would
is
FORD
GERALD
Page 5 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
LIBRARY
receive 50 percent of the amount appropriated for the consolidated acti-
vities. The consolidation would be fully implemented in the second year,
provided that the conditions discussed above are met. In the President's
response to the Secretary's memorandum of June 24, 1974, he indicated
this compromise was acceptable and such was conveyed to the Congress.
Special Projects Act. The Special Projects Act was adopted in section
402 of the bill. In his education message of January 24, 1974, the Presi-
dent indicated his favorable outlook toward the Senate's "further consoli-
dation of various discretionary and categorical programs into a special
projects authority, with provisions for gifted and talented children."
A number of amendments were made to the Special Projects Act by the
Conference which we believe greatly improve it. Under the Act, 50 percent
of the amount appropriated would be available on a non-categorical basis
to carry out special projects (1) to experiment with new education and
administrative methods, techniques, and practices; (2) to meet special or
unique education needs or problems; and (3) to place special emphasis on
national education priorities. The other 50 percent of the amount appro-
priated however, is an undesirable feature in that it would be designated
for certain activities specified in the Act, including education in the
use of the metric system of measurement, gifted and talented children,
community schools, career education, consumer's education, women's equity
in education, and arts in education. The conferees made it clear on both
the House and Senate floors that these categorical programs are to terminate
at the end of three years, at which time funding for them must come out of
the non-categorical funds appropriated for the Special Projects Act, with-
out any specific protection for continued funding.
Summary of Consolidation Provisions. We believe that the consoli-
dation provisions, along with the provision for the submission of a
single, unified State plan for State-administered programs, are a genuine
step forward in the administration of Federal education programs. Although
some of these provisions, especially the 50 percent reservation of funds
for specific programs under the Special Projects Act, are not all that
we would desire, they are an acceptable first step in our attempt to
return decision-making authority to State and local officials and to
eliminate the narrow categorical approach to Federal aid to education.
Given the Congressional reluctance to. eliminate categorical programs
and to consolidate funding authorities, the adoption of these provisions
represents a unique opportunity to accomplish this long sought after
goal, an opportunity which may not again be available in the foreseeable
future.
General Education Provisions
Title V of the bill contains a number of amendments to the General
Education Provisions Act (GEPA) relating, in the main, to application
procedures for assistance under Federal education programs, the functions
and authority of officers of the Education Division, the structure of the
&
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Page 6 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
Division, the promulgation of rules and regulations by the Division, and
the rights of students and their parents with regard to access to and
privacy of student records.
Mandated Bureaucracies. As you know, both the President and the
Secretary expressed serious objections to the excessive mandating of new
bureaucracies and restrictions on the management and administration of the
Education Division which were contained in the Senate bill. Fortunately,
most of those provisions have been either deleted or substantially modified
in the bill as finally passed. Although the bill would mandate a number
of offices in the Education Division (for example, an Office of Bilingual
Education and an Office of Libraries and Learning Resources), the
positioning of those offices within the bureaucracy and the GS level of
the head of each office would be left to the discretion of the Department.
The Senate provision calling for the creation of an Executive Deputy
Commissioner of Education was also deleted from the bill, as was the
provision prohibiting the transfer of any authority vested in the
Assistant Secretary or in any agency, officer, council, commission, or
board to any other agency or to any official in any other agency except
as expressly authorized by statute. We believe that with the above
described changes, this aspect of the bill is now acceptable to the
Department.
Other Administrative Provisions. Other provisions which we found
objectionable and which were deleted from the final version include (1)
the ceiling which would have been placed on the authorization of appro-
priations for salaries and expenses of the Education Division, (2) a
requirement that a copy of rules and regulations be mailed to current
program recipients before those rules or regulations could become effec-
tive, and (3) the mandatory creation of a Federal Interagency Committee
on Education within OE. The Senate provision requiring the establishment
of a National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) is included in the
bill, but it has been modified to locate the Center within the Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Education rather than as a separate agency in
the Education Division. Also, the provision for the National Board for
Educational Statistics, which would have provided overall policy guidance
for NCES, has been eliminated.
Single State Plan. A provision in the bill which we believe could re-
sult in greatly improved administration of Federal education programs is
section 511 which requires each State to submit to the Commissioner a
general application covering all programs in which Federal funds are avail-
able for assistance to local educational agencies through, or under the
supervision of, the State educational agency of that State. The submission
of such an application would cover all the State-administered programs
(ESEA, NDEA, the Adult Education Act, and the Vocational Education Act)
and would be in lieu of State plan requirements in each individual program.
&
FORD
GERALD
Page 7 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
LIBRARY
This provision will greatly simplify the procedures through which a State
must go in order to participate in Federal programs. It is consistent
with proposals the Administration has made for the improved administration
of OE grant programs.
Decentralization. A very undesirable provision in the bill would
prohibit the delegation of any function which was not so delegated prior
to June 1, 1973, unless the delegation of such function to the regional
offices is expressly authorized by law enacted after the enactment of this
bill. This provision limits our ability to place in the regional office
those functions which we believe are best carried out at a location as
close as possible to the persons, agencies, or institutions which our
various programs are designed to assist.
However, there are some ameliorating factors in the decentralization
provision which serve to make it less objectionable than a strict
prohibition against regional administration. For the first time, the Congress
has recognized in legislation the existence of and need for regional offices
in relation to Federal education programs. Section 503 of the bill amends
section 403 of GEPA to require the establishment of regional offices which
shall be responsible for disseminating information concerning activities of
the Education Division and providing "technical assistance to State and
local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and other
educational agencies, institutions, and organizations
= The term
"technical assistance" is not defined, but it is broad enough to encompass
most of the activities currently carried out by regional offices, such as
assistance in preparation of grant and contract applications, preparation
and processing of student aid applications, and initial review of proposals.
Importantly, the term "technical assistance" would clearly include those
activities necessary to implement the consolidation provisions of the bill.
Additionally, the term could include the function of making recommendations
on grants; however, final approval authority would have to remain in the
Office of Education in accordance with the provision of this bill.
Rules and Regulations. A number of amendments were adopted in
section 509 of the bill with respect to the issuance of rules and regu-
lations governing education programs. The Senate provision requiring a
30-day public comment period before any such rules or regulations could
become effective was adopted, but a provision was added at our request
to conform this requirement to the standards set forth in the Administra-
tive Procedure Act. This provision is acceptable since the Department
has been issuing regulations in accordance with the requirements of the
APA since 1971.
Privacy of Student Records. One controversial amendment contained
in the bill is the so-called Buckley amendment which, among other things,
would require the withholding of Federal funds from educational agencies,
institutions, and schools which fail to make student records available
to parents and which allow unauthorized persons to have access to such
R.
Page 8 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
FORD
records. An amendment to this provision was adopted at our request
CERALD
which would authorize access to such records by certain Federal and
LIBRARY
State authorities as may be necessary to audit and evaluate Federal
education programs and to enforce Federal legal requirements The
Buckley amendment also contains a prohibition against the withholding
of Federal funds from any educational agency, institution, or school which
fails to make available personally identifiable information concerning
students or their parents where to do so would result in an invasion of
privacy. This provision has also been amended to preserve the Department's
ability to conduct audits, evaluations and enforce legal requirements.
The Buckley amendment addresses the very real problem of providing
adequate safeguards for individual records. We would have preferred
that Congress had dealt with the problem in a more careful and thorough
manner, with full hearings and debate. As modified in the Conference,
however, the amendment maintains our ability to insist on accountability
for Federal funds.
Miscellaneous Amendments
Adult Education. Sections 601 through 609 of the bill include a
number of amendments to the Adult Education Act, the most significant
of which is the elimination of the Commissioner's 20 percent discretionary
fund, which in effect eliminates another categorical program. The bill
also includes a requirement for adult education programs to be coordinated
with manpower development and training programs and adult reading programs.
Except for a provision which would hold each State harmless at 90 percent
of its previous year's allocation, these amendments are consistent with
the goals of the Department.
Bilingual Education. Section 105 of the bill amends title VII of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which authorizes the Commissioner
to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies to develop
and carry out programs designed to meet the educational needs of children
of limited English-speaking ability. Under this authority, OE will be
able to continue its efforts to increase the capacity of school districts
to meet the needs of such children.
The current title VII authorizes demonstration activities in the
field of bilingual education. The amendments contained in this bill
would broaden the types of activities authorized under that title in a
manner consistent with the "capacity building" role which our recent
testimony on the subject of bilingual education indicated was the proper
function of the Federal government with respect to this problem.
Specifically, the bill would expand the amount and types of training
activities carried out under title VII. Although we objected to some
of the earmarks for specific training activities, as finally written,
the bill comes very close to achieving our objectives with regard to
bilingual education.
R.
FORD
GERALD
Page 9 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
LIBRARY
As addressed later in this letter (on page 13) we do not consider
that the new bilingual education provisions represent any change in
existing law with regard to Federal policy. We feel that the bilingual
provisions are clearly acceptable in that they would provide the Depart-
ment sufficient flexibility to develop new and effective means of assisting
local education agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for assuring
equal educational opportunity to children with limited English-speaking
ability (as mandated by the Supreme Court in Lau V. Nichols).
Emergency School Aid. We are disappointed that the Congress did not
consider any of the modifications to this program suggested in our proposed
Desegregation Assistance Act. Section 641 of this bill will simply extend
the current ESAA for three years. That Act was improved, however, by the
elimination of authority for educational parks and a specific set-aside for
metropolitan area projects.
Vocational Education. Section 841 of the bill contains relatively
few amendments to the Vocational Education Act. A number of new earmarks
have been established (e.g. bilingual vocational education grants and a
research and demonstration program in bilingual vocational education),
but the duration of those programs has been limited to one year and the
amount of the authorization has been greatly reduced from the original
Senate version. While we do not favor the new set-asides created in this
bill, the House has agreed to begin consideration of the issue of
vocational education consolidation, and hearings on that subject have
begun.
These hearings and the subsequent development of legislation will
provide an opportunity to achieve a meaningful consolidation of this
program along with the elimination of not only these set-asides but also
other unduly narrow categorical aspects of the vocational education
program.
Assistance for State School Finance Equalization Programs. The final
version of the bill does not include the Senate proposal for a $225 million
program of incentive grants to States for the development of equalization
plans in accordance with Federal guidelines. Instead, section 842 of the
bill contains a program of assistance to States to develop equalization
plans which are consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment and which attempt
to achieve equality of educational opportunity, as defined by the
Commissioner and approved by the Congress. We believe this program
would be consistent with our goal of increasing the capacity of States to
deal with the school finance problem and to assure equality of opportunity
among their school districts.
Higher Education. The significant higher education provisions which
are set forth in section 831 through 837 of the bill are as follows:
(1) A number of amendments to the Veteran's Cost of Instruction pro-
gram were adopted relating to minimum and maximum payments and minimum
R.
FORD
GERALD
Page 10 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
LISRARY
number of students required for eligibility. The net effect of these
amendments would be to increase slightly the cost of this program. Since
we do not favor the continuation or funding of the program in the first
place, this action is undesirable.
(2) The Teacher Corps program would be amended to permit the support
of retraining for teachers and teachers' aides. This amendment is in
accord with the Administration's position and would assist in achieving
the goals of the Department for this program.
(3) The Department's proposed bill on legal education opportunities
for the disadvantaged has been incorporated into this bill.
(4) The Senate provision establishing a $15 million program of
political internships has been deleted from the bill.
Education of the Handicapped. Sections 611 through 621 of the bill
include the following major amendments to the Education of the Handicapped
Act.
(1) The bill would extend Part B of the Act through fiscal year 1977,
but in 1975, instead of the Part B distribution formula, each State would
be entitled to a special one-time grant in an amount determined by multi-
plying the total number of children ages 3-21 in the State by $8.75. These
are not, however, genuine "entitlements" but rather a formula base authori-
zation such as those contained in other controllable programs. Budget and
appropriations action are likely to hold the actual spending level
considerably below this level. The maximum total authorization for those
grants would be approximately $647 million, compared to the present
authorization for Part B of $220 million. We think this present authori-
zation level will, for all practical purposes, remain the effective ceiling
whatever the fate of the present bill. It is noteworthy that the problems
created by this new authorization would be of one year's duration in any
case as authorizations for Part B in fiscal years 1976 and 1977 would be
reduced to $100 million and $120 million, respectively.
(2) Additional requirements for States desiring to receive Part B
grants would be imposed. These requirements relate to procedures for the
identification of handicapped children and the development of a timetable
for implementation of a plan to provide equal educational opportunity to
all handicapped children not later than one year after enactment of the
bill. The new requirements also include the development of procedural
safeguards with respect to the identification, placement, and evaluation
of handicapped children and procedures to ensure that such children are
placed in the mainstream of education as soon as practicable.
On balance, I believe we should regard the new funding authorization,
although in itself undesirable, as a "backfire" provision which could help
us resist much stronger Congressional initiatives for Federal intervention
GERALD
Page 11 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
IBRARY
in the education of the handicapped. The H.R. 69 handicapped education
provisions continue the Federal role presently envisioned in part B of
current law, i.e. as one of building the capacity of the States for "the
initiation, expansion and improvement" of educational programs for the
handicapped, rather than service support per se. Additionally, H.R. 69
follows a temporary ESAA-type approach of providing immediate and short-
term assistance to help States under recent court or legislative mandates
to provide required levels of services for handicapped children. Finally,
the provisions would give higher credibility to current Federal efforts
on behalf of the handicapped as an alternative to a massive Federal
service support role seen in the excess costs proposals of S. 6 and H.R.
70 (at an estimated $4-6 billion per year).
Sex Discrimination in Collegiate Athletics. The bill contains a
provision relating to the application of title IX of the Education Amend-
ment of 1972 to intercollegiate athletics. As modified in the Conference,
that provision is consistent with our proposed regulations on title IX
and is fully acceptable.
National Reading Improvement Program. Title VII of the bill contains
authority for the Commissioner to make grants to State and local educa-
tional agencies for programs and projects which show promise of overcoming
reading deficiencies. In 1976, or when appropriations exceed $30 million,
the program would be operated through State educational agencies on a
formula basis. A number of earmarks as well as the mandated Reading Office
in OE required by the Senate bill have been eliminated, and the excessive
authorizations in the Senate bill have been reduced to a reasonable level,
$53 million in FY 75. While the addition of this program is not one of
our goals, the Reading Improvement Act, in the form finally approved by
the Conference, does carry out many of the objectives of our Right to Read
initiative and furthers our goals of focusing attention and emphasis upon
the developing of basic skills.
Cross Cutting Provisions
Authorization Levels. The overall authorization for all programs
covered by H.R. 69 for 1975 would be decreased from approximately $9.2
billion, currently authorized for such programs for FY 1974, to $7.2
billion. Authorizations for all programs under H.R. 69 except Bilingual
Education, Education of the Handicapped, and Reading Improvement would be
the same as or less than comparable authorizations under current law.
While the bill contains a significant increase in the amount authorized
for those three programs, that increase should be viewed in light of the
unrealistic authorization to appropriation ratios (usually 4:1) which
have historically prevailed in Federal education programs.
As you know, there is significant pressure being generated by the
States for increased Federal assistance to pay for excess costs of edu-
cating certain disadvantaged groups. Short of drastic reduction in the
authorization/appropriations gap nothing that could be enacted in
&
FORD
LIBRARY
Page 12 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
education authorizing legislation would serve to stave off this pressure
for increased Federal assistance. While we have opposed measures such as
S.6 and H.R. 70 which would provide very high authorizations for the
Federal government to pay for the excess costs of educating handicapped
children, the real battle will be fought over the appropriations bills,
not over authorizing legislation. We therefore do not believe that the
authorization levels which are contained in H.R. 69 pose any threat of
increased fiscal outlays by the Federal government which would not exist
if this bill were not enacted.
Hold Harmless Provisions. Although the bill would accomplish reforms
of the title I and Impact Aid funding process, there are a number of hold
harmless provisions which are designed by the Congress to ameliorate the
adverse effects of those reforms with respect to any school district.
Section 144 of title I as revised by this bill would require each
LEA to be allocated at least 85 percent of the amount it received in the
previous year, and section 101 (a) (10) of the bill authorizes a separate
appropriation of $15.7 million to be used at the discretion of the
Commissioner to assist those LEA's whose total allocation under part A
of title I would be 90 percent or less than its allocation in the previous
year. This latter provision is not actually a hold harmless, but a
separate authorization of funds for the Commissioner to use at his
discretion in "hardship" cases, which need not necessarily be funded.
Under the bill, any school district which received P.L. 874 payments
of not less than 10 percent of its current expenditures in fiscal year
1973 would be held harmless at 90 percent of the amount of P.L. 874 pay-
ments it received in the previous fiscal year. Any other district would
be held harmless at 80 percent of its previous year's allocation. The
bill also contains a hold harmless at 90 percent of its previous year's
level for any school district (1) which, during FY 1974 or FY 1975 or the
period July 1, 1973, through June 30, 1975, experiences a decrease of 10
percent or more in the number of Federally connected children because of
a reduction in or cessation of Federal activity affecting military instal-
lations, or (2) in which 10 percent or more of the children in average
daily attendance are "out of state" or "out of county" Federally connected
children.
These hold harmless provisions do detract from the impact of the
reforms of title I and P.L. 874, but it should also be noted that the
hold harmless amounts in each case will be reduced by 10 or 20 percent
each year; thus in most cases the hold harmless level should be lower
than entitlement or allocation levels within one or two years. The
result should not be too far from the Administration proposal for reform
of this program, which would have eliminated entitlements for "b"
children, would have authorized additional payments to ensure that no
school district would suffer a loss of more than five percent of its
total operating budget in the first year, or more than 10 percent in the
second year, because of any reduction in Impact Aid payments.
Page 13 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
Role of the Federal Government. In both the Education of the Handi-
capped Act amendments and in the new Bilingual Education Act, the bill
reflects a concern that full or equal educational opportunities be pro-
vided to those children who are the targets of those Acts. Although this
is an undertaking which has not previously been made explicit in program
legislation in either of those areas, it does not represent a new policy
on behalf of the Federal government, nor would it result in a new Federal
role in education.
Measures to assure equal educational opportunities for children of
limited English-speaking ability have existed for more than four years,
and our interpretation of the Civil Rights Act as requiring local
educational agencies to provide such opportunities was recently under-
scored by the Supreme Court in the case of Lau V. Nichols. With respect
to handicapped children, litigation and State legislation designed to
obtain those opportunities for such children has been widespread.
Furthermore, section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973
requires that handicapped persons not be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under, any program receiving Federal financial
assistance.
The obligation of State and local educational agencies to provide
equal educational opportunities to both children of limited English-
speaking ability and handicapped children has been clearly established
before this legislation was developed, and Federal support of that
FORD
principle was also established independently of this legislation.
Therefore, this bill does not represent a change in the role of the
Federal government with respect to such children.
GERALD
The bill does, however, recognize the responsibility of local
educational agencies to provide equal opportunities to those children;
and since this responsibility has been imposed partly as a result of
Federal action and with full Federal support, it is appropriate that
the bill provide authority for the Federal government to assist such
agencies in developing the capacity to meet those responsibilities.
Unconstitutional Congressional Review of Executive Action. Another
aspect of the bill about which we remain concerned is the inclusion of a
number of provisions requiring Congressional review of administrative
action by the Department. For example, under the Special Projects Act,
the Commissioner would be required to submit to the authorizing com-
mittees a spending plan in accordance with which he has determined to
expend funds to be appropriated under that Act in the succeeding fiscal
year. Funds thereafter so appropriated are to be expended in accordance
with that plan unless within 60 days after the submission of the plan
either of the authorizing committees adopts a resolution disapproving
such plan. If such a resolution is adopted by either committee, the
is
FORD
GERALD
Page 14 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
LIBRARY
Commissioner would be required within 15 days to submit to the committees
a new plan, which will be subject to the same review procedures.
A further Congressional review procedure would be established with
respect to the issuance of rules and regulations by the Commissioner.
Such rules and regulations would have to be submitted to the Congress not
later than 45 days before they are to become effective, during which
period of time the Congress may, by concurrent resolution, find that the
rule or regulation is inconsistent with the Act from which it derives its
authority, and may thereupon disapprove such rule or regulation. In any
period of adjournment for more than 30 days, either of the authorizing
committees may suspend the effective date of the rule or regulation until
not later than 20 days after the end of such adjournment. Whenever a
resolution of disapproval is enacted by the Congress, the issuing agency
may thereafter issue a modified rule or regulation covering the same or
similar material, but such reissuance must indicate how the modification
differs from the original and how it disposes of the findings of Congress
contained in the resolution of disapproval.
In the two provisions discussed above, the Congressional disapproval
prerogative would be exercised in one case by concurrent resolution of
both Houses of Congress and in the other case by resolution of either of
the authorizing committees. We believe that both of these provisions
violate the principle of separation of powers and are clearly unconsti-
tutional. That constitutional infirmity is the same whether the authority
to disapprove executive action is purportedly vested in the entire
Congress through concurrent resolution (which does not require Presidential
approval) or in a single Committee.
The legislative function which the Constitution vests in the Congress
is the authority to adopt bills, which, unless vetoed by the President,
become law. Once a bill is enacted, the authority then devolves upon the
President and the executive branch to carry out that law. Nothing in the
constitution would permit the Congress to retain the authority to review
particular actions undertaken by the executive in administering an Act.
The only authority which the Constitution grants to the Congress in this
regard is to pass another Act (subject to Presidential veto) to correct
interpretations of law by the executive with which the Congress disagrees
or to establish particular standards, rules, and regulations which would
supercede those developed by the executive which the Congress dislikes.
However, to permit executive action to be overridden by a simple resolu-
tion of Congress or a single committee of Congress would be to vest in
that body authority which the Constitution did not anticipate.
While we seriously question the Constitutional validity of such pro-
visions, it might be noted that this Administration, as well as previous
Administrations, has accepted legislation of this mature on a number of
occasions in the past and has complied with the requirements thereof up
to the present time. For example, under the Basic Educational Opportunity
Grant program, the annual schedule of expected family contributions
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
Page 15 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
must be submitted for Congressional approval, and may be disapproved by a
resolution of either the House or Senate. More recently, the President
approved the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
which authorizes the deferral of budget authority by the Executive Branch
subject to the disapproval of either House of Congress.
Nothwithstanding the Constitutional defect of these provisions, we
do not believe that a veto of the bill is warranted on the basis of such
provisions. The provisions are clearly severable from the rest of the
bill and could be ignored by the Executive Branch without fear of in-
validating the desirable aspects of the bill. Furthermore, we do not
expect the Congress to exercise this authority with any degree of frequency,
because to do so would only delay the implementation of programs and the
distribution of funds. Indeed, the pressure from Congress is expected to
be in the opposite direction, that is, to promulgate necessary spending
plans, regulations, and guidelines as quickly as possible in order to
assure that the benefits of this bill are distributed without delay.
Advance Funding. The bill mandates advance funding for the consoli-
dation of innovation and support services and library resources. This
would begin to implement the President's proposals to forward fund these
programs and Title I, Education of the Handicapped Act, and the Vocational
Education Act when consolidated. In this regard, the President stated in
his May 22, 1974, Press Release: "I have urged in the strongest terms the
necessity of advance funding for consolidated programs
"
Equal Educational Opportunity
In the President's radio message on education earlier this year, he
indicated his desire for effective anti-busing amendments to be adopted
as part of these education amendments. Specifically, he urged the
adoption of the House amendments with regard to busing. To a large extent
those provisions are contained in this bill in a form which will provide
an effective curb on the ability of Federal agencies and courts to require
the excessive busing of children as a means of desegregating schools.
The equal educational opportunity provisions in this bill, including
the anti-busing provisions, will provide the courts with a rational scheme
which sets forth not only those factors which amount to a denial of equal
educational opportunity but also the appropriate means of remedying such
denials. The most important aspects of those remedies are (1) a limitation
on forced busing beyond the school next closest to the residence of a
student, (2) a prohibition against the use of Federal funds for the trans-
portation of students, (3) a prohibition against the mid-year implementa-
tion of forced busing orders, (4) a provision authorizing the termination
of court orders requiring transportation when a school district is found
to be in full compliance with the requirements of the Constitution, and
(5) a prohibition against the implementation of amy forced busing order
which would pose a risk to the health of a student or significantly im-
pinge on his or her educational progress.
FORD
Page 16 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
GERALD
LIBRARY
The reopening provision in the House bill, which would have permitted
school districts to have existing title VI plans and court orders reopened
to conform to the standards established by this bill, was not adopted.
Instead, the bill expands the reopening provision in present law to allow
school districts, as well as parents, to seek to reopen any plan or order
involving transportation of students where such transportation imposes a
risk to the health of a student or significantly impinges on his or her
educational progress. While the Administration would have preferred a
stronger reopener, the discussion and the votes in the Congress make it
clear that the reopener as it is in this bill is the strongest that we
could hope for out of this Congress.
The provisions described above do not go as far as the President
indicated he desired, but I believe that, when considered in conjunction
with the recent Supreme Court decision in the Detroit case, this bill
will allow us substantially to strengthen the limitations on the amount
of busing which children of the country can be forced to undergo in the
name of desegregation. This bill firmly establishes the position of the
Congress in opposition to excessive transportation of students without
reducing the ability of the courts to effectively enforce the requirements
of the Constitution and the ability of this Department to enforce the
requirements of title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Under the provisions
of this Act, parents may be assured that their children will not be bused
far away from their own neighborhood through the overzealous implementation
of desegregation requirements by Federal courts and officials.
Conclusion
Any ultimate conclusions concerning the desirability of the enact-
ment of H.R. 69 must obviously be of a mixed nature. However, when the
positive aspects of the bill--the substantial title I reform, the "real"
beginning of grants consolidation, a start toward impact aid reform, and
the furtherance of our equal educational opportunities goals--are compared
with those aspects which we consider to be less favorable--the retention
of part B of title I, the public housing portion of P.L. 874, the limita-
tions on decentralization, and the creation of a new authorization for State
handicapped programs--our overall conclusion must be that the bill is a
significant step forward in our quest for improved administration of
Federal education programs and for more effective and equitable distribu-
tion of Federal aid for education.
The alternative to this bill is not a new bill but a continuing
resolution until sometime next year. Therefore, we must compare this
bill against current law not against some imagined new bill. Viewing
from this aspect, we consider H.R. 69 to be superior to current law
most particularly with regard to the equity of Title I allocations.
Page 17 - Honorable Roy L. Ash
While I have trouble with many features of this bill, I believe sufficient
progress (and progress which, in my opinion, would not be retrievable
if the bill were vetoed and the veto upheld) toward the President's
goals have been made to justify the President's signing this bill.
We therefore recommend that the bill be approved.
Sincerely,
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
Carlucci
Under Secretary
UNITED
STATE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415
CHAIRMAN
August 7, 1974
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
Washington, D.C. 20503
GEGALE FORD LIBRARY
Dear Mr. Ash:
This is in reply to your request for the views and recommendations
of the Civil Service Commission on enrolled bill H.R. 69, a bill
"To ^xtend and amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, and for other purposes."
Our comments are limited to the personnel provisions of H.R. 69.
While we find some of these provisions objectionable, we are not
recommending disapproval of this legislation.
Section 105 (a) (1) of the enrolled bill would amend title VII of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to provide for obtaining
the temporary or intermittent services of employees for the National
Advisory Council on Bilingual Education in accordance with section
445 of the General Education Provisions Act. Under section 445,
these employees would be appointed and compensated in accordance
with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.
Various sections of this bill would set up new offices and programs--
an Office of Career Education (section 406), an Office of Consumer
Affairs (section 407), and a National Center for Educational Sta-
tistics (section 501) --all with directors appointed, expressly or
implicitly, in accordance with the provisions of title 5, United
States Code. This is appropriate.
Section 502(a) (1) would amend the General Education Provisions Act
by adding a new section 408 which would, among other things, authorize
each administrative head of an education agency to appoint and com-
pensate personnel in accordance with the regular appointment and
pay provisions of title 5, United States Code. This provision
is appropriate.
2.
Section 517 (a) (1) of the enrolled bill would amend section 445 of the
General Education Provisions Act by adding thereto a new subsection (d)
This new subsection would provide that no employee of an advisory
council is to be compensated at a higher rate of pay than that em-
ployee would receive were he subject to the customary compensation
provisions of title 5, United States Code. However, executive
directors of Presidential advisory councils would be paid at the
rate of GS-18, while executive directors of all other statutory
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
advisory councils would be paid at the rate for GS-15 (there is
no indication of which of the ten rates of the GS-15 rate range is
intended). Furthermore, subject to regulations of the Assistant
Secretary for Education, other employees of advisory councils
would be compensated "at such rates as may be necessary to enable
such advisory councils to accomplish their purposes."
This new subsection would clearly have the effect of removing the
executive directors of these advisory councils from the General
Schedule classification and pay system, and we find it objectionable.
We can see no reason why the positions of these executive directors
should not be classified to appropriate General Schedule grade levels
in the same way other Government positions are, and paid accordingly.
We find subsection (d) very ambiguous with respect to the other
employees of advisory councils. Employees appointed under section
445 of the General Education Provisions Act are presently subject
to the General Schedule system, and this new subsection would not
specifically exempt them. Although the subsection can be read as
removing these employees from the General Schedule, we note that
the Conference Committee in discussing this subsection (page 188
of Senate Report No. 93-1026) states "[i] f those positions
must be classified, they should be classified by the executive
directors, whose decision should be subject to review by the Civil
Service Commission."
We are not prepared at this time to make a final determination
(under 5 U.S.C. 5103) on the effect of this subsection on the appli-
cability of the General Schedule system to employees appointed
under section 445. However, we can see no reason why the employees
of these advisory councils should not clearly be subject to the
same classification and pay system applicable to other Government
employees.
3.
Section 612 of H.R. 69 would amend section 603 of the Education
of the Handicapped Act by providing that the Bureau for the Educa-
tion and Training of the Handicapped be headed by a Deputy Commis-
sioner placed in grade 18 of the General Schedule. Five other
positions in that Bureau would be placed in GS-16 of the General
Schedule. These positions would be in addition to the positions
authorized under section 5108 of title 5, United States Code, and
would not affect other positions in the Office of Education under
5108 of title 5 or under other law.
Legislating grade levels in this way compromises the concept of
"equal pay for equal work" and causes problems in managing the
assignment of supergrade spaces in terms of governmentwide program
priorities.
Section 804 (c) (5) authorizes a National Conference Committee (or-
ganized to provide guidance and planning for the 1977 White House
Conference on Education) to appoint a Conference Director and other
necessary personnel without regard to the provisions in title 5,
United States Code governing appointments in the competitive ser-
vices. However, in the absence of a specific exception, these
employees would be subject to the General Schedule provisions of
title 5. Because of the temporary nature of the National Conference
Committee, we do not object to excepting its employees from the
competitive appointment provisions of title 5. Duration of employ-
ment would presumably not be longer than several years.
In view of this comprehensive nature of this legislation and its
major significance, our objections to some of its personnel pro-
visions should not stand in the way of final approval. Therefore,
insofar as the personnel provisions are concerned, the Commission
recommends that the President sign enrolled bill H.R. 69.
By direction of the Commission:
Sincerely yours,
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Robert E. Hampton
Chairman
by Jayne BSpani
THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
1849
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
3.
AUG 1 4 1974
Dear Mr. Ash:
This responds to your request for the views of this Department
on enrolled bill H.R. 69, the "Education Amendments of 1974."
We recommend that this enrolled bill be approved by the President.
As enrolled, H.R. 69 extends and amends the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to consolidate certain education programs
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), revise
funding allocation criteria for certain HEW education programs, and
extend the authorization period for such funding. This Department
has not heretofore commented on H.R. 69; however, as enrolled the
bill affects our programs for Indians and the Territories.
Section 103(a)(2) of the amendments to ESEA provides for a set-aside
of 1 percent of the funds appropriated for grants to local education
agencies under Title I of the Act. This amount would be divided by
the Commissioner of Education among the Secretary of the Interior
(on behalf of Indians), Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands. Previously this set-aside had amounted to
3 percent (although including Puerto Rico), and the alteration could
have resulted in a significant reduction of such funding previously
available to the territorial areas and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA). However, the amended language of section 103(a)(1) of the
ESEA authorizes the appropriation of additional funds sufficient
to: "assure at least the same level of funding" as in fiscal year
1973 for such areas and the BIA.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
JOHNNY HORIZON
76
Let's Clean Up America For Our 200th Birthday
Section 105 of the enrolled bill includes a revised section 722
of the ESEA which authorizes the provision by HEW of bilingual
education program funds for children in BIA schools and requires
the Secretary of the Interior to submit a report to the Congress
by November 1 of each year on the use of such funds and an
assessment of the extent to which the needs of Indian children
are being met by such funds. We have no objection to the
requirements of this section.
Sincerely yours,
Baymond V. Brith
Acting Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
2
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Department of Justice
Mashington, D.C. 20530
AUG 8 1974
FORD
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
GERALD
LIBRARY
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Ash:
This is in response to your request, on an urgent
basis, for the views of this Department on the July 23rd
conference report on H.R. 69, the Education Amendments of
1974. Our attention has been directed to Title II and to
Sections 402, 509 and 516.
I
As to Title II, the "Equal Educational Opportunities
Act of 1974," Sections 207, 210 and 214 affect the authority
of the Attorney General to initiate, and intervene in,
lawsuits concerning denials of equal educational opportunity.
These sections would simplify the procedures for our
participation in this field of litigation and would make
easier uniform, nationwide enforcement. (Compare, e.g.,
42 U.S.C. 2000c-6 (a) which now imposes particular require-
ments on our instituting such litigation).
Section 204, in six subsections, defines certain
practices as denial of equal educational opportunities.
These provisions essentially incorporate various practices
already declared by the courts to be constitutional or
statutory violations (e.g., compare Lau V. Nichols, 414
U.S. 563 (1974) with Section 204 (f) For this reason,
the Department supports Section 204.
The other provisions of Title II include many sections
which are based in whole or part upon provisions proposed
by the President in the "Equal Educational Opportunities
Act of 1972." E.g., Sections 204 and 214. However, all
provisions in the title must be read in conjunction with the
proviso stated in Sec. 203(b). The legislative history of
the act indicates that this proviso was added in order to
protect against holdings of unconstitutionality. It is
therefore unclear what precise effect will be given to
sections 215, 216, 257 and 258.
FORD
-2-
GERALD
LIBRARY
II
Section 402 provides that the Commissioner of Education
may make contracts to carry out certain special projects.
The Commissioner is required to submit to designated House
and Senate Committees a plan for the expenditure of funds
for this purpose describing contracts in excess of $100,000.
Funds may be expended unless within 60 days either Committee
adopts a resolution disapproving the plan.
This Department has frequently stated that "committee
veto" provisions violate the Constitution. Various Attorneys
General have noted that such provisions violate the principle
of separation of powers between the executive and legislative
branches of government by permitting congressional committees
to administer programs, thus usurping power confided to the
Executive branch. Moreover, while Congress may enact legisla-
tion governing the making of government contracts, it may not
legally delegate to its committees the power to make contracts
either directly or by conferring upon them power to disapprove
a contract which an officer of the Executive branch proposes
to make. E.g., 41 Op. A.G. 230 (1955).
The question remains whether the powers conferred upon
the Commissioner of Education under Section 402 may be
exercised, assuming both that the bill becomes law and that
the Committee veto provision is unconstitutional. This
depends on whether the unconstitutional provision is separable
from the rest of the Act. In such cases, one must determine
from the provisions of the act and its subject matter whether
Congress would have intended the balance of the act to stand
without the unconstitutional provision. Id. at 234; 37 Op.
A.G. 56, 66 (1933). In the limited time permitted we have
not been able to make such a determination and we defer to
those familiar with the legislative history of the enrolled
bill as to what that determination should be.
III
Section 509 of the bill provides for disapproval by
concurrent resolution of certain rules, regulations and other
requirements of general applicability issued by the Commissioner
of Education. In some specified cases action affecting the
rules and regulations may be taken by designated House and
Senate Committees. The remarks in Part I, supra, apply
equally here as far as Committee action is concerned. In
addition, we have frequently expressed the view that review
of Executive action by concurrent resolution is not permitted
by the Constitution. See, for example, our letter to you of
July 16, 1974 on the Mondale amendment to S. 3355. We reaffirm
those views here.
-3-
IV
Section 516 of the bill provides that where the President
fails to appoint a member to fill a vacancy in the membership
of a Presidential advisory council, then the Secretary shall
immediately appoint a member to fill such vacancy. Although
this provision may operate as an undesirable restriction on
the President's discretion, it is not at all clear that it
may be objected to on constitutional grounds since Congress
may, of course, vest the appointment of "inferior Officers,
as they think proper, in the President alone * * * or in the
Heads of Department." Art. II, Sec. 2. See also Minnesota
Chippewa Tribe V. Carlucci, 358 F. Supp. 973 (D.D.C., 1973)
(President subject to suit for failure to appoint members
of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education); cf.
National Treasury Employees Union V. Nixon, 492 F. 2d 587
(D.C. Cir. 1974).
Subject to the above considerations, the Department of
Justice defers to the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare on the question whether the H.R. 69 should receive
Executive approval.
Sincerely,
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
W. Vincent Rakestraw
Assistant Attorney General
EMARTHENT OF COMMERCE
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Washington, D.C. 20230
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AUG 8 1974
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Attention: Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
Dear Mr. Ash:
This is in reply to your request for the views of this Department
concerning H.R. 69, an enrolled enactment, to be cited as the
"Education Amendments Act of 1974. 11
The principal concerns of the Department of Commerce with this
enrolled enactment are the provisions of section 822, directing
the Secretary of Commerce to develop current data on the school age
population and section 403, relating to education for the use of the
metric system of measurement.
With respect to the provisions of section 822, we would point out
that the program authorized in section 822(a) may pose serious
problems to the Department's Bureau of the Census, not only in
providing the staff resources to carry out the subsection but also
in the impact which this effort may have on the basic programs
of the Bureau. In any event, the Bureau of the Census' staff feels
that it would be technically impossible to carry out section 822(a)
within the one year time period specified in the Act and that final
results of the survey might not be available until 1976 or 1977.
With respect to section 403, the Department has no objection to this
section but urges that in view of the responsibilities which are pro-
posed to be placed in the Secretary of Commerce under the pending
Metric Conversion Act sponsored by the Administration, the Commis -
sioner of Education consult and cooperate with this Department in
carrying out section 403.
Subject to these comments the Department would have no objection to
approval by the President of H. R. 69.
2
We do not anticipate that enactment of section 403 would involve
any additional costs to this Department and, in any event, we
would assume that such costs would be met by reimbursement
from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. With
respect to section 822, it is our understanding that if this legis-
lation is enacted, funding for fiscal year 1975 would be sought
by HEW and transferred to this Department. We currently esti-
mate that fiscal year 1975 expenditures of this Department under
this subsection would be some $2. 5 million, primarily for planning
the survey and that implementation in succeeding fiscal years would
involve expenditures of up to $35 million, depending upon the level
of accuracy sought to be achieved in the survey.
Sincerely,
Nurser Henry B. Turner
FORD i LIBRARY DERALD
Assistant Secretary
for Administration
TERANS MINISO
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
1930
AUGUST 7 1974
The Honorable
Roy L. Ash
Director, Office of
Management and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Dear Mr. Ash:
This will respond to the request of the
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference for the
views and recommendations of the Veterans Administration
on the enrolled enactment of H. R. 69, 93d Congress,
the "Education Amendments of 1974."
As nearly as we can determine, all of the
programs authorized under this measure would be
administered by the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. We, therefore, defer to the views of
that Department on this measure.
We note, however, that amendments have been
included which affect the Veterans Cost-of-Instruction
Program, which is administered by HEW. These amendments
would have the effect of (a) revising the criteria for
eligibility of schools to participate in the program;
(b) setting minimum and maximum limitations on payments
to schools; (c) requiring 75. percent of the funds
received by a school under the program to be utilized
for special programs for veterans; and (d) setting a
minimum enrollment of 25 for eligibility under the
program.
The Veterans Administration currently has
underway a new "man-on-campus" program by which Veterans
Administration employees will actually be stationed
on various college campuses to assist veterans with
any and all problems which they encounter with our
educational program, including those relating to
educational benefit checks. Our program will not
supplant, but will supplement the assistance provided
veterans under the Veterans Cost-of-Instruction program.
We perceive no objection to the changes noted
which are included in the enrolled enactment of H. R. 69
and would interpose no objection to its approval by the
President.
Sincerely,
DERALD FORD LIBRARY
DONALD E. JOHNSON
Administrator
2
HEW Droft
Proposed Signing Statement for H.R. 69
FORDO : 07V830 LIBRARY
I have today signed into law H.R. 69, a major piece of
legislation primarily affecting Federal programs of aid for
elementary and secondary education. The bill has received
my approval in spite of the fact that it falls far short of
accomplishing the goals which I have stated for those programs.
It is, however, at least an initial step in the right direction
and I have given my approval because, in the final analysis,
the desirable aspects of the bill seem to outweigh those
provisions which I would have" preferred the Congress had
treated otherwise.
As I have frequently stated, the needs which this Administration
has sought to address in the area of Federal aid to education
are principally (1) the need to provide State and local educational
agencies with greater flexibility and decision-making authority
in the use of Federal education funds and (2) the need for
greater equity in the distribution of those funds. In at
least three respects, this bill will move us toward the
accomplishment of those goals.
First, by updating and otherwise revising the formula in
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the
bill will ensure greater equity in the distribution of funds
under this, the largest program of Federal assistance to
State and local educational agencies. Under the amendment
contained in this bill, we can be confident that funds will
be concentrated in those areas where the need exists rather
than where it might have existed nearly ten years ago when
title I was first enacted.
2
Second, this bill represents the first real attempt
at reform in the 24-year history of the Impact Aid program,
under which school districts are compensated for the financial
burdens experienced as a result of Federal activity in a
given locality. Although these reforms are nowhere as near
to thorough reform as my proposals would have been, they at
least indicate that the Congress has begun to share some of
the same concerns which this and previous administrations
have expressed concerning this program. I am hopeful that
the Congress will continue to look closely at this program
and give serious consideration to further efforts to ensure
that these funds are made available only where Federal
activity actually has an adverse impact on the ability of
a school district adequately to educate its children.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
The third respect in which this bill will serve to
accomplish our goals for education is the consolidation of a
number of State-administered programs relating to library
and learning resources and educational innovation and support.
For the first time, the Congress has granted to State and local
authorities a meaningful degree of decision-making authority
with regard to the use of Federal funds, thus increasing the
ability of those authorities to meet needs which are unique
to their areas without being burdened by unnecessary and often
irrational Federal constraints. Although I am concerned over
the fact that this bill also creates a number of new categorical
programs, I am generally pleased with the consolidation
provisions in H.R. 69 and hope that they represent a trend
for the future with regard to Federal aid to education.
Having noted those provisions in the bill which have
caused me to approve it, I must also call to your attention
3
some of the serious defects in the bill. My greatest
disappointment is in the failure of the Congress to enact
the entirety of the so-called Esch Amendment with regard
to busing of school children for desegregation purposes.
While the bill does contain a number of the limitations
on forced busing which I have proposed, the failure to include
an effective reopening provision will result in a different
standard being applied to those districts which are already
being forced to carry out extensive busing plans as opposed
033ALD FORD LIBRARY
to those districts which will be required to desegregate
under the more rational standards set forth in this bill. I
believe that all districts, in both the North and the South,
should be able to adopt desegregation plans which will not
result in children being bused out of their neighborhood
schools to schools on the other side of town. I will continue
to monitor this situation closely, especially in the light
of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Detroit case;
and further legislation will be requested if I determine
that the provisions of this Act are not sufficient to prevent
the continuation of the senseless and potentially harmful
cross-town busing of children.
Another aspect of the bill which gives me grave concern
is the restrictions the Congress has placed on the ability
of the Executive Branch to carry out education programs.
This bill cortains a prohibition against the decentralization
of most Federal education programs which is directly contrary
to sensible Federal administration which, in my mind, would
place the decision-making authority in the operation of those
programs as close as possible to the intended beneficiaries.
4
Perhaps the most serious encroachment by the Congress
on the authority of the Executive Branch to administer
these programs is contained in those provisions of the bill
which require decisions of the Department to be subjected to
Congressional review and possible veto, in one case by
concurrent resolution of both Houses, in another by a
resolution of a single House, and in still another case by
the resolution of a single committee of Congress. My own
reading of the Constitution and the preliminary advice of
Constitutional experts lead me to believe that these
provisions exceed the authority of the Congress, and I shall
look to the Attorney General for further advice as to
whether the Department is bound by those provisions.
QERALD FORD LIBRARY
In spite of the serious shortcomings of this bill, my
conclusion that it should be approved results in no small
part from the apprehension of the havoc that might otherwise
result with regard to the education of many of our children.
We have operated these programs for too long under continuing
resolutions and contingent extensions of authority. It is
now necessary to get on with our efforts to improve the
system of elementary and secondary education in our country.
I can think of nothing that would interfere with that process
to a greater degree than further uncertainty over the continuation
of, and funding levels for, Federal education programs. I
am particularly pleased that this bill provides a vehicle
for advanced funding of elementary and secondary education
programs. I stated in my education message of January this
year I would request of the Congress advanced funding so that
local school boards, administrators, and parents would know
how much Federal assistance they would be receiving sufficiently
5
ahead c : time to plan effectively and efficiently for the
educati on of our children. Therefore, I intend to submit
promptly to the Congress a supplemental appropriations
request to meet my commitment.
With the improvements that this bill accomplishes
with respect to some of the major programs and with the
authority to provide advance funding for those programs,
I am confident that the educators of our country will be
better able to plan for and meet successfully the great
challenges facing education today.
FORD : LIBRARY GENALD
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 21, 1974
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
UPON SIGNING AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 69
THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
FORD
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
CERALD
LIBRARY
2:15 P.M. EDT
Secretary Carlucci, distinguished administrators
and employees of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, my former colleagues in the House and the Senate,
fellow Americans:
It is really a great privilege and pleasure for
me to be here. I know that all of us wish Secretary
Weinberger were here, but he is off on a very important
responsibility, and I am sure he is here in spirit, if
not person.
I suspect this is the first Federal aid to
education bill that has ever been signed by a left-handed
President. I attach no significance to that, but it was
difficult with a person with a short name to use so many
pens. (Laughter)
President Eisenhower once said in discussing
education, and I quote, "The Federal role should be
merely to facilitate, never to control education."
Now, striking the right balance between helping
on the one hand and dominating on the other is never an easy
task. And those of you who participated in the preparation
of the submission in the first instance to the Congress
and those of you who have labored so hard in both the House
and the Senate to find a balance in 1974 in my judgment all
deserve a great deal of commendation and congratulation.
I don't think any one faction or any one party
dictated the contents of that very substantial and very
important piece of legislation. I know from some personal
experience on the periphery, when I was in the House and
subsequently as Vice President, how much hard work, how
many long hours, how many compromises were made between,
in the first instance, the Legislative and the Executive
branches and between various points of view, legitimate,
well-motivated, differences philosophically.
MORE
Page 2
I don't believe anyone who labored so long and
so hard would say this is a perfect piece of legislation,
but I think it is a good law, it justified the final
action by the Congress, and it fully justified my
signature representing approval by the Executive branch.
It does provide, in my opinion, for a more
effective distribution of Federal funds to help elementary
and secondary schools so that our Federal tax dollars
can be more appropriately and efficiently and economically
utilized to improve education throughout our 50 States.
The legislation also provides for better Federal
administration of the various programs under the more
or less direct control of Federal officials, and
this better management of Federal programs will help States
and localities so they will have a better and more effective
input into the management of these Federal programs.
I think it is fair to say that this legislation
places reasonable and equitable restrictions upon the problem
of busing, and in conjunction with the Supreme Court
decision will hopefully relieve that problem and make the
solution far more equitable and just.
It is my judgment that H.R. 69 represents the
kind of an approach that in this day and age we must follow
if we are to do the right thing in education, in housing
and in a multitude of other highly essential programs for
the benefit of our country as a whole.
This legislation itself does represent the way
to solve disagreements, but if we approach other
problems as we have approached this one, with candor on
the one hand, cooperation on another, compromise on a
third, I think we can march together, the Executive, the
Legislative, Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conser-
vatives in working together to make our country what we
all want it to be, a better America.
Thank you very kindly.
END
(AT 2:20 P.M. EDT)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
AUGUST 21, 1974
UNTIL 2:00 P.M., EDT
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
FURU : 038470 LIBRARY
I take special pleasure today in signing H.R. 69, an omnibus education bill.
As the first major legislation to become law during my administration, this
bill symbolizes one of my greatest hopes for the future -- the hope that a new
spirit of cooperation and compromise will prevail between the legislative and
executive branches. Enactment of this bill was possible only because the two
branches settled their policy differences in that spirit. If it continues, I
am confident that we can make equally effective progress on other pressing
issues.
While I would have preferred different provisions in some sections of this bill,
the overall effect of H.R. 69 should be a significant step forward in our quest
for more effective distribution of Federal education funds and for better
administration of Federal education programs.
Federal funding will be improved through a new formula for distributing Federal
assistance for training educationally deprived children. Under the old formula,
assistance was directed to States and localities which needed help several
years ago, but may no longer need it. Under the new formula, it will be
directed to those areas where help is definitely needed today. This change
should make the distribution of funds more effective and mor e equitable.
The Congress has also acted wisely to improve the administration of Federal
programs by consolidating a number of categorical programs supporting
libraries, educational innovation and other services. For the first time,
State and local education officials will have an important degree of authority
over Federal funds in these areas. I hope that this consolidation will become
the trend of the future.
Another positive feature of this bill is that it provides for advanced funding
of certain education programs. This provision should help to end much of the
uncertainty that local school boards have had over the continuity and prospective
funding levels of Federal education programs. In the near future, I will send
to the Congress a supplementary appropriations request to carry out this
advance funding provision.
I am also pleased that H.R. 69 provides new safeguards to protect the privacy
of student records. Under these provisions, personal records will be
protected from scrutiny by unauthorized individuals, and, if schools are asked
by the Government or third parties to provide personal data in a way that would
invade the student's privacy, the school may refuse the request. On the other
hand, records will be made available upon request to parents and mature students.
These provisions address the real problem of providing adequate safeguards for
individual records while also maintaining our ability to insist on accountability
for Federal funds and enforcement of equal education opportunity.
(MORE)
- 2 -
Much of the controversy over H.R. 69 has centered on its busing provisions.
In general, I am opposed to the forced busing of school children because it
does not lead to better education and it infringes upon traditional freedoms in
America.
As enacted, H.R. 69 contains an ordered and reasoned approach to dealing
with the remaining problems of segregation in our schools, but I regret that
it lacks an effective provision for automatically re-evaluating existing court
orders. This omission means that a different standard will be applied to those
districts which are already being compelled to carry out extensive busing
plans and those districts which will now work out desegregation plans under the
more rational standards set forth in this bill. Double standards are unfair,
and this one is no exception. I believe that all school districts, North and
South, East and West, should be able to adopt reasonable and just plans for
desegregation which will not result in children being bused from their
neighborhoods.
Another troublesome feature of this bill would inject the Congress into the
process of administering education laws. For instance, some administrative
and regulatory decisions of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
would be subjected to various forms of Congressional review and possible
veto. As a veteran of the Congress, I fully appreciate the frustrations that
can result in dealing with the executive branch, but I am equally convinced
that attempting to stretch the Constitutional role of the Congress is not the
best remedy. The Congress can and should hold the executive branch to
account for its performance, but for the Congress to attempt to administer
Federal programs is questionable on practical as well as Constitutional
grounds. I have asked the Attorney General for advice on these provisions.
Closely related to this issue is my concern about substantially increased
Federal funding for education, especially at a time when excessive Federal
spending is already fanning the flames of inflation. I hope the Congress will
exercise restraint in appropriating funds under the authorizing legislation
included in H.R. 69, and will carefully avoid increasing the budget.
In conclusion, I would re-emphasize that this bill shows us the way for further
legislative and executive branch cooperation in the future. I congratulate
all of those who participated in this endeavor. Today, and for generations
to come, America will benefit from this law which expresses our national
commitment to quality education for all of our children.
#
#
#
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
AUGUST 21, 1974
UNTIL 2:00 P.M., EDT
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
FORD LIBRARY
FACT SHEET
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
ACT AMENDMENTS (H.R. 69)
The President today ha. signed H.R. 69 which extends the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, the impact aid laws, the Adult Education Act, the
Bilingual Education Act, and the Indian Education Act through fiscal year 1978.
It also extends the Education of the Handicapped Act through fiscal year 1977
and the Emergency School Aid Act through fiscal year 1976.
As an omnibus education bill, the major provisions of H.R. 69 are as follows:
Title I Education of the Disadvantaged
-- Under current law, Title I authorizes aid to States and local school
districts for the education of disadvantaged students. Under H.R. 69 the
Title I formula is revised and will more accurately reflect "need"
and provide for better distribution of funds.
-- Permits services directly to non-public school children where States fail
or are restricted by law from providing equal educational opportunities.
-- The Special Grants provision continues categorical authorization for State
incentive grants and funds for "concentration" of poor children, instead
of the single formula.
Busing
-- Prohibits the use of all Federal funds (except Impact Aid) for busing
activities.
-- Allows the courts to terminate busing orders on a finding that the
school district has and will continue to comply with the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments.
-- Prohibits any new order to bus past the next nearest school.
-- Prohibits orders to bus except at the start of an academic year.
-- Prohibits busing across district lines or altering district lines unless,
as a result of discriminatory actions in both school districts, the lines
caused segregation.
-- Provides school districts a reasonable time to develop voluntary plans
before a court order can be executed.
(MORE)
- 2 -
Impact Aid
-- Eliminates entitlements on behalf of children whose parents work on
Federal property in another State.
-- Establishes a differential payment rate recognizing varying degrees
of impact on school districts of Federal children.
-- Provides priority funding for school districts whose high concentration
of children residing on Federal property and whose parents work on
Federal property.
-- Increases entitlements for children of uniformed military personnel
who are handicapped or have a learning disability.
Education of the Handicapped
-- Establishes a Deputy Commissioner for a new bureau of handicapped.
FORD
-- Extends State formula grants through FY 77.
Bilingual Education
GERALD
LIBRARY
-- Provides financial assistance to State and local agencies to
"establish equal educational opportunity for children of limited English-
speaking ability."
Special Projects
-- Beginning in FY 76, consolidates existing authorities into a new
categorical grant program. Focus of funds on metric education,
women's educational equity, consumer, gifted career, community
schools.
Consolidation
-- Several existing categories are to be fully consolidated into two
groupings, Libraries and Instructional Resources,
and Support and Innovation by FY 77.
Other
-- Extends current Adult Education Law for 4 years and establishes
a new 15% set aside from State funds for innovative programs and
teacher training.
-- Provides 2 new Vocational Education Act categorical authorities
dealing with bilingual education.
-- Extends Indian Education Act program for special projects for Indian
education and programs for Indian children in public schools through
FY 78.
-- Extends through 1976 Emergency School Aid Act, which provides for
assistance for local education agencies with special needs attendant to
desegregation and overcoming minority group isolation in schools.
(MORE)
- 3 -
-- Authorizes a new Reading Improvement Program with categorical
programs for 1975-1978 to be distributed to States on school age
population formula.
-- Liberalizes Veterans cost of instruction payment institutional
eligibility, to require only 10% of undergraduates to be veterans.
-- Authorizes White House Conference on Education in 1977.
-- Extends present Ethnic Heritage Studies program through FY 1978.
#
#
#
FORD i LIBRARY BERALD