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
34429000
label
New Ideas [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34429000
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
New Ideas [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
34429000
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-036-012-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8d68155622168887
ocrText
September 8, 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR BRUCE REED
ELENA KAGAN
FROM:
Domestic Policy Council Staff
SUBJECT:
Compilation of Preliminary New Ideas
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
1. Child Care. Reintroduce the President's child care proposal. This includes: increased
funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant; increased tax credits for working
families to help them pay for child care; a fund to invest in programs that support early childhood
learning and development; after-school care through the 21st Century Learning Center program;
and programs to improve child care safety and quality through a fund to states to enforce
standards better, scholarships for child care providers, and additional funding for evaluation and
research.
2. Paid Parental Leave. Many workers, including those covered by the Family and Medical
Leave Act, cannot afford to take leave at the birth or adoption of a child. This proposal would
provide paid parental leave for a limited period of time to working parents with family incomes
below a set amount. For example, a new proposal could provide 6 weeks of paid leave to all new
parents who have been in the workforce either part-time or full-time for one year and whose
family income is below $50,000, at a cost of $1 billion per year. This proposal could use the
unemployment insurance system to provide the leave payments, but would be paid for by the
federal government.
3. Home Visitation. Home visiting programs, in which a trained professional (such as a nurse)
pays routine and intensive visits to pregnant mothers and new parents, have proven successful in
strengthening families and improving child outcomes, particularly reducing child abuse. We
propose to create a grant program to fund the development or expansion of home visitation
programs, with priority given to areas with high rates of child maltreatment.
4. Child Welfare. Each year, thousands of foster children "age out" of the child welfare
system; at age 18, children lose their foster care maintenance assistance funding, and many have
neither been reunified with their family nor adopted. In the next 3 years, approximately 65,000
children will "age out." We propose increasing by 50% the Federal Independent Living Program
(ILP), which assists adolescents aged 16-18 in the foster care system as they prepare for
independence. The ILP provides services to help foster care children earn a high school diploma,
receive vocational training, and learn daily living skills such as budgeting, locating housing,
1
planning a career, and finding a job. The program was begun in 1984, and has been funded at
$70 million annually since 1992. Funds are awarded directly to the States, which receive a base
amount by formula and additional funds at a 1:1 match ratio.
5. Child Tax Credit. The 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement created a Child Tax Credit of $500
per child for families. We would propose an expansion of the credit to families with children
under three, in order to better support working families. This tax credit may allow some parents
to spend more time with children by enabling them to forego some income. The proposal would
benefit both families in which both parents work, as well as families in which one parent stays at
home. This proposal would roughly cost $5 billion over five years.
6. Home Office Tax Deduction. We propose an expansion of the Home Office Tax Deduction
in order to create incentives for parents to work from home so that they may spend more time
with their children. This proposal would allow the taxpayer to claim additional expenses of the
costs of working from home, such as Internet hook-up costs. It would cut down on commuting
time, thereby allowing parents to spend more time with their children. In addition, the tax
deduction would help reduce pollution costs associated with commuting.
7. Flex-Time: We propose offering tax credits to all companies that offer a variety of family-
friendly benefits, including flexible work hours for their employees, compressed work weeks,
part-time work with benefits, job sharing, career sequencing, and extended parental leave. Such
a tax credit would enable parents to spend more time with their children by providing companies,
both small and large, to respond to the time crunch families are facing. In addition, it builds on
our flex-time proposal (which allows workers to take their over-time compensation as vacation
time) and family-leave proposal.
8. After-school programs: In order to meet the growing concerns parents have over how their
children are occupied in the hours between the end of the school day and the time parents arrive
at home, we propose an expansion of our after-school initiative. A poll recently conducted by
the Mott Foundation found that 92% of Americans believe there should be organized activity for
children after school; 78% strongly share this view. In order to address this growing consensus,
we propose first expanding our 21st Century Learning Centers Initiative, which supports school-
based after-school programs. In addition, we propose creating a set-aside within the Child Care
and Development Block Grant targeted to after-school programs run by community-based
organizations.
CIVIL RIGHTS
1. Enhance the CRS program at Justice. The Community Relations Service at Justice has
been a significant force in cooling racial tensions in communities all over the country. Since the
1980s, their budget has been decimated. This initiative could (1) enhance CRS's ability to
provide mediation services to resolve community civil rights concerns as an alternative to
2
litigation; and (2) provide CRS conflict resolution training and technical assistance to
communities. The CRS is very popular with the AG and she often talks of wanting it
strengthened.
2. Inter-Agency Task force on Discrimination. This initiative would create an inter-agency
task force (headed by the Civil Rights Division at Justice) to expand research on the extent of
racial discrimination in the country. The research would focus on developing uniform testing
protocols in housing, employment, and access to capital and then using these tools to asses the
nature and extent of discrimination in these areas. This effort could be linked to agency
compliance and/or enforcement work.
3. Improve Civil Rights Information Sharing. This proposal would provide funds to establish
and maintain a system that links the data bases of agencies with civil rights enforcement
responsibilities -- thus allowing, for example, OCR at Education to have better access to work
being done by the Education Section at Civil Rights.
4. Becoming an American. A national effort to focus on easing the transition to the U.S. for
new immigrants. We could provide grants to community-based organizations that fund English
and civics classes for new immigrants. Also, we could encourage the development of programs
that provide practical transition-type help to new immigrants -- such as understanding the public
education system; understanding the housing system, etc. According to the INS, there is a bit of
this being done on the community level, but they do not fund any of it. Also, some of the
education bits are done by the Dept. of Ed. (adult education and/or literacy), but not in a
coordinated way. HHS funds some transition work for refugees. This general idea was first
talked about by the Jordan Commission.
5. Sweat-Shop Initiative. Expand enforcement against labor abuses in "sweatshops" and on
farms that employ migrant farm laborers. Many of the wage & hour laws in place to protect low-
wage workers are not adequately enforced by the Department of Labor, in part because of
dramatic reduction in funding for these efforts during the 1980s. These workplaces often serve
as places of gateway employment for new immigrants, and thus the abuses disproportionally
affect Latinos and Asians.
6. Equal Pay. A program that could be run by the EEOC and DOL to increase outreach to
businesses to educate them about the legal requirements for paying equal wages, provide
technical assistance, improve training for EEOC employees and resources for increases in
enforcement capabilities.
3
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
1. Access To Capital For All Americans.
CDFI Tax Credit. In 1996, we proposed a tax credit for investors in CDFIs. We
could re-propose this $100 million non-refundable tax credit. The maximum amount of
credit allocable to a particular investment would be 25 percent of the amount invested.
Voluntary CRA. Launch a bully pulpit effort to encourage non-bank financial
institutions to develop and implement principles for community investment.
Micro-Enterprise. Provide authorization and funding for CDFI Fund to provide
technical assistance to micro enterprise organizations and micro-entrepreneurs (PRIME
Act, Kennedy-Domenici).
Secondary Market. Develop coordinated administration initiative to take first steps
towards secondary market for community development loans, including data collection,
education, standardization, regulatory review, and the creation of a loan loss reserve
fund to back pools of community development loans pooled and sold by the private
sector.
Fair Lending. Continue to push the Fed to permit collection of data on race and
income of small business borrowers; consider legislation if this fails.
Capital Access Programs. Push to give the CDFI Fund authorization to launch small
business capital enhancement program to back state-run loan loss reserve funds that
permit banks to make more difficult small business loans.
2. Sustainable Development.
Environmental Activity Bonds. In response to the growing needs of urban areas, an
environmental bond would help cities meet the environmental goals set by the Clinton
Administration. EPA has identified three areas which would be candidates eligible to
receive funding: brownfields, drinking water, urban river/waterfront cleanup, and the
creation of parks and other public spaces. Drinking water (as cities need to improve
infrastructure to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act) and
brownfields are two areas that cities continue to seek assistance for financing. Our
preference is to be more inclusive and allow municipalities increased flexibility to
identify their priorities. However, there should be attention paid to how this financing
would intersect with other Administration initiatives like the Clean Water Action Plan,
Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund, and TEA-21.
Urban River Corridors and Wetlands Restoration Projects. EPA proposes urban
4
river corridor and wetlands restoration efforts tailored to improve the human health and
economic opportunities in urban communities. To date, EPA has made small grants to
a number of cities and municipalities for these types of projects. With additional grants
to local communities, the Agency could provide the necessary funding for projects to
improve community water resources. These projects would provide employment
opportunities for residents, benefit the economic welfare and technical competence of
local residents, and empower the community to build for a better future. Restored
areas can serve to attract and sustain business as well as provide outlets for recreation.
Community Preference and Visualization Tools. Building the social capital
necessary to change transportation and land-use policies to create more livable
communities also requires tools that the average citizen can use to understand the
implications of major policy choices. EPA proposed to act as a catalyst in the
development and use of such innovative decision making tools. The types of tools
would include: 1) Community Preference Surveys, which show communities pictures
of different neighborhood types, and help the community reach a consensus about the
types of development that are desirable; 2) simulation tools, which would get a
community "development ready" or help a community experiment with alternatives that
have been proposed; and 3) new software, accessible to the public as well as urban
planners, to view and evaluate alternative urban designs for any community.
Asthma Initiatives. Through better implementation and new investments, EPA
believes the Federal government can take action that will show immediate and long
term results to reduce asthma rates among children.
Air Quality Credits. EPA proposes to provide incentives to transportation planning
by developing protocols for potential air quality credits toward state attainment plans
for locally-initiated strategies and projects that create less auto-dependent communities.
Similarly, the Agency proposes to create the next generation of the Clean Air
Brownfields Partnership Pilot by continuing and expanding its ongoing efforts to link
air quality goals and brownfields/infill redevelopment. After 2000, EPA proposes to
partner with cities that have a significant brownfield site in the decision-making phase
of redevelopment, work with the city, state, and developer to come up with a project
design that maximizes air quality benefits, and allow credit for these activities under
the State Implementation Plan.
3. Job Creation in Distressed Communities.
Local Infra structural Improvement and Economic Revitalization Fund. Emil
forwarded this idea to establish a Federal grant program to fund local Infra structural
improvements. This would spark revitalization of declining or stagnant low-income
areas by providing funds to upgrade local infrastructure. These Federal dollars could
leverage State, local, and private funds for such Infra structural efforts.
5
Community Revitalization Tax Credit. LISC proposes a Community Revitalization
Tax Credit (CRTC) --similar to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit --to help
stimulate private-sector investment in commercial property in under served
neighborhoods.
Community Development Corporation Tax Credit. In 1993, we put in place a
demonstration tax credit for investors in 20 CDCs. According to this report for Bruce
Katz' shop at Brookings, this program has been effective. We could propose
expanding this CDC tax credit to more areas. The author of this report also proposes
some changes to make the tax credit more effective.
Expand and Rationalize Employer-Side Tax Incentives. This includes EZs,
Welfare to Work, WOTC, DC Jobs Credit.
Working Ventures Fund. Fund one or more national non-profits to fund, evaluate,
share best practices, develop networks, and link non-profits to their business
community, in the job training and placement field, as LISC and Enterprise do in the
housing
Community Empowerment Fund. a) Include targeting for welfare to work projects;
b) allow links to venture capital focused on minority-owned or small business in
distressed areas; c) eliminate mandatory pledge of CDBG dollars for CEF loans.
Metro Jobs/Community Development Corporation (CDC) Links. Would target
job-poor but CDC-served central-city neighborhoods to create or strengthen a welfare-
to-work infrastructure that is place-based but people-focused and regional in orientation
(where the jobs are). Would build on HUD's Bridges to Work and complement DOL
and HHS efforts, focusing on concentrations of assisted housing run by CBOs.
4. Low Income Savings.
Asset Development for Section 8 Voucher Recipients. Currently, an individual still
sees the size of their subsidy reduced for each extra dollar he/she earns. This new idea
from Liebman and Orszag would roll-over any savings --or a part of the savings --from
an individual earning more money into an Individual Development Account (IDA).
That is, if the size of a person's Section 8 voucher is reduced by about 30 cents for
each extra dollar he/she earns, we could put this savings --up to 30 cents --in an IDA.
We could also the capabilities created by EFT '99 to electronically transfer money to
efficiently establish IDAs for more Americans.
Brownfields Meets Community Development. Under this proposal, we would push
banks to invest in brownfields as part of their CRA commitments.
6
5. Affordable Housing.
Elderly Housing Initiative. 1) Housing modernization grants to existing elderly
housing projects for modernization, physical redesign, and/or conversion to assisted
living; 2) Expanded and more flexible service coordinator grants to meet needs of
increasingly frail population in public and assisted housing; 3) authority for PHAs to
use vouchers for the housing component of assisted living costs.
Regional Affordable Housing Initiative. Targeting regions with severe jobs-housing
imbalance and established partnerships for regional collaboration, HUD would provide
grants and loan guarantees to support planning, regulatory streamlining across
jurisdictions, and development.
Vouchers. An expanded request will focus on incrementals, welfare to work, and
homeless.
6. Promoting Homeownership In Distressed Communities.
Low-Income Homeownership Tax Credit. Self-Help --a community group in North
Carolina --proposes a tax credit for investors who provide second mortgages to low-
income families. This could significantly reduce the barriers to homeownership among
low-income families, who do not really benefit from the home mortgage interest
deduction.
Increase Allocation of Mortgage Revenue Bonds. Each state receives a supply of
tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. These bonds help low-income families become
homeowners and help develop affordable rental housing. There are currently 53 co-
sponsors of legislation in the Senate and 316 co-sponsors of legislation in the House to
increase the allocation of mortgage revenue bonds by slightly more than 50 percent and
then index it to the rate of inflation.
Expand Use of Mortgage Credit Certificates. Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCCs)
are credits against federal income tax equal to between 10 and 50 percent of mortgage
interest (to a limit of $2,000 per homeowner) issued by state governments. MCCs
count against state's ability to issue mortgage revenue bonds. We could propose to
expand the MCC program to allow the limit to be $4,000 for homeowners in EZs or
ECs. We could also propose allowing states to not have to count MCCs against their
mortgage revenue bond base.
First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit. The 1997 tax law put in place a $5,000 tax
credit for first-time homebuyers in the District of Columbia. To boost homeownership
7
in Empowerment Zones, we could propose allowing any first-time homebuyer in an EZ
to take advantage of this tax provision.
Historic Homeownership Assistance Tax Credit. The National Trust for Historic
Preservation proposes a 20-percent tax credit to homeowners who rehabilitate or
purchase a newly rehabilitated historic home and occupy it as a principal residence.
Homeownership Vouchers. Already authorized, would apply rental subsidies to
mortgage-related expenses for first-time homebuyers who were Section 8 tenants.
EDUCATION
1. Class Size Reduction. Reintroduce President's proposal to reduce class size in grades 1-3 to
an average of 18. Needs to be funded on the mandatory side. If necessary, we could combine
this with a teacher quality/recruitment initiative, so that funds in the early years of the program
are devoted to (1) incentives for people to enter teaching and/or (2) teacher training and
professional development.
2. School Modernization. We've tried this on the mandatory side and we've tried this on the
tax side. Assuming we don't get it this year, we've got to try again next year.
3. School Discipline/Safety. We are working on an overhaul of the Safe and Drug Free Schools
Program, that will: (1) focus the program on comprehensive, proven approaches to improve
school discipline and safety; (2) better target the funds to schools/communities with the greatest
needs; and, (3) improve data collection and reporting, including school report cards on
safety/discipline issues. Because the program currently spreads (small amounts of) funds around
to almost all school, and because of its initial emphasis on keeping schools drug-free, the politics
of this program will probably require that any shift in emphasis on greater targeting will require
additional resources.
4. Teacher Supply and Quality. Here are three initial ideas for improving teacher quality. The
first two came out of our initial discussions on the President's race report. We can decide down
the road whether to keep them focused on high poverty schools, or make them more universal.
We can also break out particular pieces of them into separate initiatives if we want to:
Make sure there are qualified teachers in high poverty schools. First, encourage
and support state and local efforts to improve the preparation, certification,
recruitment, selection, induction, retention, evaluation, reward and dismissal of
teachers overall. Support necessary R&D on critical components of an upgraded
system, such assessing teacher competence in the classroom. Second, work to end the
practice of disproportionately placing and keeping unqualified teachers in high
poverty schools. Require states to require prospective teacher to pass basic
8
skills/subject matter tests (and help them develop more demanding assessments) in
order to be licensed Prohibit school districts receiving Title 1 funds from staffing
Title 1 funded classes (what about schoolwides???) with unqualified teachers, and bar
those without an effective system for teacher evaluation (including removal of
incompetent teachers) from receiving Federal (or just Title 1) funds. Require K-4
teachers in Title 1 schools to successfully complete training in teaching reading, and
fund the training. Third, help attract and retain the best teachers for high poverty
schools. Fund induction and continuing professional development programs in high
poverty schools. Provide incentives for Board-certified teachers to teach in high
poverty schools.
Recruit More Minority Teachers. Many believe that a major factor influencing
children's success in education is role models. Enhance current recruitment programs
with effective incentives to attract more minorities to the teaching profession.
Minority teachers, administrators, and school personnel serve as role models for
minority students and can provide an important link between schools and parents.
Establish subject-specific teacher/administrator training
institutes/academies/centers in every state. There are crying needs to train existing
teachers in key subject areas, such as reading, technology use, math/science and other
academic subject. We should establish subject specific training centers in each state
(or perhaps in geographic regions within states). The idea is to create a place,
probably at a university, that has the subject-matter capacity and can work with
school systems to develop and implement a strategy for ensuring that every teacher
who needs it gets high quality, intensive and ongoing training in the subject and how
to teach it. This could either substitute for or complement the current teacher training
program (Eisenhower Professional Development Program), which provides funds to
states and school districts on a formula basis, with broad discretion on how the funds
can be used for professional development. We could also establish training centers for
principals and other school leaders.
Continuing the Troops to Teachers (TTT) program (due to phase out in Oct
1999). TTT provides stipends to encourage retired military personnel to teach and
school districts to hire and train them. TTT attracts more minorities and men into the
teaching profession than are traditionally represented, they have background in
understaffed subjects such as math and science, and are more willing to teach in
inner-city classrooms.
5. Recruiting and Training Principals. Most states and communities lack good strategies
for recruiting and preparing individuals with the knowledge and skills to provide the kind of
leadership and management schools need right now. We could propose a competitive
demonstration program to provide focus, leadership and effective models for the field. This
would not be a big-ticket item.
9
6. Urban/Rural Initiative. This could take two forms. One would be some version of
Education Opportunity Zones--a competitive grants program that rewards performance and
requires accountability. A second would be to create local performance partnerships, in
which local communities agree to create schools that are safe, have high standards and
qualified teachers, after-school programs, tutors and other forms of extra help for kids,
technology, etc. The districts would be responsible for creating schools with these
opportunities, and would be accountable for improving achievement across the board
(perhaps as measured against national standards). In return, the districts would (1) be able to
combine funds from relevant ED and other programs, so they can figure out the best way to
provide the learning opportunities; (2) get extra funding over and above the funding from the
existing categorical programs; and (3) gain or lose additional funding based on performance
(with some floor established to minimize the risk for districts).
7. Choice Demonstration Program. Establish a demonstration program to challenge states
and school districts/cities to expand the range of high quality schools students and families
can choose among, thereby enabling students in low performing schools to move to better
ones. A variety of approaches should be encouraged, including:
Community College Enrollment. High school students should be permitted to
enroll in community colleges, for high school level or college level courses. This step
could provide inner city students with access to more qualified teachers, because most
community colleges have faculty with subject matter expertise (whereas urban high
schools often have teachers teaching out of field). It could also help boost minority
enrollment in college. [see if this can build on existing tech-prep programs, or other
articulation agreements.]
Contract School System. Transform urban school systems from bureaucracies
which operate large numbers of schools into systems in which the local governing
body contracts out the operation of each school--to teachers, nonprofits, school
management firms, etc. In effect every school becomes a charter school, with a
distinct mission, control over its own staffing and budget, and accountable for results.
The local school board is responsible for selecting the schools, identifying new types
of schools that might be needed and soliciting proposals to operate the school,
monitoring the performance of each school and holding it accountable. Under this
approach, all schools would eventually be schools of choice. [see Paul Hill's work for
background on this]
Schools located at large employers. Encourage large employers to provide
facilities on site for schools for children of their own employees, while the school
district provides the teachers, curriculum, instructional materials, etc. Dade County's
Satellite Learning Centers provide the model for this approach. Dade's experience
shows that these schools can (1) be more diverse than other schools, because work
10
sites are more diverse than residential neighborhoods (2) save the school districts the
cost of new facilities (3) save employers costs associated with employee turnover and
(4) increase parental involvement in the schools.
Expanding choice through smaller, schools-within-schools. Transform large,
impersonal schools into smaller schools-within-schools that would dramatically
expand choices within public education for families without requiring students to
leave their neighborhoods. Many parents want more choice in education but don't
want to send their children to school far from home. This proposal would address
that need and enable many more students to get the personalized learning attention
that so many families want; it also may reduce discipline and violence problems. A
grants program could support networks of schools or school districts to plan and
implement this concept and provide information and counseling to help students and
their families make good choices. This proposal could be linked or combined with
the "contract" schools concept by creating a competitive process to award contracts to
manage each school-within-a-school to teachers, non-profits, charter schools, etc.
8. English Language Acquisition. As part of the planned overhaul of the Bilingual
Education Program, we should consider a number of initiatives:
Make every LEP child competent in English within 3 years of obtaining
services. English language competency is the key to success in schooling and the
economy. ESL and similar services should be made universally available to all
students who need them. Federal funding can provide matching grants to States to do
this. The requirement--including funding and accountability--for serving LEP kids
and helping them become competent in English within 3 years should be built into the
Title 1 program. Other programs, such as after-school and technology, should also be
designed so that in schools with significant numbers of LEP kids, they are also
focused on helping kids learn English within 3 years.
Support English Plus. In addition to ensuring that all LEP students learn English,
we should promote foreign language learning, starting in the early grades, for
student's whose native language is English. The objective is to dramatically increase
the number of students who leave school fluent in two or more languages, regardless
of their native language.
Support demonstrations of, and if effective greatly expand "Newcomer High
Schools" for recently arrived immigrant students. Many school districts are
facing an increasing number of secondary immigrant students who have low level
English or native language skills, and in many cases, have had limited formal
education in their native countries. In order to prevent these students from dropping
out (and these children are a significant factor in the 40% Hispanic drop-out rate),
these students must learn English, take the required content courses and catch up to
11
their U.S. peers. Some district have developed Newcomer programs --either a
separate school or a school-within-a-school These programs typically educate
students for a limited period of time (most for less than two years) before enrolling
them in their home schools. Three such schools are 4-year high schools. The
programs reach beyond the students themselves, providing classes to orient parents to
the U.S. and 63% offer adult ESL classes. There are currently 75 such programs in
18 States and the Center for Applied Linguistics has sponsored an evaluation of their
effectiveness.
9. Quality pre-school education. We can propose an initiative to make quality pre-school
universally available, or at least universally available for poor kids. There should be two key
components to this. One is to provide a number of funding streams to pay for it. Head Start
should be the base, though we should also look at ways in which Title 1 could play a larger
role. Second, we should provide incentives to both preschools and school districts that
receive federal funds, to work together to help ensure that the preschools programs are
focused on helping kids get ready for school, by requiring the schools to reach out to
preschools and let them know what they expect kids to know and be able to do when they
come to kindergarten, and by giving the preschools the help they need to provide an
appropriate curriculum.
10. Federal Matching Funds for AP courses and for AP and SAT/ACT Preparation.
The President has made universal access to two years of higher education a priority, and has
created ways to alleviate the financial hurdles. A logical next step in improving the quality
of access is to make all students more competitive by closing the gaps in advanced course
availability as well as SAT and ACT test scores. The Federal government could establish
funding matching mechanisms to encourage states to improve access to AP courses and
preparation for AP tests in low-income schools; in areas where AP courses are not available,
funds could be used for partnerships with community colleges that offer similar courses.
Similarly, matched funds could be used to do one of a number of things for SAT/ACT
preparation: pay for low-income youth to attend prep courses (e.g., Kaplan; Princeton
Review); fund poor school districts to set up their own test prep programs; as in America
Reads, waive the federal match for Work Study students who help prepare disadvantaged
students for the tests.
11. "High Hopes" for Adults. While the President has made enormous progress in making
available resources for higher education for people of all ages, the primary focus of
Administration informational campaigns and initiatives like High Hopes have been to
encourage young people to go to college. A new initiative could combine two efforts. First,
the Administration could launch an informational campaign encouraging adults to go back to
school and inform them of new resources available to help, including Lifetime Learning and
Hope Scholarship Tax Credits, Individual Training Accounts under the new Workforce
Investment Act, and Pell Grants (which apparently few realize can be used for part-time
students). Second, a new "High Hopes" grants program targeted at adults, partly focused on
12
encouraging minorities and women to go back to school, could support local partnerships of
business, community colleges, labor unions, one-stop centers and others to provide the
information and counseling needed to encourage and assist adults to enroll in courses and
programs that will help them succeed in their local job market.
12. Encourage High Schools to Offer/Require Service Learning. We should consider
expanding the service learning initiative (Learn and Serve) to encourage more school districts
to incorporate service into their education programs. The service learning program could be
expanded to provide a stronger infrastructure, e.g., service coordinators for high schools, in
order to make the service experience both more rewarding and educational for students.
HEALTH
1. Long-Term Care and Medicare Reforms for Elderly, Disabled and Their Families.
Long-term care tax credit. Along with the lack of coverage of prescription drugs,
the poor coverage of long-term care represents a major cost burden for the elderly and
their families. Long-term care costs account for nearly half of all out-of-pocket health
expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries. This proposal would give people with two
or more limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) or their care givers a tax credit
of $500 (or more, if affordable) to help pay for formal or informal long-term care.
This initiative would be coupled with other long-term care policies (e.g., offering
private long-term care insurance offering to Federal employees). (Cost: About $4
billion over 5 years, offset by closing some tax loopholes, and would help about 3.4
million people).
Offering private long-term care insurance to Federal employees. Since
expanding Federal programs alone cannot address the next century's long-term care
needs, the Federal government --as the nation's largest employer --could illustrate that
a model employer should promote high-quality private long-term care insurance
policies to its employees. Under this proposal, OPM would offer its employees the
choice of buying differing types of high quality policies and use its market leverage to
extract better prices for these policies. There would be no Federal contribution for
this coverage. (Cost: Small administrative costs; OPM estimates about 300,000
participants).
Tax credit for work-related impairment expenses for people with disabilities.
Almost 75 percent of people with significant disabilities are unemployed; many of
those within the population cite the cost of employment support services/devices, as
well as the potential to lose Medicaid or Medicare coverage, as the primary barriers to
seeking and keeping employment. This proposal, strongly advocated by your Task
Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities, would give a 50 percent tax credit,
13
up to $5,000, for impairment-related work expenses. It could be a stand alone
proposal in the budget or packaged as a long-term care initiative if we decide to defer
announcing the long-term care tax credit. (Cost: About $500 million over 5 years,
offset by closing tax loopholes, and would help about 300,000 people).
New Family Care giver "One-Stop-Shop" Support Program. About 50 million
people provide some type of long-term care to family and friends. Families who have
a relative who develops long-term care needs often do not know how to provide such
care and where to turn for help. This proposal would give grants from the
Administration on Aging to states to provide for a "one-stop-shop" access point to
assist families who care for elderly relatives with 2 or more ADL limitations and/or
severe cognitive impairment. This assistance would include providing information,
counseling, training and arranging for respite services for caregivers. (Cost: About
$500 -750 million over 5 years).
Adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare (new policy). The lack of
coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare is widely believed to be its most glaring
shortcoming. Recognizing the medical community's reliance on prescriptions for the
provision of much of the care provided to Americans, virtually every private health
plan for the under-65 population has a drug benefit. Medicare's lack of coverage is
largely responsible for the fact that drug costs are the highest out-of-pocket cost for
three out of four elderly. This burden will only become more acute in the next century
as the vast majority of advances in health care interventions will be
pharmacologically-based. Responding to this fact, Republicans and Democrats on the
Medicare Commission, as well as almost every health care policy expert, are
consistently stating that reforming Medicare without addressing the prescription drug
coverage issue would be a mistake. We are developing a wide variety of options,
including a means-tested option, a managed care benefit only approach, and a
traditional benefit for all beneficiaries. If desirable, a proposal could be included in
the budget or coordinated with the March release of the Medicare Commission's
recommendations. (Cost: Varies significantly depending on proposal, but could be $1
-20 billion a year; assumed offset would be Medicare savings, which might more
easily be achieved in context of a broader reform proposal).
Cancer clinical trials demonstration (FY 1999 budget; not passed). Less than
three percent of cancer patients participate in clinical trials. Moreover, Americans
over the age of 65 make up half of all cancer patients, and are 10 times more likely to
get cancer than younger Americans. This proposed three-year demonstration,
extremely popular with the cancer patient advocacy community, would cover the
patient care costs associated with certain high-quality clinical trials. (Cost: $750
million over 3 years).
Redesigning and increasing enrollment in Medicare's premium assistance
14
program (extension of July executive action and new policy). Over 3 million
low-income Medicare beneficiaries are eligible but do not receive Medicaid coverage
of their Medicare premiums and cost sharing. Many more may not get enough
assistance through the new, BBA provision that is supposed to help higher income
beneficiaries. We are developing a range of proposals that build on the President's
actions in this area to better utilize Social Security Offices to educate beneficiaries
about this program, to reduce administrative complexity for states and to give them
incentives to engage in more aggressive outreach efforts. (Costs vary depending on
policies; probably about $500 million to $2 billion over 5 years).
2. Health Insurance Coverage Expansions.
Providing new coverage options for people ages 55 to 65 (FY 1999 budget; not
passed). Americans ages 55 to 65 have a greater risk of becoming sick; have a
weakened connection to work-based health insurance, and face high premiums in the
individual insurance market. This three-part initiative would: (1) allow Americans
ages 62 to 65 to buy into Medicare, through a premium designed so that this policy
is self-financed; (2) offer a similar Medicare buy-in to displaced workers ages 55 and
over who have involuntarily lost their jobs and health care coverage; and (3) give
retirees 55 and over whose retiree health benefits have been ended access to their
former employers' health insurance. A proposal such as this would be minimally
necessary for any serious consideration of proposals to raise Medicare's eligibility
age. (Cost: About $1.5 billion over 5 years, which would assist about 300,000
people).
Health coverage for the temporarily unemployed (FY 1997 and 1998 budgets;
not passed). Because most health insurance is employment based, job changes put
families at risk of losing their health care coverage. Many families do not have access
to affordable health insurance when they are between jobs because they work for
firms that do not offer continuation coverage or cannot afford individual insurance.
The proposal would provide temporary premium assistance for up to six months for
workers between jobs who previously had health insurance through their employer,
are in between jobs, and may not be able to pay the full cost of coverage on their own.
(Costs depend on whether it is done as a demo (about $2.5 billion over 5 years, which
would help about 600,000 people) or nationwide (about $10 billion over 5 years,
which would cover about 1.4 million persons)).
Children's health insurance outreach (FY 1999 budget; not passed and new
policy). By the first anniversary of CHIP, we expect about 45 states to have CHIP
plans approved. These new expansions have great potential to help uninsured
children, but not if families do not know or understand the need for insurance.
Moreover, over 4 million uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid today. Last
year's budget included several policies to promote outreach, including allowing states
15
to temporarily enrolling uninsured children in Medicaid through child care referral
centers, schools, etc; and allowing States to access extra Federal funds for children's
outreach campaigns. An additional proposal is to pay for a nationwide toll-free
number that connects families with state eligibility workers. NGA is sponsoring this
line for one year only; such a line is essential for the nationwide media campaign that
we are planning to launch in January with the NGA and America's Promise (Colin
Powell's group). (Cost: Between $400 and $1 billion over 5 years.)
Parents of children on CHIP (new policy). Since children who are uninsured
usually have parents who are uninsured, an easy way to target uninsured adults is to
extend eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP to parents of children covered by these
programs. This has been done successfully in some states, through Medicaid 1115
waivers, and would be a logical next step to covering low-income adults. (Cost:
Depends on the proposal and assumed take-up rates by the states).
Optional state coverage expansion through eligibility simplification (new
policy). In the wake of welfare reform, Medicaid eligibility rules have become even
more complex since states must cover people who would have been eligible for
AFDC under the old rules. Additionally, Medicaid law allows states to cover parents
but not adults without children --even if they are very poor. This proposal would
allow states to opt for a pure poverty standard for Medicaid eligibility for all people
(like we do for children) rather than the old categorical eligibility categories. Not
only would such an approach simplify the Medicaid program for families and states;
it would provide an opportunity for significant coverage expansion. While any
change in Medicaid almost always raises concerns amongst some advocates, this
proposal would be strongly supported by the Governors and advocates such as the
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. (Cost: Depends on the proposal and
projected coverage expansion take-up rates).
Voluntary purchasing cooperatives (FY 1997, 1998, and 1999 budgets; not
passed). Workers in small firms are most likely to be uninsured; over a quarter of
workers in firms with fewer than 10 employees lack health insurance -almost twice
the nationwide average. This results in large part because administrative costs are
higher and that small businesses pay more for the same benefits as larger firms. This
proposal would provide seed money for states to establish voluntary purchasing
cooperatives. These cooperatives would allow small employers to pool their
purchasing power to try to negotiate better rates for their employees. (Cost: about
$100 million over 5 years).
3. Increase the Indian Health Service budget. In order to reach more of the targeted
population, we should provide a significant increase to the IHS budget in order to address
areas such as substance abuse, elder health care, injury prevention, domestic violence and
child abuse, and sanitation facilities.
16
HOMELESS
1. Homeless Veterans. The National Coalition of Homeless Veterans estimates that there are
as many as 275,000 homeless veterans on any given night. According to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, an approximately $60 million increase in funding would constitute the
single largest investment into breaking the cycle of homelessness among veterans. This
proposal would seek to increase residential alternatives, community-based contracted care,
job preparation activities, stand down activities (community-sponsored events that conduct
one-stop service delivery programs for homeless veterans), the distribution of clothing, and
long-term housing. The VA estimates that this proposal would positively impact
approximately 100,000 to 150,000 veterans annually.
2. Allow VA to sell surplus property with 10 percent of proceeds going to homeless
veterans. OMB proposes to amend the Property Act of 1949 to create a 5-year pilot project
for the VA to sell off property with 10 percent of the proceeds going to local homelessness
projects under the McKinney Act (with this 10 percent being earmarked for homeless
veterans) and the other 90 percent going to the VA for capital funds (buildings, equipment,
infrastructure, but not staff). Currently, the way the law works is that all the proceeds from
surplus property goes to homelessness, but this has not provided an incentive to the agencies
to sell property because they do not get to keep any of the proceeds. OMB states that since
1989, only one piece of property has been sold under this provision. OMB will be
circulating their proposal within a couple of weeks. OMB would propose to permit VA to
sell 25 pieces of property, but does not have a cost estimate yet.
3. Homelessness Demonstration Project Modeled after TANF. Funds could be set aside
in the FY2000 budget to create a demonstration project so that one state, region, or locality
could try to move persons from homelessness to self-sufficiency. The demonstration project
should set up performance goals similar to TANF so that there is a measure of how many
persons have been made self-sufficient. There could be a performance bonus for the
demonstration project if the goal of the project is met.
4. Medicaid Outreach Project for Homelessness. A Medicaid outreach project could be set
up, similar to the CHIP outreach project, that would reach out and cover homeless persons.
We should develop a cost estimate to determine that, over time, dollars would be saved if
persons are treated under Medicaid rather than on an as-needed basis in emergency rooms
and clinics. This idea could be expanded to reach out to more than simply the homeless
population to include all groups who are Medicaid-eligible.
TOBACCO
17
1. Tobacco Counteradvertising. Fund a $200 million per year tobacco counteradvertising and
education Campaign, as proposed in the President's 1999 budget and McCain legislation. This
campaign would develop counteradvertising and purchase enough media time to reach teens at
least four times a week. The campaign would also fund an extensive school-and
community-based anti-tobacco education campaign.
2. Industry Documents. As the result of the President's directive, we expect to receive a plan
from HHS in October outlining how to make tobacco industry documents more accessible to the
public. Follow up work will be needed to implement this plan. While we can probably secure
some private funding for this purpose, it is likely that federal funding will also be needed.
3. Tobacco Cessation. Each year, 20 million smokers attempt to quit, but only 1 million, or 5
percent, succeed. More than 90 percent smokers who attempt to quit do so on their own, and the
vast majority fail within 2 to 3 days. However, research shows that effective cessation methods
could raise success rates to 10-20 percent (over 2 million people annually). The Agency for
Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) endorsed 5 smoking cessation methods that have been
proven to be effective in helping people to quit: gum, patch, nasal spray, inhaler, and pill (Zyban).
A full course of these treatments costs around $200-300 (for a three months supply, without
counseling). However, less than half of managed care organizations provide coverage of any
AHCPR-approved therapies, and those that provide coverage may impose cost-sharing
requirements that hinder access to treatment. In fact, a study of managed care in Washington
State found that eliminating copayments for smoking cessation services significantly increased
participation rates.
These proposals to help current smokers quit could be coupled with our continued call for
comprehensive legislation to stop children from smoking before they start. Total combined cost
of all these initiatives: $855 million over 5 years. We could make a series of proposals, some part
of the budget and some not: (1) Fall --announce new DOD anti-tobacco plan, and new DOL and
OPM tobacco-free workplace programs; (2) Winter --propose Medicaid and Veterans coverage of
cessation benefits through FY2000 Budget; and (3) Spring --tax coverage of cessation as a
medical expense and expanded coverage of cessation benefits in FEHBP.
New Department of Defense anti-tobacco plan. This plan is still being vetted at the
agency but will likely include covering over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapies
under military health care coverage as part of a comprehensive military-wide anti-tobacco
plan. Cost: $60 million per year.
Anti-tobacco workplace initiatives by DOL and OPM. DOL could expand its
drug-free workplace initiative to provide information to employers on steps they can take
to reduce tobacco use among employees (cost: $63,000 per year). OPM could disseminate
a model workplace cessation program for all federal agencies (agencies would use existing
appropriated funds).
18
Medicaid coverage. Currently, smoking cessation prescription and non-prescription
drugs are optional state benefits under the Medicaid statute. We could propose to require
states to cover cessation, as the McCain bill did (CBO estimated cost: $120 million over 5
years, HCFA estimated $114 million). Alternatively, we could propose an enhanced
federal matching rate for smoking cessation treatments, in order to offer the states an
incentive to cover these services. The Hansen-Meehan bill establishes a 90 percent match
rate for state costs of smoking cessation services at an estimated cost of about $110
million over 5 years. Currently, 23 states cover Zyban, 6 states cover non-prescription
treatments, and 5 states cover cessation counseling. A study by the Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that over 42 percent of Medicaid
recipients smoke, as compared to 25 percent of the general population and that nearly 10
percent of all Medicaid hospital days are attributable to smoking.
Veterans. We should re-propose the plan from the President's 1999 budget which
created a new discretionary program open to all veterans who began using tobacco
products while in the service, regardless of their eligibility for other VA health care
services (currently less than 15 percent of veterans receive their health care through the
VA system because of statutory limits --veterans must be low income or have a
service-related injury.) The VA would contract with private sector entities to furnish
AHCPR-approved services to interested veterans. OMB estimates that this proposal
would cost $87 million for the first year, and $435 million over 5 years. Thirty-six
percent of the 25 million veterans in this country smoke.
Tax Treatment. Currently, the cost of cessation treatment cannot be claimed as a
deductible medical expense because the IRS does not recognize smoking or tobacco
addiction as a "disease." The IRS has indicated in written opinions that an official
medical authority classification of smoking as a disease would allow cessation to deduct
these expenses. Treasury is interested in pursuing this in 1999. This would be done
outside of the budget.
Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. We could require enhanced coverage of
smoking cessation services. One option is to raise coverage limits to more accurately
reflect the cost of AHCPR-approved treatments, and to raise the number of treatments
allowed per lifetime to account for the fact that the average smoker requires three to five
cessation attempts before they successfully quit (i.e., require coverage of $300-400 per
treatment, with three maximum treatments covered per lifetime). Another option is to
waive the deductible and copayment requirement for cessation benefits. Currently
FEHBP fee for service plans, which cover 70 percent of beneficiaries, are required to
provide only $100 in smoking cessation benefits. Generally, this coverage does not kick
in until after the calendar-year deductible has been met, and most plans restrict benefits to
once per lifetime. Many plans only cover prescription drugs. HMO coverage of smoking
cessation benefits varies greatly. This would be done outside of the budget, but would
have to occur in the spring as part of OPM's annual letter to contracting plans,
19
establishing the terms for the following year of coverage.
In addition to these efforts, any Medicare prescription proposal (see above) should include
coverage of prescription cessation agents.
4. Expanded SAMHSA Survey. As the result of the President's directive, HHS will be
including questions in their National Household Survey on Drug Abuse regarding brand-specific
use of tobacco. This will allow us to determine which brands are most popular among youth, and
help us identify which companies may be marketing to this population. Some federal funding
will be necessary to support this expanded effort.
WELFARE
1. Helping the Hardest-to-Employ Get and Keep Jobs.
Extend Welfare-to-Work Grants and Strengthen Focus on Fathers. Funding for the $3
billion grant program that the President fought for in the Balanced Budget Act ends in FY 1999.
These funds are targeted at the hardest-to-place welfare recipients, and non-custodial parents of
children on welfare, and at concentrated areas of poverty. 75% of the funds are allocated to
states, who in turn pass them to local Private Industry Councils and 25% of the funds are
available on a competitive basis. We expect DOL to propose extension of the grant program in
their FY 2000 budget proposal. We should consider revising the statutory language to increase
the focus on increasing employment of fathers. While there is a significant level of interest in
serving this population, there is likely more we could do to increase the quantity and quality of
services. This should also increase support from the Ways & Means committee as Shaw is very
interested in fatherhood issues. Possible approaches include requiring states and communities to
designate a minimum portion of WTW formula funds for fathers, setting aside a portion of
competitive grant funds for this purpose, or earmarking funds for needed technical assistance and
capacity building on this relatively new area. Other changes worth considering: shifting more
funds toward competitive grants, increasing tribal set aside (currently 1%), and streamlining data
collection requirements. Assuming level funding, this would cost $1.5 billion annually.
Request Additional Welfare-to-Work Housing Vouchers. We are unlikely to get the
full 50,000 housing vouchers requested for FY 99. This approach continues to have merit,
both in helping families move from welfare to work and as a catalyst for changing the way
local housing authorities, and HUD, do business. Cost to fully fund 50,000 vouchers is
$283 million. Some, including Deich and Edley, have also suggested allowing housing
authorities to convert Section 8 vouchers that are turning over to the more flexible
approach of the WTW vouchers.
Invest in Increasing English Language and other Literacy Skills. There is evidence
that those with low education levels have a harder time leaving welfare. There is also
emerging evidence that English language may be a barrier for some minority welfare
20
recipients, including immigrants. We may want to explore whether there is more the
federal government could do to increase access to ESL and other basic education that is
combined with work, though this does not necessarily have to be done with TANF funds.
We need to first explore what is available, whether there are successful models that can be
replicated, and what the demand is.
2. Helping New Workers Succeed in the Workforce/Achieve Self-Sufficiency.
There are several ways to ensure people moving from welfare to work can get to their jobs:
Request full $150 million authorized for Access to Jobs for FY 2000 (TEA-21 set
guaranteed funding from the Highway Trust Fund at $60 million for FY 2000). This
would allow DOT to fund more competitive grants. Note these funds can be spent on
current and former welfare recipients, as well as families up to 150% of poverty so they
help the working poor as well.
Donate surplus federal vehicles to welfare to work programs. These could be given,
leased, or sold to current and former welfare recipients for whom public transit it not a
viable option, including those living in rural areas. Cars could be allocated through
community-based organizations or intermediaries. This could be modeled after the
initiative to donate federal computers to schools.
Help former welfare recipients access funds to purchase cars. In some areas, public
transit is not a viable option for a family moving from welfare to work. In addition,
owning a car is something many poor families aspire to, and something that helps them
become part of the economic mainstream. Family Services of America, and other
organizations, currently offer revolving loans for low income families to purchase cars.
FSA's model currently operates in 20 sites and is scheduled to expand to 60 sites later this
Fall, with partial funding from foundations and private financial institutions. They are
also seeking federal funding to help with this expansion. Possible sources include: HUD,
Treasury, DOL WTW grants, as well as existing federal and state TANF funds. Another
option is to expand allowable uses of IDAs to include purchasing a car needed to go to
work.
Connection between TANF and Unemployment Insurance. There is growing interest
in exploring the relationship between these two systems. Historically, few welfare
recipients have qualified for UI, and some have essentially used AFDC as a form of
unemployment insurance. As more welfare recipients joining the labor force, we need to
consider the most appropriate way to provide income support to them between jobs.
Various approaches include: (a) changing rules of the UI system that make it hard for
former welfare recipients to qualify for UI once they go to work and in the event they lose
a job and (b) creative uses of federal TANF or state MOE funds to provide income support
to people in between jobs. Either approach should be accompanied by a strong effort to
promote job retention and rapid re-employment. This could be considered as part of a
21
more comprehensive UI reform initiative that NEC has been considering, but it would not
depend on that. NOTE: NGA has a grant to explore this issue and several states are trying
innovative approaches. While we do not have to frame the issue in terms of planning for
economic downturns, it seems prudent to address this issue earlier rather than later.
Optional State Coverage Expansion Through Eligibility Simplification (see Health
section).
Transitional Medicaid. Families can currently receive Transitional Medicaid for up to
12 months after leaving welfare, but only about 20 to 30 percent of eligible families are
enrolled. The program has many procedural hurdles that make it more difficult to access
than regular Medicaid coverage and the 12 months transitional period is too short for
many families. The budget could eliminate some of the current prescriptive reporting
requirements now in the law (that, for example, requires families to report earnings in the
fourth, seventh, and tenth months of coverage and divides the 12 months of coverage into
two 6 month segments with different co-pay and benefit rules) and allow states to provide
a full 12 months of coverage without regard to changes in family circumstances, similar to
the 12-month option for children that was adopted in the Balanced Budget Act. In
addition, the budget could provide states the option of extending transitional Medicaid to
24 or 36. These ideas need to be fully discussed, vetted, and costed out. The current
program reauthorization sunsets in 2001.
Extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Welfare-to-Work Tax Credits
(WOTC has already expired and WTW will expire in 1999).
DISABILITY POLICY
1. Expanding the Defense Department's "CAP" program. The Defense Department's
Computer Accommodations Program ("CAP") purchases equipment for DOD employees with
disabilities to allows them to keep working if they become disabled, or for new employees just
joining the workforce. By using a central $2 million fund for such purchases, individual offices
do not have to bear the cost within their own budgets, and are less likely to be deterred from
hiring a person with a disability. CAP is also able to get better prices on equipment through its
bulk purchases and expertise. It has a showroom to help employees try out appropriate adaptive
devices (CAP makes the decision on what equipment is purchased, not the employee). It has
provided over 9,000 accommodations since its inception in 1990. This program is a good
example of how employers and employees are taking advantage of new (and increasingly cheap)
technology, such as computers for the blind that talk and listen, and alternative computer
keyboards for people with dexterity problems, that allow people with disabilities to work.
Expanding the program has the strong support of the Administration's appointees with
disabilities, in particular for Tony Coelho, chair of the President's Committee on Employment of
People with Disabilities.
22
Defense has estimated that it would cost $8 million a year to expand CAP government-wide, but
this is likely overstated since CAP now serves the entire Defense Department for $2 million a
year. A more realistic range is $2 -5 million a year. While having DOD perform this service for
all federal employees is a bit unusual, they have a great deal of expertise at this task and they are
ready to take on the added responsibility.
2. Tax Credit for Disability Related Expenses. [See "Health" section, above.]
3. New BRIDGE grant program. This program would provide incentives for state and local
agencies and private organizations to form interdisciplinary consortiums of service providers
(employment, health, transportation, etc.) to better assist people with disabilities in going to work.
NEC and DPC will receive revised proposal shortly from the President's Task Force on
Employment of People with Disabilities and will evaluate and vet. Estimated cost for this three-
year grant program is $150 million a year.
4. Information and Communication Technologies for People with Disabilities. NEC has
developed draft proposals now being vetted to ensure that new technologies will be designed from
the beginning to be accessible to people with disabilities. Ideas include leveraging federal
government procurement, investing in R&D, funding industry consortia, training the next
generation of engineers, etc. (Tom Kalil is working on this, coordinating with DPC and OMB).
NATIVE AMERICANS
1. Create Native American Program at the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps has a
modest $2 million proposal that would institutionalize Native American outreach within the
Army Corps. Here is the proposal:
Outreach ($1.5 million). Market engineering, environmental, economic, project
management, real estate, and resource management services to Tribes. Using existing
workforce of 150 cultural-historical-Tribal specialists for support, establish Tribal
Coordinators (1 per Corps of Engineers Division, 8 Divisions). Establish an Indian Desk in
Corps Headquarters to work with Tribes, BIA, Corps districts (37) and divisions (8), and
other federal agencies to leverage resources/programs.
Training ($250,000). Complete consultation guidelines. Complete Commander and
senior leader video on Tribal matters. Develop a strategy for empowering Tribes nthe
areas of regulatory and natural and cultural resource management.
Partnerships ($250,000). Explore watershed planning opportunities with Tribes. Link to
Clean Water Action Plan Activities. Develop model MOUs that can be used with Tribal
Governments on strategies, protocols, and processes for addressing issues.
23
CRIME AND DRUGS
1. Crime Bill II. While the 1994 Crime Act is set to expire at the end of FY 2000, we should get
ahead of the crime debate by including an outline of Crime Bill II in next year's budget that
emphasizes and builds on key Clinton crime initiatives. This includes: extending COPS;
establishing community-based prosecutors, courts, and corrections; promoting targeted deterrence
for guns, gangs, etc.; funding drug testing and treatment for all persons under criminal justice
supervision; reauthorizing VAWA; creating police youth academies; and other new crime
programs.
OMB has already built $4.8 billion into the base for continued crime funding over the next 5
years, but this only includes $400 million of the $1.4 billion we have been spending on COPS and
continued funding for other popular crime bill programs (i.e., VAWA, prisons, federal law
enforcement, etc.). Thus, to keep crime bill funding at its current level --and to allow us more
flexibility in proposing new programs --we will need $1 billion more in the FY 2000 budget.
2. Expansions of Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII). This year it looks as
though we will succeed in getting $28 million in funding for President's YCGII initiative to trace
all crime guns and hire more ATF agents to crackdown on gun traffickers in 27 cities. We should
follow-up in the FY 2000 budget by expanding the YCGII to all cities with populations of more
than 250,000. This would cost about another $35 million. NB: Currently, treasury is only
planning to propose adding another 10 cities in next year's budget..
3. Expand Values-Based Initiative. At a minimum, we should seek funds in FY 2000 to
continue the Administration's values-based crime prevention initiative in 16 cities --as well as to
expand it to another 20 to 30 cities. This would only take about $5 to $10 million annually and
could come from Crime Bill II funds if necessary. More importantly, however, we should
propose changes to existing crime prevention and drug treatment programs to ensure that
faith-based organizations are allowed to participate --and that common sense values are included.
4. Drug Treatment Parity. A long overdue policy change that we should consider embracing in
this year's budget is to require health insurers to guarantee some type of meaningful substance
abuse coverage --much akin to what the Administration supported for mental health benefits.
5. School Shooting Response Fund. In our recent meeting with the communities impacted by
multiple school shootings, one of the key recommendations made by all of the local leaders was
that the federal government should establish an emergency fund that would allow communities
that are overwhelmed by multiple victimizations to have the resources they need to facilitate the
short-and long-term response. This includes year-long support for increased security and
enforcement, investigations, media response, additional counselors, and other such costs.
CONSUMERS
24
1. Consumer Bill of Rights. A consumer bill of rights could address a number of areas such as
enforcement, notice to consumers, and dissemination of information. We could announce this
bill of rights as a package, but then pull out separate pieces for separate events like we do in the
Patients' Bill of Rights area. We could include a number of different areas such as the following:
Auto Insurance Fraud. Auto insurance fraud is a $13 billion-a-year problem in
America. We could propose significant funding for a Justice Department anti-auto
insurance fraud. Since an estimated 13 percent of auto-insurance premiums go to pay for
fraud, we could claim that this effort will help drive down auto-insurance premiums.
Slamming/Cramming. Cramming, in which con artists add bogus charges to
consumers' telephone bills, and slamming, the unwanted switching of long-distance
telephone service from one carrier to another, and are the top two respective complaints
reported to the National Fraud Information Center in 1998. In 1997, the FCC received
more than 20,000 complaints from customers who were slammed. So far, the FCC has
fined slammers, announcing a $5.7 million fine this year, and announced voluntary
guidelines for cramming that local telephone companies say they will follow. We could
add money for enforcement to the FCC and/or DOJ. In May, the Senate overwhelming
passed legislation that would impose new penalties on slammers and would eliminate
common slamming methods, such as contest entry forms that, when signed by
unsuspecting customers, authorize a switch of their long-distance carriers.
Telemarketing Fraud. Telemarketing fraud is among America's worst white-collar
crimes, robbing unsuspecting victims of an estimated $40 billion per year. We could
increase the FBI budget to increase investigations of this type of fraud. Recently, the
Washington Post reported that volunteers from the American Association of Retired
Persons (AARP) work undercover for the FBI, posing as potential victims to catch
telemarketers on the prowl. Because telemarketing fraud often is targeted against the
elderly, we could combine this piece with the elder abuse in a separate event.
ATM Proposal. Weinstein proposes that Treasury publish an annual report on
consumer financial issues, including ATM fees. In each report, Treasury would provide a
list of insured financial institutions based on geographic divisions and by size. Treasury
would report on the following categories: (1) Fees charged to depositors at ATMs at their
home branches; (2) Fees charged by institutions to depositors using other banks ATMs;
(3) Fees charged by ATM networks; (4) ATM fees charged to non-member depositors by
institutions; (5) Minimum deposit requirements for checking and savings accounts; (6)
Fees for overdrafts; and (7) Checking account fees. We will need to develop categories
which underscore the differences in types of accounts. If we just list checking account
fees, the fees that aren't reported would increase.
25
JAN 28 '98 13:35 FR SEN HATCH
202 224 6331 TO 94565542
P.03/04
Summary of the "Caring for Children Act"
Sponsored by Senators Chafee, Hatch, Snowe,
Roberts and Specter
1.
Provide additional tax relief to families to increase the affordability of child care,
and make it more feasible for a parent to stay at home to care for a child:
a) Amend the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) to --
i)
raise the income level to $30,000 at which families become eligible for the
maximum tax credit.
ii) raise the maximum percentage that parents can deduct of their child care
expenses to 50 percent.
iii) reduce credit by 1% for each $1,500 earned over $30,000, phasing out
credit at $105,000.
b) Extend eligibility of DCTC to families with a stay-at-home parent by
presuming that a stay-at-home parent has minimum child care expenses of $150
per month;apply other rules as outlined in (a). This will apply to stay-at-home
parents with children age 3 or under.
Example: If one parent earns $30,000, and the other parent stays at home
for one year to care for the child, they would be eligible for the following
credit: (50%) X ($150/month) X (12 months) = $900.
c) Promote greater availability of the Dependent Care Assistance Program
(DCAP) for families with children by authorizing $1 million annually for four
years for the Department of Labor to conduct outreach to businesses to promote
awareness of the DCAP program.
d) Provide 20% tax credit of expenses up to $500,000 for employers who
construct, renovate or operate on- or near-site facilities for child care for their
employees (for a maximum credit of $100,000).
2.
Increase the Supply of Quality Child Care:
a) Authorize $50 million per year to increase parents' access to information and
to provide technological assistance to child care providers and workers to
improve the quality of child care. These funds could be used by HHS for the
following purposes:
i) to collect and disseminate state-of-the art information on topics
related to child care health and safety, as well as early childhood development.
This information could be distributed through brochures, the Internet, a toll-free
information hotline, resource and referral organizations, etc.
JAN 28 '98 13:35 FR SEN HATCH
202 224 6331 TO 94565542
P.04/04
ii) for grants to organizations to develop and operate a technology-based child
care training infrastructure to enable child care providers to receive the training,
education and support they need to improve the quality of child care.
b) Require states to beef up inspections and enforce existing state health and
safety standards through a carrot/stick approach. States that inspect a certain
percentage of the facilities they are required to inspect under state law would
receive a 10% boost in their Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)
funding. Starting in the second year, states that fail to meet a minimum threshold
level of inspections would receive a 10% penalty, according to the following
timetable:
Year
To qualify for 10% bonus,
10% penalty would apply for
must have inspection rate of
states with inspection rates
at least:
under:
FY1999:
75%
FY2000:
80%
50%
FY2001:
100%
75 %
c) Double the authorization for the CCDBG (this would amount to an additional
$5 billion in discretionary funding over 5 years, but would be phased in over time
to keep pace with growing state capacity).
d) Encourage small businesses to develop child care programs for their
employees through the creation of small business child care grant program. This
demonstration project would authorizes $60 million over 3 years in competitive
grants to be administered by the states.
e) Require federal child care facilities to comply with state health and safety
standards.
f) Commission a GAO study to determine the extent to which liability concerns
hinders the availability of child care. The report could examine whether fears
regarding potential liability exposure deter: employers from establishing on or
near-site child care for their employees; schools or community centers from
allowing their facilities to be used for on-site child care; and individuals from
providing child care services in their homes. The GAO would have 6 months to
report to Congress.
2
**
TOTAL PAGE. 04 **
3PERS.MEM
yours
Page 1
Children/and Families : Supporting
NICOLE?
children und Families, particular attn to
struggle to balance work cond Family
- child cave, and early childhood
development and after-school
February 28, 1997
- supporting programs parents who chose to
stay out of the workforce to
MEMORANDUM FOR ERSKINE BOWLES
lave for children
FROM:
BRUCE REED
- child westare and adoption
SUBJECT:
DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The central mission of the Domestic Policy Council is to advance the
President's domestic agenda. The following memo outlines our goals and
objectives in carrying out the domestic priorities that the President set forward in
this year's State of the Union.
OVERALL GOAL: Education. Develop and implement, in concert with other White
House offices and the Department of Education, a strategy to carry out the
President's 10-point plan.
GOAL: Education. Develop and implement policies to achieve high educational
standards nationwide and improved student performance to meet those standards.
Objectives:
-Work with Education Department to persuade twenty-plus states this year to
agree to administer the President's national tests in 1999.
-Build support in the parent, business, and education communities for the
President's testing initiative.
-Work to improve the quality of teaching by promoting the work of the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; encouraging states and
local school districts to adopt policies to place a master teacher in every
school; and highlighting successful efforts at the state and local level.
-Continue efforts, in coordination with America Reads, to recruit 100,000
college students to be reading tutors, expand the Department of Education's
summer reading initiative, and promote proven approaches to reading
instruction.
-Work to increase the number of states with charter schools legislation.
GOAL: Education. Work toward passage of legislation and appropriations to
implement the President's education agenda.
Objectives:
-Introduce legislation on school construction, America Reads, and HOPE
3PERS.MEM
Page 2
scholarships and related tax proposals; identify bipartisan support for each
proposal.
-Assist in mobilizing constituencies for these proposals, such as securing an
endorsement letter from hundreds of college Presidents.
-Assist in developing and implementing a communications strategy showing
how each legislative proposal will improve the lives of students, families, and
communities.
GOAL: Welfare. Develop policies that will assist in moving people from welfare to
work.
Objectives:
-Work toward enactment of a $3 billion fund to help states and cities find
and create jobs for welfare recipients and enhanced tax credits to encourage
companies to hire them.
-Assist in conducting an extensive outreach campaign asking companies,
nonprofits, the faith community, and government agencies to hire welfare
recipients.
-Oversee implementation of the new welfare law to ensure that the
Administration does everything in its power, through executive action and
guidance, to help states move people from welfare to work.
GOAL: Welfare. Develop and implement policies to ensure that welfare reform
promotes family and responsibility.
Objectives:
-Fulfill the President's commitment to restore certain budget cuts, involving
legal immigrants and food stamps, included in the welfare law but unrelated
to welfare reform.
-Work with HHS in assisting states to ensure strict enforcement of child
support rules.
-Develop and implement new teenage pregnancy prevention and statutory
rape initiatives.
GOAL: Crime. Enact the President's Anti-Gang & Youth Violence Act of 1997.
Objectives:
-Organize events highlighting main provisions in President's legislation --
involving, for example, handgun safety locks, anti-gang prosecutors, and
after-school programs.
-Draft directives, executive orders, and letters in furtherance of the bill's
objectives.
-Lead working group meetings with bipartisan Congressional delegation and
Administration officials to ensure enactment of President's main priorities.
3PERS.MEM
Page 3
GOAL: Drugs. Promote and secure full funding for the President's 1997 Drug
Control Strategy.
Objectives:
-Work closely with ONDCP on National Anti-Drug Media Campaign and
organize Presidential event to kick off anti-drug advertisements.
-Work to ensure full funding for President's drug strategy in appropriations
process.
GOAL: Health Care. Work toward achieving bipartisan consensus on and
enactment of Medicare, Medicaid, health coverage, and quality reforms.
Objectives:
- Continue close coordination of policy development and strategy with HHS,
Treasury, Labor and all relevant divisions within the White House.
-Identify opportunities for executive actions that further the President's
health care agenda, particularly in relation to quality and coverage initiatives.
-Develop collaborative relationships with Congress and the governors to
promote our health care agenda.
-Work with representatives of consumers, providers, insurers / health plans,
business, and labor, as well as academics, health economists, and
foundations to disseminate and validate the President's positions on health
care.
-Refine and implement communications strategy to highlight the President's
accomplishments, educate the public on current proposals, and generate
support for legislative and executive initiatives.
GOAL: 0-3 Initiative. Promote efforts to enhance development in the earliest years
of life.
Objectives:
-Engage in a broad-based review of policy affecting our youngest children
and develop new initiatives, involving both executive and legislative action,
to support these children.
-Organize, in coordination with other White House offices, a White House
Conference on early learning that will examine current scientific research and
its practical applications for parenting; explore how different sectors of
society can support our youngest children; and highlight Administration
accomplishments and initiatives.
GOAL: Service. Work with other offices in the White House to ensure that the
Presidents' Service Summit advances the goals of service and voluntarism, while
enhancing the AmeriCorps program.
3PERS MEM
Page 4
Objectives:
-Work with other White House offices to ensure that we participate in all
important decisions about the structure and content of the Summit.
-Develop events highlighting service and voluntarism to prepare the way for
the Summit.
-Develop policies and identify federal government "commitments" for the
President to announce in his speech at the Summit.
GOAL: Executive Action. Help the President use all the powers of his office to
advance his agenda, with or without help from Congress.
Objectives:
-Develop Executive Orders and Memoranda in the priority issues outlined
above, as well as in other important issues, such as consumer safety,
technology, family, and the environment.
-Vet proposals for executive action on domestic policy coming from agencies
and other White House offices to make sure that they advance the
President's long-term agenda.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 9-25-98 11:43AM ;
94569412:# 3
Statement by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
on the Introduction of the Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998
September 24, 1998
Mr. President:
I risc today to introduce the Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998, a bill
inspired by an extraordinary set of proposals by one of our nation's most eminent
social scientists, Professor James Q. Wilson. On December 4, 1997, I had the
honor of hearing Professor Wilson -- who is an old and dear friend -- deliver the
Francis Boyer Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The Boyer
Lecture is delivered at AEI's annual dinner by a thinker who has "made notable
intellectual or practical contributions to improved public policy and social welfare."
Previous Boyer lecturers have included Irving Kristol, Alan Greenspan, and Henry
Kissinger. In his lecture, Professor Wilson argued that "two nations" now exist
within the United States. He said:
In one nation, a child, raised by two parents, acquires an
education, a job, H spouse, and Я home kept separate from
orime and disorder by distance, fences, or guards. In the
94569412:# 4
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 9-25-98 :11:43AM ;
2
other nation, a child is raised by an unwed girl, lives in a
neighborhood filled with many sexual men but few
committed fathers, and finds gang life to be necessary for
self-protection and valuable for self-advancement.
Sadly, this is an all-too-accurate portrait of the American underclass, the
problems of which have been the focus of decades of unsuccessful welfare reform
and crime control efforts. We have tried a great many "solutions," as Professor
Wilson notes:
Congress has devised community action. built public
housing, created a Job Corps, distributed Food Stamps,
given federal funds to low-income schools, supported job
training, and provided cash grants to working families.
Yet still we are faced with two nations. Professor Wilson explains why:
"[t]he family problem lies at the heart of the emergence of two nations." He notes
that as our families become weaker -- as more and more American children are born
outside of marriage and raised by one, not two, parents -- the foundation of our
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 9-25-98 :11:44AM ;
94569412:# 5
3
society becomes weaker. And it grows increasingly difficult for government to
address the problems of that "second nation." Professor Wilson even quotes the
Senator from New York to this effect: "If you expect a government program. to
change families, you know more about government than I do."
Even so, Jim Wilson, quite characteristically, has fresh ideas about what
might help. On the basis of recent scholarly research, and common sense, he urged
in the Boyer Lecture that we refocus our attention on the vital period of early
childhood. I was so impressed with his Lecture that afterward I set about writing a
bill to put his recommendations into effect.
The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998 contains four key elements, all of
which are related to families. First, it supports "second chance" maternity homes for
unwed teenage mothers. These are group homes where young women would live
with their children under strict adult supervision and have the support necessary to
become productive members of society. The bill provides $45 million a year to
create such homes or expand existing ones.
Second, it promotes adoption. The bill expands the number of children in
foster care eligible for federal adoption incentives. Too many children drift in foster
care; we should do more to find them permanent homes. The bill also encourages
states to experiment with "per capita" approaches to finding these permanent homes
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 9-25-98 :11:44AM ;
94569412:# 6
4
for foster children, a strategy Kansas has used with success.
Third, it funds collaborative early childhood development programs. Recent
research has reminded us of the critical importance of the first few years of a child's
life. States would have great flexibility in the use of these funds; for example, the
money could be used for pre-school programs for poor children or home visits of
parents of young children. It provides $3.75 billion over five years for this purpose.
Finally, the legislation creates a new education assistance program to cnable
more parents to remain home with young children. A parent who temporarily leaves
the work force to raise a child would be eligible for an educational grant, similar to
the Pell Grant. to help the parent enter, or re-enter, the labor market with skills and
credentials necessary for success in today's economy once the child is older.
Mr. President, this bill is a'starting point. It is what Professor James Q.
Wilson and I believe just might make a difference. We would certainly welcome
the comments of others. And T would commend to the attention of Senators and
other interested persons the full text of Professor Wilson's lecture "Two Nations,"
which is available from my office or from the American Enterprise Institute. T ask
that a summary of the legislation be included in the Record.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 9-25-98 11:45AM ;
94569412: 7
The "Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998"
(Based on the 1997 Francis Boyer Lecture by Professor James Q. Wilson)
Brief Description of Provisions
Section 1. Short Title
This Act may be cited as the "Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998."
Section 2. Findings
The Congressional findings support the importance of families in society and social policy.
Title I - Assistance for Children
Section 101. "Sccond Chance Homes"
The bill would provide $45 million annually to establish or expand "second chance"
maternity homes for unwed teenage mothers. These are group homes where mothers live with
their children under adult supervision and strict rules while learning good parenting skills.
Section 102. Adoption Promotion
The bill would expand the number of "special needs" children in foster care for which
federal adoption subsidies are available. It "de-links" eligibility for these subsidies from the
income lovel of the foster child's biological parents. (Under current law, a foster child determined
to have special needs only qualifies for. federal adoption subsidy if the child's birth parents are
welfare-eligible.) The subsidies would help adoptive parents meet the particular emotional and
physical challenges of troubled children and so they can provide the children permanent homes.
In addition, last year's "Adoption and Safe Families Act" authorizes the Department of
Health and Human Services to grant child welfare demonstration waivers to ten states each year.
The bill would reserve three of each ten waivers to states wishing to test "per capita" approaches
to finding permanent homes for children in foster care, as Kansas has done. Under a per capita
approach, states or localities contract on a fixed sum basis with agencies to reunite foster children
with their biological families or place them with adoptive parents. Because the agency, typically a
non-profit social service agency, receives a fixed sum per child (rather than unlimited
reimbursement of costs) the agency may settle the child in a permanent home more quickly.
Section 103. Early Childhood Development
The bill provides $3.75 billion over five years for collaborative early childhood
development programs. Recent research has demonstrated the importance of the earliest years in
a child's life in the child's intellectual and emotional development. States could use the funds for
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 9-25-98 :11:45AM ;
94569412:# 8
home visiting programs, parenting education, high-quality child care, and preventive health
services. States would have great flexibility In deciding which services to provide.
Section II - "Parent Grants"
The bill would create a new education assistance program to provide grants to parents
who choose to remain at home with young children. The grants would allow parents to obtain the
training, or re-training, needed to prosper and advance careers after a period of time outside the
labor force. A oustodial parent with children under the age of six and no earned income, welfare,
or SSI receipt would be eligible to receive a benefit equivalent to the largest Pell Grant available
for that year (about $2,700 in FY 1998). The benefit -- to be called a "Parent Grant" -- could
only be used for expenses associated with post-secondary education or completion of high school.
Parents could accumulate grants (one for each year outside of the labor market) but would be
required to use the grant within 15 years of the year for which the grant was earned. Eligibility
would be subjected to income limits ($75,000/year maximum, subject to revision on the basis of
cost estimates). The program would be administered by the Education Department, in parallel
with Pell Grants and other financial aid programs.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
9-21-98
00
capied
THE WHITE HOUSE
Reed
WASHINGTON
Kagan
Cc Chris
COS
HAMA Mike
Strett
September 16, 1998
Aviasa Jose
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Jen
FROM:
Bruce Reed
Elena Kagan
Cynthic
Tom
SUBJECT:
DPC October Event Ideas
Paul
Health Care
Long-Term Care: If Democrats decide to introduce an alternative tax bill, we could do an event
(either before or concurrent with the Democratic unveiling) that highlights the President's long-
com us
term care initiative. The President's proposal would provide for a $500-$1,000 tax credit to
people with long-term care needs or their caregivers. It would cost about $5 billion over 5 years
and help about 2.2 million people. At the same time, the President could call for the Federal
Employees Health Benefit plan to offer long-term care insurance to federal employees. OPM
of
estimates that 300,000 people would buy these policies.
Work Incentives and Health Care for People with Disabilities: Within a week, we will know
mane
we
whether the Senate will vote on the Jeffords-Kennedy Work Incentives Improvement Act -- the
disability community's top health priority -- this year. If the bill does come to a vote, we could
do a strong event with the disability and AIDS communities emphasizing our involvement in
developing the bill and calling on the Senate to pass it. We also could announce the approval of
four states for the new "date certain" grant program. This initiative (long sought by the disability
community) gives states the ability to use Medicaid funds to offer a time-limited opportunity for
on
institutionalized disabled persons to return to their communities to receive the long-term care
services they need. The disabilities community views the program as an important step in
moving Medicaid away from its historic bias toward institutionalizing the chronically ill.
Children's Health: October is the first anniversary of the effective date of the Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and October 5 is Child Health Day. We could release the first
annual report on states' progress in implementing CHIP, which is expected to coincide with a
sufficient number of state approvals to cover 2.5 million kids. At this event, we would launch
phase one of our children's health outreach campaign with NGA, which includes new radio ads
in 10 states (set to begin October 1) targeted to parents of uninsured children eligible for CHIP or
Medicaid. We also are trying to get a commitment from Americorps to participate in signing
families up for Medicaid and CHIP on the local level.
Patients' Bill of Rights: We would like to do at least one more patients' bill of rights event,
preferably on the road, prior to the election. We might want to do a kind of wrap-up event, now
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
9-21-98
2
that we have just about finished applying the bill of rights to federal health plans, toting up
everything we have done by executive action (i.e., how many people covered) and comparing
it
to what Congress has accomplished (i.e., nothing). The AFL-CIO (per Jerry Shea) strongly
favors this event.
and
the
Cancer Event(s): In addition to the September 26 Cancer March (and the President's possible
involvement through a radio address), October is National Breast Cancer Awareness month. It is
also the fifth anniversary of the President's launching of the National Action Plan on Breast
Cancer. We have tentatively scheduled October 21 for an event with the First Lady to (1) release
a new report on the progress the Administration has made in the fight against breast cancer, and
any
(2) highlight a new information outreach and screening campaign focused on underserved
minorities. Because of the President's strong cancer record, as well as his desire to underscore
Q
our commitment to ending health disparities among races, the President might want to participate
comp
in this event.
LOGATA
Elder Abuse: See Crime section of this memo.
Education
good
to do chaiter Selvoda
September Grants: The Education Department will announce prior to September 30: (1)
technology grants ($30 million to 17 states); (2) charter school grants ($60 million to 20 states);
and show
(3) safe and drug free school grants ($5 million for model school partnerships and universities);
and (4) school-to-work grants ($40 million to urban and rural communities, which must be given
on September 30). We can try to combine as many of these grants as possible into a single event,
anyu
perhaps in Chicago.
Potential Bill Signings: (1) The Higher Education Act is virtually certain to pass this session,
though the timing is uncertain. It is likely to contain provisions to reduce student loan interest
rates, as well as programs based on our High Hones and Teacher Recruitment and Preparation
proposals. (2) Prospects for passing the charter schools legislation are decent, though hardly
guaranteed. (3) Ditto the prospects for passing an early literacy bill.
fasiur
Safe Schools Conference: On October 15, the President will host a White House Conference on
School Safety and take the following actions: (1) release the first annual report on school safety,
including school crime data, information on model safe schools, and recommended action steps
for parents and teachers; (2) unveil a proposal to reform the Safe and Drug Free Schools program
and call for additional funds in the FY 2000 budget; (3) announce a new FEMA-like program of
assistance for communities that have experienced school-related violence; (4) launch new
comprehensive school safety grants that will bring together disparate streams of funding from the
Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services; and (5) start a partnership
with MTV on school safety, which includes a year of PSAs.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
9-21-98
can do which
3
Crime
MLA?
September COPS Grants: The President could announce in late September $370 million in
grants to hire or redeploy 11,500 more police officers. This announcement would include $100
million for Los Angeles to hire 700 new police officers, $70 million for the rest of California to
hire 800 new officers, and $200 million for COPS MORE grants to allow police departments in
communities across the nation to redeploy more than 10,000 officers.
Elder Abuse and Fraud: The President could take several actions to combat elder abuse and
$ as 044 X2LL of
fraud, including: (1) releasing the preliminary findings of an HHS study on elder abuse; (2)
creating a new national center on elder abuse; (3) calling on Congress to reauthorize the Older
Americans' Act, which includes services to help older Americans at risk for abuse; (4) launching
a new partnership between the Justice Department and AARP to create Elder Fraud Prevention
Teams (EFPTs) in four cities (Miami, Phoenix, San Diego, and Seattle); (5) releasing roughly $3
million in Justice Department grants to combat fraud against the elderly (by September 30); and
(6) posting new information on telemarketing fraud on the Department of Justice Web site.
TOP COPS Legislation: The President could sign legislation to expand educational benefits for
the children of slain local law enforcement officers at the NAPO TOP COPS event on October 9,
assuming the legislation is passed in time. The President endorsed this proposal at last year's
My
TOP COPS event. The bill has passed the Senate and is waiting for a floor vote in the House.
1997 FBI Crime Statistics: Coinciding with the October 18 release of the final 1997 FBI
Uniform Report which will continue to show large decreases in crime the President could
give a major policy speech on how this Administration's efforts have helped to fuel the longest
a
sustained drop in violent crime in nearly 40 years. The speech would commemorate the fourth
anniversary of the landmark 1994 Crime Act; highlight the crime policies, including signature
initiatives such as COPS, that have helped to change the nation's approach to crime; and begin to
make the case for new crime proposals that will be included in the State of the Union and FY
2000 budget.
Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative: Anytime after October 23, the President could: (1)
release the second annual report on the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII), which
will provide new ATF data on guns used in crimes in 27 cities; (2) announce the availability of
new funds to hire new ATF agents to investigate gun trafficking in these 27 cities; and (3)
propose a dramatic expansion of this initiative in the FY 2000 budget to all major cities (i.e., the
65-70 cities with populations of 250,000 or more), which would cost about $30 million (pending
OMB's approval). Additionally, because we expect the YCGII report to make a strong case for
cracking down on "straw purchasers" and gun shows, we are considering whether the President
should announce his support for legislation requiring background checks for all secondary
market gun purchases.
LD
Issuin
good
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
9-21-98
4
Children and Families
Head Start Reauthorization Bill: The President should have the opportunity to sign a Head
Start Reauthorization bill this year. A bill signing could highlight the how the Administration
has (1) significantly increased Head Start participation; (2) dramatically improved program
Rod
quality; and (3) created Early Head Start for infants and toddlers.
Quality Child Care for Federal Employees Act: The President may get an opportunity to sign
the Quality Child Care for Federal Employees Act, which makes important improvements to
federally-sponsored child care by building on an executive memorandum that the President
issued in March 1998. (Congress, however, might add this measure to an appropriations bill.)
We could announce new CCDBG data (see just below) at this signing.
New Child Care Data. The President could announce new data of the number of children
served with child care assistance through the Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG). This data will point to the need for increased investment in the block grant; we
expect the data to indicate that we are serving approximately 1.8 million children of the 10
million eligible for assistance. This is the first data to examine the CCDBG created by welfare
reform in 1996 (when four child care assistance programs were consolidated).
CEO Roundtable Discussion on Work/Family Issues: The President could host a meeting of
CEOs to discuss "family-friendly" workplace practices that meet the needs of the nation's
changing workforce. The President could release a new CEA report, if it is ready, on Families
and the Changing Labor Market. Additionally, the President could signal support for the design
of a paid parental leave program (policy development process required). This meeting would
build on the work of the Treasury Child Care Working Group, run by Secretary Rubin.
Welfare
National Child Support Case Registry: HHS is almost ready to put in place a new national
database of child support cases, called a Federal Case Registry. This database will make it easier
to locate deadbeat parents, especially if they have moved to a different state; HHS will check the
Registry daily against an existing database of new employees; when it finds a match, it will
report the information to the state, which then will arrange to garnish the wages of the delinquent
parent. The registry was proposed by the President in 1994 and enacted as part of the 1996
welfare reform law. States will begin to submit their case data to HHS on October 1; HHS
expects to have 30 states in its system by the end of October and 40 states by the end of the year.
We could unveil the new registry anytime in October.
Work Participation Rates and Other Statistics: In late October, the President could visit a
welfare-to-work program and announce (1) new state work participation rates, showing that
almost all states are meeting the welfare law's single-parent requirements, but some are failing to
meet the law's separate two-parent requirement; (2) new caseload data showing continuing
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
9-21-98
5
declines; and (3) new data on the number of people who were on welfare in 1997 and working in
March 1998.
Tobacco
OSHA Rule: The President could sign an Executive Order directing OSHA to issue within one
year a standard establishing a smoke-free workplace for all private sector employees. OSHA has
been working since 1991 on a standard regulating all indoor air pollutants (including but not
limited to environmental tobacco smoke), but is years away from completing the standard,
principally because there is scanty scientific evidence to justify the regulation of certain non-ETS
pollutants. If the President ordered a separate standard only on ETS, OSHA believes it could
complete the work within a year. The resulting standard would be similar to the August 1997
Executive Order banning smoking in federal buildings.
Counteradvertising: In an event focusing on counteradvertising, the President could direct HHS
to: (1) designate the CDC's Media Campaign Resource Center as a National Clearinghouse on
Tobacco Counteradvertising; (2) collect and disseminate a package of the top-10 advertisements
for preventing youth smoking, and make these available to states and organizations for television
placement free of charge; and (3) make effective anti-tobacco curriculum available to every
school. Supermodel Christy Turlington and the musical group "Boyz II Men" have made PSAs
that would be among the top-10 package, and we could invite them to participate in the event.
Department of Defense Anti-Tobacco Plan: The President could help unveil the DOD's new
comprehensive anti-tobacco plan. This plan includes: health plan coverage of over-the-counter
nicotine replacement therapies; an extensive counteradvertising campaign; and the incorporation
of anti-tobacco messages into military education and training programs. The total cost is about
$60 million. The Secretary of Defense and/or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could join
the President.
Food Safety
may
Salmonella and Research: The President could announce a preliminary USDA study showing
that salmonella risks have declined by almost 50 percent in chicken and almost 40 percent in
swine, largely because of the HACCP program. At the same time, he could participate in a kind
of "show and tell" event demonstrating the importance of research to food safety, showing for
example how federal research has led to technologies dramatically reducing salmonella in
chicken and e-coli in cows.
Service
tal
Americorps 100,000th Member Event: CNS is planning national service events in Washington
and around the country on October 23 to celebrate the swearing-in of the 100,000th Americorp
member. At this event (or at some other time), the President also could announce: (1) new grants
6
to support 500-1000 Americorps Promise Fellowships to support the goals set at the Presidents'
Summit; (2) the recipients of the President's Service Awards, the nation's highest volunteer
service award; and (3) the recipients of the President's Student Service Awards.
Community Empowerment
Individual Development Accounts: The President may have an opportunity to sign a bill to
provide funds for IDAs, which the President has supported since 1992. At the bill signing, the
President could announce that he is sending a letter to the bank regulators asking that IDA
accounts count towards a financial institution's CRA requirements.
OCT.29.1998 12:41AM DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
NO.229
P.1/3
U.S. Department of Education
600 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202-0500
Phone (202) 401-3007
Fax (202) 401-9027
TO:
Jen Klein
FAX:
456-9412
PAGES (including cover page): 3
FROM:
Pauline Abernathy
Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary
RE:
Jen Attached per your request are some initial comments from staff on
the Moynihan proposal. They raise some design concerns, which could
likely be addressed, but also raise some more fundamental concerns. For
example, I think the higher education community and student groups
would raise extremely strong objections to giving middle class parents
large grants for education while denying them to others with lower
incomes and no children. The community is very concerned that so many
families have to take out very large loans for college either because Pell
Grants are not large enough or their incomes are above the Pell cut off
(generally $30 k).
This paper does not raise it, but we would also want to think how this
interacts with proposals for vouchers for private secondary education --
something the Secretary is very concerned about and Senator Moynihan
is not.
Sorry I don't have more positive feedback for you, but hope this is helpful.
Please let me know what you think.
OCT.29.1998 12:41AM
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
NO.229
P.2/3
Summary of the Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998
Senator Moynihan introduced the Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998 bill on September 24, 1998.
The bill would create a grant program for career development and retraining after a period of
child rearing. These grants could be used to pay the cost of attendance at institutions of higher
education or for expenses incurred in obtaining a secondary school diploma or recognized
equivalent.
TANF
or
Any custodial parent of a child under the age of six who has no earned income and is not
receiving Social Securitybenefits is eligible to receive a grant, if his or her yearly income is
$75,000 or less. For parents with incomes of $50,000 or less, the parent would receive a parent
grant equal to the maximum Pell Grant for each child under six. For parents with incomes
between $50,000 and $75,000, the parent would receive a parent grant equal to 1/2 of the
maximum Pell Grant for each child under six.
Parent grants would be disbursed in the same manner as Pell Grants, except that parents who use
parent grants to pay for expenses relating to secondary education would obtain the funds directly
from the federal government. Eligibility and administration of the parent grant program would be
quite different from the Pell Grant program,
Parent grants can be used anytime within 15 years after they are awarded. Multiple grants may be
used in the same year, and single grants may be used over multiple years. Parents may not earn
parent grants during years in which they use a parent grant.
Issues Raised by the Bill:
Parent grants are not well targeted. Providing these potentially large grants to families
with up to $75,000 of income makes little sense when funding for highly targeted Pell
Grants is limited.
The program would be difficult for the Department of Education to administer. The
program is fundamentally different from the Pell Grant program, because these grants
could be used for up to fifteen years. The Department is not in a good position to verify
whether parents stayed out of the workforce to take care of their children and what family
incomes were up to 15 years ago,
The program would be subject to abuse. It would be difficult to monitor use of funds up
to 15 years later, and it is not clear what happens if accumulated grants exceed total
education costs.
The program requires an appropriation, but nothing in the bill provides how grants would
be awarded if an appropriation is insufficient to cover the demand. Although we do not
have a cost estimate at this time, this program is potentially very expensive.
Parent grants would compensate parents heavily for the number of children they have,
OCT.29.1998 12:42AM
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
NO.229
P.3/3
rather than the amount of time that they are out of the workforce or their need for further
education to later obtain employment. For example, a parent of twins would receive a
parent grant that is twice as large as a parent of a single child who stayed out of the
workforce for the same amount of time.
There is no cap on the amount of a parent grant. Accordingly, parents of large families
could receive very large grants. For example, a parent of six children could receive 36
times the maximum Pell Grant award -- which is over $100,000.
Highly educated parents who do not need education or training to reenter the workforce
would be eligible for these grants.
Providing funding for secondary education is typically a state and local role. Providing
federal funds directly to students for this purpose may subject the Department to abuse of
the program -- it would be difficult for the Department to verify whether the student
actually incurred educational costs and whether the student actually enrolled in a
secondary program without school involvement.
Supporting Family-Friendly Benefits: Currently, businesses receive tax preferential treatment
for a variety of employee benefits they provide, including health care benefits (which the federal
government essentially subsidizes by roughly 30%). We propose granting similar tax
preferential treatment to family-friendly benefits, including flexible work hours, compressed
work weeks, part-time work with benefits, job sharing, career sequencing, and extended paid
parental leave, that are provided by employers. Such tax preferential treatment would be
conditioned upon policies that are open to all employees, regardless of the wage of the employee.
Such a tax credit would enable parents to spend more time with their children by providing
companies, both small and medium sized, the ability to respond to the time crunch families are
facing. In addition, it builds on our flex-time and family-leave proposals. Awaiting estimation
by Treasury of a variety of proposals (though each proposal would provide far less support than
the current tax treatment of health care and pension benefits).
Families Agenda for the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Over the last 30 years, there have been increasing pressures on the family --more dual-earner
couples, families working longer hours, all creating a squeeze that leaves parents with less and
less time with their children. At the very least, this time squeeze is a source of anxiety for
parents --at its worst, it places more children at risk. As part of the fiscal year 2000 budget, the
Clinton Administration can put forward an agenda that puts families first by helping parents as
they cope with this most important of all duties --raising their children.
Expansion of the Child Care and Development Block Grant. We propose to expand the
Child Care and Development Block Grant as previously proposed in the FY 1999 Budget. The
block grant is the primary federal child care subsidy program, helping low-income working
families struggling to pay for child care. Funds are distributed by formula to the states to operate
direct child care subsidy programs, as well as to improve the quality and availability of care.
Currently, over one million children are served by the program, leaving roughly nine million
children who are eligible but unserved. Cost: $7.5 billion over five years.
Expansion of the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. The Child and Dependent Care Tax
Credit provides tax relief for families who pay for the care of a child under 13 or a disabled
dependent or spouse in order to work. The credit is equal to a percentage of the taxpayer's
employment-related expenditures for child or dependent care, with the amount of the credit
depending on the taxpayer's income. As in the FY 1999 Budget, we propose increasing the
credit for families earning under $60,000, providing an additional average tax cut of $358 for
these families and eliminating income tax liability for almost all families with incomes below
200% of poverty ($35,000 for a family of four) who take the maximum allowable child care
expenses under the law. Cost: $5.1 billion over five years to expand the credit for three
million working families.
New Parent Paid Leave Plan. Many workers who have access to unpaid (whether through the
FMLA or employer-provided leave) are unable to take it because they simply cannot afford to do
so. To address this problem, the President could propose a New Parent Paid Leave Plan to
provide eligible parents with partial wage replacement for up to six or twelve weeks following
birth or adoption. The cost of the plan will vary considerably based on the selected eligibility
criteria. One option: all new parents with median income or below (roughly $37,000/yr) who
have been in the workforce for at least one year would be eligible for a $200/week partial wage
replacement for up to four weeks (weekly figure based on average UI benefit). Eligible workers
would be required to use the federal benefit immediately following birth or adoption and before
using any employer-provided leave benefit, but could receive the benefit whether or not they
ultimately returned to work. The program would be administered through the Unemployment
Insurance System. Cost of option: very roughly, $875 million for FY 2000 (including start-
up and administrative expenses). We will have more options and better costing next week.
FMLA Expansion to Businesses with 25 Workers. Since the Family and Medical Leave Act
was enacted in 1993, millions of Americans have taken FMLA-covered leave to care for a
newborn or adopted child, attend to their own serious health needs, or care for a seriously ill
parent, child or spouse -- without fear of losing their job or health insurance. Under current law,
workers are eligible for FMLA coverage only if they work at a business with 50 or more
employees and if they have worked at least twelve months and 1,250 hours for the employer.
(Today, about 67 million Americans -- over half of all workers -- are covered by the FMLA.
Senator Dodd proposed lowering the threshold to businesses with 25 or more employees, and
Senator Kennedy champions a proposal to lower the threshold to 10. While the President has
consistently referenced his support for expanding the FMLA benefit, the Administration has not
formally presented a proposal in this area. We recommend advancing a specific proposal to
lower the FMLA threshold to 25 or more workers, expanding coverage for up to ten million
more American workers. No budget implications.
Parent Education and Support Fund. The White House Conference on Early Childhood
Development and Learning spotlighted the critical importance of children's earliest years of life
to their development and later success in life. Parents play the central role in providing children
with developmentally appropriate stimulation and attention during these years. In addition,
studies have revealed the promise of home-visitation programs to reduce child abuse and support
children's development. We propose the creation of a competitive grant program administered
by HHS to fund parent education and support programs, including the development or expansion
of home visitation programs, efforts to educate and engage parents in child care and other efforts
to improve child care quality, and the establishment of "second chance maternity homes" to
support teen mothers and teach parenting skills. This fund would support programs such as
HIPPY, Parents as First Teachers, home visitation, and other parenting education programs.
Cost: $500 million over five years.
Tax Relief for Parents, Including Parents who Stay at Home. The following are a series of
proposals that would benefit families in which a parent stays at home (all estimates are rough and
preliminary). We are currently exploring a variety of iterations of each proposal, but will settle
on only one proposal. Also note that these proposals interact differently with an expanded Child
and Dependent Care Tax Credit, and therefore, the selection of one of these policies will be
informed by our decision on the DCTC. Options:
a. Expand the Child Tax Credit. The Child Tax Credit is currently $500 per child for children
under 17. We propose to double the credit to $1,000 per child for those children under the age of
three. The Child Tax Credit begins to phase out for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income
exceeds $110,000 each year ($75,000 if not married). Cost: Roughly $11 to $13 billion over 5
years. Another option is to double the credit for families with children under the age of two,
which would cost roughly $4 billion over five years.
b. Increase the Standard Deduction. Most lower-income families (incomes of less than $50,000)
do not itemize their deductions, choosing to take the standard deduction (and using the simpler
form) instead, while most higher income families choose to itemize. Therefore, a proposal to
expand the standard deduction for children would help lower-income families. In FY 2000, the
standard deduction will be roughly $7,400 for married couples, and $6,500 for heads of
households. We could increase the standard deduction by $1,500 for families with children for
each child under 4, regardless of the marital status of the parents, and would cover roughly 4
million taxpayers (three quarters of whom are married couples) and 4.4 million children. The
average benefit would be $223 per taxpayer. Cost: $3.7 billion over five years. We are
currently exploring a variety of other options, including a proposal to expand the standard
deduction by $2,000 per family.
c. Expand the DCTC. We could extend the benefits of our DCTC proposal to stay-at-home
parents with children age three and under, by applying the same eligibility guidelines and
assuming minimum child-care expenses of $150 per family per month. This proposal would also
phase out the credit for families with annual income over $105,000. Cost: A variant of this
proposal was estimated at roughly $13 billion over 5 years ($8 billion above our DCTC
proposal).
Expansion of After-School Programs. An estimated five million school-age children spend
time as "latchkey kids" without adult supervision during a typical week. Research indicates that
during these unsupervised hours children are more likely to engage in at-risk behavior, such as
crime, drugs, and alcohol use. To meet this pressing demand, the President can propose a
dramatic expansion of after-school care. Areas of expansion:
a. 21st Century Learning Centers:. The program increases the supply of after-school care in a
cost-effective manner primarily by funding programs that use public schools and their existing
resources, such as computers, gymnasiums, and sports equipment. We should build on the
success of our recent expansion of the program by increasing funding by $300 million this year.
Cost: $500 million for FY 2000.
b. Supporting community-based after-school programs. Because so many of the most effective
after-school programs are community based, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, we propose
expanding the Department of Justice's At-Risk Youth Initiative. We propose expanding the
program by $50 million, but targeting the funds for after-school initiatives by community-based
organizations. Cost: $250 million over five years.
c. Expanding AmeriCorps' support for after-school. An expanded AmeriCorps could increase
the availability of after school and summer programming for children and youth while providing
additional opportunities for young adults to earn money for college through service. AmeriCorps
Members serve with many of the major community-based organizations that provide after school
care (including YMCA, Save the Children, and Boys and Girls Clubs); many others serve in
public schools. We propose supporting a targeted initiative in which ten thousand AmeriCorps
Members would conduct a 10-week summer program involving up to 100,000 middle-school
children. Cost: Roughly $35 to $40 million per year, or a cost of $200 million over five
years.
Child Welfare: Children "Aging Out" of Foster Care. Each year, nearly 20,000 18-year-olds
"age out" of the public child welfare system. These young adults entered foster care due to abuse
and neglect, were unable to return to their birth families, and were not adopted. Federal financial
support for these young people ends just at the time they are making the critical transition to
support for these young people ends just at the time they are making the critical transition to
adulthood. Research shows that they face unstable housing and homelessness, low educational
achievement, depression, poor health, and violence and incarceration. When they turn 18, they
also very often find themselves with no health insurance, as Medicaid eligibility ends at age 18.
Areas for increased investment:
a. Expand the Independent Living Program. Administered by HHS, the Independent Living
Program provides services to foster care children aged 16 to 18 to help them (1) make the
transition to independence by earning a high school diploma; (2) receive vocational training; and
(3) learn daily living skills such as budgeting, locating housing, planning a career, and finding a
job. Begun in 1986, the program assists 85,000 young people and has been funded at $70
million since 1992. We recommend increasing the Independent Living Program by 50
percent -- to $105 million in FY 2000 and $525 over five years.
b. Expand the Transitional Living Program. The Transitional Living Program is an HHS-
administered, $15 million competitive grant program that funds community-based organizations
that provide services to this population, including housing support. We recommend doubling the
increasing to $30 million in FY 2000 and $75 million over five years.
c. Provide Medicaid Coverage. We recommend giving states the option of using Federal
Medicaid dollars to provide health care coverage for this population -- cost TBD; roughly
hundreds of millions over 5 years).
Child Welfare: Adoption Registry. In 1996, the President called for a plan to double to
number of children adopted each year from the foster care system. Adoption 2002 -- the
initiative developed by HHS in response to President's charge -- included efforts to break down
barriers to adoption. The Administration secured $10 million in FY 1999 for HHS discretionary
Adoption Opportunities Grants for this purpose. One use of this grants will be the creation of an
Internet-based adoption registry of foster care children waiting to be adopted, so that prospective
adoptive parents can learn about these waiting children. We recommend increasing the
Adoption Opportunities grants by 20 percent to $12 million for FY 2000 and$60 million
over five years, targeted to the upkeep of this Internet-based national adoption registry.
Child Welfare: Court Improvement. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, aimed at
moving children in foster care more quickly to adoptive and other permanent homes, shortened
the timeframes in which permanency decisions must be made for children in foster care. This
has put more pressure on an already over-burdened and resource-deficient family and juvenile
court system. Courts particularly need additional support to improve automation and computer
systems to track foster care children and to reduce the pending backlogs of abuse and neglect
cases. In addition, the Court Appointed Special Advocate program, which pairs a trained
volunteer with child abuse cases to serve in an advocacy role, needs to be expanded to under-
served areas. We recommend the creation of a new DOJ-administered grant program to
automate the data collection and tracking of proceedings in abuse and neglect courts and a one-
time grant to expand CASA to under-served areas. Cost: TBD, roughly 15 million for FY 2000
and $55 million over five years.
[Flexible Work Hours for Families. Bruce/Elena: We are beginning to think through this
proposal, and are looking for guidance as to whether we should continue to pursue it.] Options:
a. Tax credit for businesses that provide flexible work schedules for their employees. We
propose to offer tax credits to companies that offer a variety of family-friendly benefits,
including flexible work hours for their employees, compressed work weeks, part-time work with
benefits, job sharing, career sequencing, and extended parental leave. Such a tax credit would
enable parents to spend more time with their children by providing companies, both small and
medium sized, the ability to respond to the time crunch families are facing. In addition, it builds
on our flex-time and family-leave proposals. Awaiting estimation by Treasury.
b. Subsidies: We propose that the Commerce Department would make grants to states who
would in turn provide grants to eligible businesses that provide flexible work hours for their
employees, including flexible work hours for their employees, compressed work weeks,
part-time work with benefits, job sharing, career sequencing, and extended parental leave.
Within the grant-making process, priority would be given to small and medium sized businesses.
Businesses would be required to ensure that the funds would be used to supplement and not
supplant any ongoing efforts in this area. Very rough cost estimate: $500 million over five
years.
II
105TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S.2518
To enhance family life.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
SEPTEMBER 24, 1998
Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on Finance
A BILL
To enhance family life.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
4
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the
5 "Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998".
6
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-The table of Contents for
7 this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
TITLE I-ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN
Sec. 101. Second chance homes.
Sec. 102. Adoption promotion.
Sec. 103. Early childhood development.
2
TITLE II-PARENT GRANTS
Sec. 201. Parent grants.
1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
2
Congress makes the following findings:
3
(1) The family is the foundation of public life.
4
(2) The proportion of illegitimate births to
5
teenagers has increased astronomically from 13 per-
6
cent of such births in 1950 to 76 percent of such
7
births in 1996.
8
(3) Children in one-parent families are more at
9
risk for many types of anti-social behavior.
10
(4) The future of children is crucially deter-
11
mined during the first few years of life.
12
TITLE I-ASSISTANCE FOR
13
CHILDREN
14 SEC. 101. SECOND CHANCE HOMES.
15
(a) IN GENERAL.-Title XX of the Social Security
16 Act (42 U.S.C. 1397-1397f) is amended by adding at the
17 end the following:
18 "SEC. 2008. SECOND CHANCE HOMES.
19
"(a) ENTITLEMENT.-
20
"(1) IN GENERAL.-In addition to any payment
21
under sections 2002 and 2007, beginning with fiscal
22
year 1999, each State shall be entitled to funds
23
under this section for each fiscal year for the estab-
24
lishment, operation, and support of second chance
.S 2518 IS
3
1
homes for custodial parents under the age of 19 and
2
their children.
3
"(2) PAYMENT TO STATES.-
4
"(A) IN GENERAL.-Each State shall be
5
entitled to payment under this section for each
6
fiscal year in an amount equal to its allotment
7
(determined in accordance with subsection (b))
8
for such fiscal year, to be used by such State
9
for the purposes set forth in paragraph (1).
10
"(B) TRANSFERS OF FUNDS.-The Sec-
11
retary shall make payments in accordance with
12
section 6503 of title 31, United States Code, to
13
each State from its allotment for use under this
14
section.
15
"(C) USE.-Payments to a State from its
16
allotment for any fiscal year must be expended
17
by the State in such fiscal year or in the suc-
18
ceeding fiscal year.
19
"(D) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.-A State
20
may use a portion of the amounts described in
21
subparagraph (A) for the purpose of purchasing
22
technical assistance from public or private enti-
23
ties if the State determines that such assistance
24
is required in developing, implementing, or ad-
.S 2518 IS
4
1
ministering the program funded under this sec-
2
tion.
3
"(3) SECOND CHANCE HOMES.-For purposes
4
of this section, the term 'second chance homes'
5
means an entity that provides custodial parents
6
under the age of 19 and their children with a sup-
7
portive and supervised living arrangement in which
8
such parents would be required to learn parenting
9
skills, including child development, family budgeting,
10
health and nutrition, and other skills to promote
11
their long-term economic independence and the well-
12
being of their children. A second chance home may
13
also serve as a network center for other supportive
14
services that might be available in the community.
15
"(b) ALLOTMENT.-
16
"(1) CERTAIN JURISDICTIONS.-The allotment
17
for any fiscal year to Puerto Rico, Guam, the United
18
States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
19
Northern Mariana Islands shall be an amount that
20
bears the same ratio to the amount specified under
21
paragraph (3) as the allotment that the jurisdiction
22
receives under section 2003(a) for the fiscal year
23
bears to the total amount specified for such fiscal
24
year under section 2003(c).
oS 2518 IS
5
1
"(2) OTHER STATES.-The allotment for any
2
fiscal year for each State other than Puerto Rico,
3
Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American
4
Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall be
5
an amount which bears the same ratio to-
6
"(A) the amount specified under para-
7
graph (3); reduced by
8
"(B) the total amount allotted for that fis-
9
cal year under paragraph (1),
10
as the allotment that the State receives under sec-
11
tion 2003(b) for the fiscal year bears to the total
12
amount specified for such fiscal year under section
13
2003(c).
14
"(3) AMOUNT SPECIFIED.-The amount speci-
15
fied for purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be
16
$40,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each succeed-
17
ing fiscal year thereafter.
18
"(c) LOCAL INVOLVEMENT.-Each State shall seek
19 local involvement from the community in any area in
20 which a second chance home receiving funds pursuant to
21 this section is to be established. In determining criteria
22 for targeting funds received under this section, each State
23 shall evaluate the community's commitment to the estab-
24 lishment and planning of the home.
25
"(d) LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF FUNDS.-
.S 2518 IS
6
1
"(1) CONSTRUCTION.-Except as provided in
2
paragraph (2), funds made available under this sec-
3
tion may not be used by the State, or any other per-
4
son with which the State makes arrangements to
5
carry out the purposes of this section, for the pur-
6
chase or improvement of land, or the purchase, con-
7
struction, or permanent improvement (other than
8
minor remodeling) of any building or other facility.
9
"(2) WAIVER.-The Secretary may waive the
10
limitation contained in paragraph (1) upon the
11
State's request for such a waiver if the Secretary
12
finds that the request describes extraordinary cir-
13
cumstances to justify the waiver and that permitting
14
the waiver will contribute to the State's ability to
15
carry out the purposes of this section.
16
"(e) TREATMENT OF INDIAN TRIBES.-
17
"(1) IN GENERAL.-An Indian tribe may apply
18
to the Secretary to establish, operate, and support
19
adult-supervised group homes for custodial parents
20
under the age of 19 and their children in accordance
21
with an application procedure to be determined by
22
the Secretary. Except as otherwise provided in this
23
subsection, the provisions of this section shall apply
24
to Indian tribes receiving funds under this sub-
25
section in the same manner and to the same extent
.S 2518 IS
7
1
as the other provisions of this section apply to
2
States.
3
"(2) ALLOTMENT.-If the Secretary approves
4
an Indian tribe's application, the Secretary shall
5
allot to such tribe for a fiscal year an amount which
6
the Secretary determines is the Indian tribe's fair
7
and equitable share of the amount specified under
8
paragraph (3) for all Indian tribes with applications
9
approved under this subsection (based on allotment
10
factors to be determined by the Secretary). The Sec-
11
retary shall determine a minimum allotment amount
12
for all Indian tribes with applications approved
13
under this subsection. Each Indian tribe with an ap-
14
plication approved under this subsection shall be en-
15
titled to such minimum allotment.
16
"(3) AMOUNT SPECIFIED.-The amount speci-
17
fied under this paragraph for all Indian tribes with
18
applications approved under this subsection is
19
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each succeeding
20
fiscal year thereafter.
21
"(4) INDIAN TRIBE DEFINED.-In this section,
22
the term 'Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe,
23
band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or
24
community, including any Alaska Native entity
25
which is recognized as eligible for the special pro-
.S 2518 IS
8
1
grams and services provided by the United States to
2
Indian tribes because of their status as Indians.
3
"(f) RESEARCH AND EVALUATION.-
4
"(1) IN GENERAL.-The amount appropriated
5
to carry out this section for each fiscal year shall be
6
increased by 2 percent and the Secretary shall re-
7
serve an amount equal to that increase to pay for
8
the costs of conducting, through grant, contract, or
9
interagency agreement, research and evaluation
10
projects regarding the second chance homes funded
11
under this section. In conducting such projects, the
12
Secretary shall give priority to projects that are un-
13
dertaken by independent and impartial organiza-
14
tions.
15
"(2) REPORT.-Not later than 4 years after the
16
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
17
submit a report to Congress on the research and
18
evaluation projects conducted in accordance with
19
this subsection.".
20
(b) RECOMMENDATIONS ON USE OF GOVERNMENT
21 SURPLUS PROPERTY.-Not later than 6 months after the
22 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health
23 and Human Services, after consultation with the Secretary
24 of Defense, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop-
25 ment, and the Administrator of the General Services Ad-
.S 2518 IS
9
1 ministration, shall submit recommendations to Congress
2 on the extent to which surplus properties of the United
3 States Government may be used for the establishment of
4 second chance homes receiving funds under section 2008
5 of the Social Security Act, as added by subsection (a).
6 SEC. 102. ADOPTION PROMOTION.
7
(a) ADOPTION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL
8 NEEDS.-
9
(1) IN GENERAL.-Section 473(a) of the Social
10
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by
11
striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
12
"(2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), a child
13 meets the requirements of this paragraph if such child-
14
"(i) prior to termination of parental rights and
15
the initiation of adoption proceedings was in the
16
care of a public or licensed private child care agency
17
or Indian tribal organization either pursuant to a
18
voluntary placement agreement (provided the child
19
was in care for not more than 180 days) or as a re-
20
sult of a judicial determination to the effect that
21
continuation in the home would be contrary to the
22
safety and welfare of such child, or was residing in
23
a foster family home or child care institution with
24
the child's minor parent (either pursuant to such a
.S 2518 IS
10
1
voluntary placement agreement or as a result of
2
such a judicial determination); and
3
"(ii) has been determined by the State pursuant
4
to subsection (c) to be a child with special needs,
5
which needs shall be considered by the State, to-
6
gether with the circumstances of the adopting par-
7
ents, in determining the amount of any payments to
8
be made to the adopting parents.
9
"(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
10 except as provided in paragraph (7), a child who is not
11 a citizen or resident of the United States and who meets
12 the requirements of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as
13 meeting the requirements of this paragraph for purposes
14 of paragraph (1)(B)(ii).
15
"(C) A child who meets the requirements of subpara-
16 graph (A), who was determined eligible for adoption as-
17 sistance payments under this part with respect to a prior
18 adoption (or who would have been determined eligible for
19 such payments had the Adoption and Safe Families Act
20 of 1997 been in effect at the time that such determination
21 would have been made), and who is available for adoption
22 because the prior adoption has been dissolved and the pa-
23 rental rights of the adoptive parents have been terminated
24 or because the child's adoptive parents have died, shall be
.S 2518 IS
11
1 treated as meeting the requirements of this paragraph for
2 purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii).'
3
(2) EXCEPTION.-Section 473(a) of the Social
4
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by add-
5
ing at the end the following:
6
(7)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
7 subsection, no payment may be made to parents with re-
8 spect to any child that-
9
"(i) would be considered a child with special
10
needs under subsection (c);
11
"(ii) is not a citizen or resident of the United
12
States; and
13
"(iii) was adopted outside of the United States
14
or was brought into the United States for the pur-
15
pose of being adopted.
16
"(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as pro-
17 hibiting payments under this part for a child described
18 in subparagraph (A) that is placed in foster care subse-
19 quent to the failure, as determined by the State, of the
20 initial adoption of such child by the parents described in
21 such subparagraph."
22
(3) REQUIREMENT FOR USE OF STATE SAV-
23
INGS.-Section 473(a) of the Social Security Act (42
24
U.S.C. 673(a)), as amended by subsection (b), is
25
amended by adding at the end the following:
.S 2518 IS
12
1
"(8) A State shall spend an amount equal to the
2 amount of savings (if any) in State expenditures under
3 this part resulting from the application of paragraph (2)
4 on and after the effective date of the amendment to such
5 paragraph made by section 4(a) of the Enhancing Family
6 Life Act of 1998 to provide to children or families any
7 service (including post-adoption services) that may be pro-
8 vided under this part or part B.".
9
(b) PER CAPITA CHILD WELFARE DEMONSTRATION
10 PROJECTS.-Section 1130(a)(2) of the Social Security Act
11 (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9(a)(2)) is amended-
12
(1) by striking "The Secretary" and inserting
13
the following:
14
"(A) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary"; and
15
(2) by adding at the end the following:
16
"(B) RESERVATION.-Of the 10 dem-
17
onstration projects authorized under this sub-
18
section for each of fiscal years 1999 through
19
2002, the Secretary, upon receipt of an appro-
20
priate application, shall approve at least 3 dem-
21
onstration projects in each of such fiscal years
22
that are designed to test a per capita approach
23
for the successful resolution of a foster care
24
placement under which a private entity con-
25
tracts for a fixed amount to either restore a
.S 2518 IS
13
1
child in foster care to the child's parent or par-
2
ents or locate an adoptive placement for the
3
child.".
4
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by
5 this section shall take effect on October 1, 1998.
6 SEC. 103. EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT.
7
Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601
8 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
9
"PART F-ASSISTANCE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
10 "SEC. 480. DEFINITIONS.
11
"In this part:
12
"(1) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.-The term
13
'local educational agency' has the meaning given
14
that term in section 14101 of the Elementary and
15
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
16
"(2) POVERTY LINE.-The term 'poverty line'
17
means the poverty line (as defined by the Office of
18
Management and Budget, and revised annually in
19
accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
20
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) appli-
21
cable to a family of the size involved.
22
"(3) STATE BOARD.-The term 'State board'
23
means a State Early Learning Coordinating Board
24
established under section 481(c).
.S 2518 IS
14
1
"(4) YOUNG CHILD.-The term 'young child'
2
means an individual from birth through age 5.
3
"(5) YOUNG CHILD ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES.-
4
The term 'young child assistance activities' means
5
the activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)
6
of section 482(b).
7 "SEC. 481. ALLOTMENTS TO STATES.
8
"(a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall make allot-
9 ments under subsection (b) to eligible States to pay for
10 the Federal share of the cost of enabling the States to
11 make grants to local collaboratives under section 482 for
12 young child assistance activities.
13
"(b) ALLOTMENT.-
14
"(1) IN GENERAL.-From the funds appro-
15
priated under section 484 for each fiscal year and
16
not reserved under subsection (i), the Secretary shall
17
allot to each eligible State an amount that bears the
18
same relationship to such funds as the total number
19
of young children in poverty in the State bears to
20
the total number of young children in poverty in all
21
eligible States.
22
"(2) YOUNG CHILD IN POVERTY.-In this sub-
23
section, the term 'young child in poverty' means an
24
individual who-
25
"(A) is a young child; and
oS 2518 IS
15
1
"(B) is a member of a family with an in-
2
come below the poverty line.
3
"(c) STATE BOARDS.-
4
"(1) IN GENERAL.-In order for a State to be
5
eligible to obtain an allotment under this part, the
6
chief executive officer of the State shall establish, or
7
designate an entity to serve as, a State Early Learn-
8
ing Coordinating Board, which shall receive the al-
9
lotment and make the grants described in section
10
482.
11
"(2) ESTABLISHED BOARD.-A State board es-
12
tablished under paragraph (1) shall consist of the
13
chief executive officer of the State and members ap-
14
pointed by such chief executive officer, including-
15
"(A) representatives of all State agencies
16
primarily providing services to young children
17
in the State;
18
"(B) representatives of business in the
19
State;
20
"(C) chief executive officers of political
21
subdivisions in the State;
22
"(D) parents of young children in the
23
State;
.S 2518 IS
16
1
"(E) officers of community organizations
2
serving low-income individuals, as defined by
3
the Secretary, in the State;
4
"(F) representatives of State nonprofit or-
5
ganizations that represent the interests of
6
young children in poverty, as defined in sub-
7
section (b), in the State;
8
"(G) representatives of organizations pro-
9
viding services to young children and the par-
10
ents of young children, such as organizations
11
providing child care, carrying out Head Start
12
programs under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
13
9831 et seq.), providing services through a fam-
14
ily resource center, providing home visits, or
15
providing health care services, in the State; and
16
((H) representatives of local educational
17
agencies.
18
"(3) DESIGNATED BOARD.-The chief executive
19
officer of the State may designate an entity to serve
20
as the State board under paragraph (1) if the entity
21
includes the chief executive officer of the State and
22
the members described in subparagraphs (A)
23
through (G) of paragraph (2).
24
"(4) DESIGNATED STATE AGENCY.-The chief
25
executive officer of the State shall designate a State
.S 2518 IS
17
1
agency that has a representative on the State board
2
to provide administrative oversight concerning the
3
use of funds made available under this part and en-
4
sure accountability for the funds.
5
"(d) APPLICATION.-To be eligible to receive an allot-
6 ment under this part, a State board shall annually submit
7 an application to the Secretary at such time, in such man-
8 ner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
9 require. At a minimum, the application shall contain-
10
"(1) sufficient information about the entity es-
11
tablished or designated under subsection (c) to serve
12
as the State board to enable the Secretary to deter-
13
mine whether the entity complies with the require-
14
ments of such subsection;
15
"(2) a comprehensive State plan for carrying
16
out young child assistance activities;
17
"(3) an assurance that the State board will pro-
18
vide such information as the Secretary shall by regu-
19
lation require on the amount of State and local pub-
20
lic funds expended in the State to provide services
21
for young children; and
22
"(4) an assurance that the State board shall
23
annually compile and submit to the Secretary infor-
24
mation from the reports referred to in section
.S 2518 IS
18
1
482(d)(2)(F)(iii) that describes the results referred
2
to in section 482(d)(2)(F)(i).
3
"(e) FEDERAL SHARE.-
4
"(1) IN GENERAL.-The Federal share of the
5
cost described in subsection (a) shall be-
6
"(A) 85 percent, in the case of a State for
7
which the Federal medical assistance percent-
8
age (as defined in section 1905(b)) is not less
9
than 50 percent but is less than 60 percent;
10
"(B) 87.5 percent, in the case of a State
11
for which such percentage is not less than 60
12
percent but is less than 70 percent; and
13
"(C) 90 percent, in the case of any State
14
not described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
15
"(2) STATE SHARE.-
16
"(A) IN GENERAL.-The State shall con-
17
tribute the remaining share (referred to in this
18
paragraph as the 'State share') of the cost de-
19
scribed in subsection (a).
20
"(B) FORM.-The State share of the cost
21
shall be in cash.
22
"(C) SOURCES.-The State may provide
23
for the State share of the cost from State or
24
local sources, or through donations from private
25
entities.
.S 2518 IS
19
1
"(f) STATE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.-
2
"(1) IN GENERAL.-A State may use not more
3
than 5 percent of the funds made available through
4
an allotment made under this part to pay for a por-
5
tion, not to exceed 50 percent, of State administra-
6
tive costs related to carrying out this part.
7
"(2) WAIVER.-A State may apply to the Sec-
8
retary for a waiver of paragraph (1). The Secretary
9
may grant the waiver if the Secretary finds that un-
10
usual circumstances prevent the State from comply-
11
ing with paragraph (1). A State that receives such
12
a waiver may use not more than 7.5 percent of the
13
funds made available through the allotment to pay
14
for the State administrative costs.
15
"(g) MONITORING.-The Secretary shall monitor the
16 activities of States that receive allotments under this part
17 to ensure compliance with the requirements of this part,
18 including compliance with the State plans.
19
"(h) ENFORCEMENT.-If the Secretary determines
20 that a State that has received an allotment under this part
21 is not complying with a requirement of this part, the Sec-
22 retary may-
23
"(1) provide technical assistance to the State to
24
improve the ability of the State to comply with the
25
requirement;
.S 2518 IS
20
1
"(2) reduce, by not less than 5 percent, an al-
2
lotment made to the State under this section, for the
3
second determination of noncompliance;
4
"(3) reduce, by not less than 25 percent, an al-
5
lotment made to the State under this section, for the
6
third determination of noncompliance; or
7
"(4) revoke the eligibility of the State to receive
8
allotments under this section, for the fourth or sub-
9
sequent determination of noncompliance.
10
"(i) RESERVATION OF FUNDS.-
11
"(1) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.-From the funds
12
appropriated under section 484 for each fiscal year,
13
the Secretary shall reserve not more than 1 percent
14
of the funds to pay for the costs of providing tech-
15
nical assistance. The Secretary shall use the re-
16
served funds to enter into contracts with eligible en-
17
tities to provide technical assistance to local
18
collaboratives that receive grants under section 482
19
relating to the functions of the local collaboratives
20
under this part.
21
"(2) RESEARCH AND EVALUATION.-
22
"(A) IN GENERAL.-From the funds ap-
23
propriated under section 484 for each fiscal
24
year, the Secretary shall reserve 2 percent of
25
the funds to pay for the costs of conducting,
.S 2518 IS
21
1
through grant, contract, or interagency agree-
2
ment, research and evaluation projects regard-
3
ing the young child assistance activities funded
4
with amounts made available in accordance with
5
the requirements of this part. In conducting
6
such projects, the Secretary shall give priority
7
to projects that are undertaken by independent
8
and impartial organizations.
9
"(B) REPORT.-Not later than 4 years
10
after the date of enactment of this part, the
11
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on
12
the research and evaluation projects conducted
13
in accordance with this paragraph.
14 "SEC. 482. GRANTS TO LOCAL COLLABORATIVES.
15
"(a) IN GENERAL.-A State board that receives an
16 allotment under section 481 shall use the funds made
17 available through the allotment, and the State contribu-
18 tion made under section 481(e)(2), to pay for the Federal
19 and State shares of the cost of making grants, on a com-
20 petitive basis, to local collaboratives to carry out young
21 child assistance activities.
22
"(b) USE OF FUNDS.-A local collaborative that re-
23 ceives a grant made under subsection (a)-
.S 2518 IS
22
1
"(1) shall use funds made available through the
2
grant to provide, in a community, activities that con-
3
sist of education and supportive services, such as-
4
"(A) home visits for parents of young chil-
5
dren;
6
"(B) services provided through community-
7
based family resource centers for such parents;
8
and
9
"(C) collaborative pre-school efforts that
10
link parenting education for such parents to
11
early childhood learning services for young chil-
12
dren; and
13
"(2) may use funds made available through the
14
grant-
15
"(A) to provide, in the community, activi-
16
ties that consist of-
17
"(i) activities designed to strengthen
18
the quality of child care for young children
19
and expand the supply of high quality child
20
care services for young children;
21
"(ii) health care services for young
22
children, including increasing the level of
23
immunization for young children in the
24
community, providing preventive health
25
care screening and education, and expand-
.S 2518 IS
23
1
ing health care services in schools, child
2
care facilities, clinics in public housing
3
projects (as defined in section 3(b) of the
4
United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
5
U.S.C. 1437a(b))), and mobile dental and
6
vision clinics;
7
"(iii) services for children with disabil-
8
ities who are young children; and
9
"(iv) activities designed to assist
10
schools in providing educational and other
11
support services to young children, and
12
parents of young children, in the commu-
13
nity, to be carried out during extended
14
hours when appropriate; and
15
"(B) to pay for the salary and expenses of
16
the administrator described in subsection (e)(4),
17
in accordance with such regulations as the Sec-
18
retary shall prescribe.
19
"(c) MULTI-YEAR FUNDING.-In making grants
20 under this section, a State board may make grants for
21 grant periods of more than 1 year to local collaboratives
22 with demonstrated success in carrying out young child as-
23 sistance activities.
.S 2518 IS
24
1
"(d) LOCAL COLLABORATIVES.-To be eligible to re-
2 ceive a grant under this section for a community, a local
3 collaborative shall demonstrate that the collaborative-
4
"(1) is able to provide, through a coordinated
5
effort, young child assistance activities to young chil-
6
dren, and parents of young children, in the commu-
7
nity; and
8
"(2) includes-
9
"(A) all public agencies primarily providing
10
services to young children in the community;
11
"(B) businesses in the community;
12
"(C) representatives of the local govern-
13
ment for the county or other political subdivi-
14
sion in which the community is located;
15
"(D) parents of young children in the com-
16
munity;
17
"(E) officers of community organizations
18
serving low-income individuals, as defined by
19
the Secretary, in the community;
20
"(F) community-based organizations pro-
21
viding services to young children and the par-
22
ents of young children, such as organizations
23
providing child care, carrying out Head Start
24
programs, or providing pre-kindergarten edu-
.S 2518 IS
25
1
cation, mental health, or family support serv-
2
ices; and
3
"(G) nonprofit organizations that serve the
4
community and that are described in section
5
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
6
and exempt from taxation under section 501(a)
7
of such Code.
8
"(e) APPLICATION.-To be eligible to receive a grant
9 under this section, a local collaborative shall submit an
10 application to the State board at such time, in such man-
11 ner, and containing such information as the State board
12 may require. At a minimum, the application shall con-
13 tain-
14
"(1) sufficient information about the entity de-
15
scribed in subsection (d)(2) to enable the State
16
board to determine whether the entity complies with
17
the requirements of such subsection; and
18
"(2) a comprehensive plan for carrying out
19
young child assistance activities in the community,
20
including information indicating-
21
"(A) the young child assistance activities
22
available in the community, as of the date of
23
submission of the plan, including information
24
on efforts to coordinate the activities;
.S 2518 IS
26
1
"(B) the unmet needs of young children,
2
and parents of young children, in the commu-
3
nity for young child assistance activities;
4
"(C) the manner in which funds made
5
available through the grant will be used-
6
"(i) to meet the needs, including ex-
7
panding and strengthening the activities
8
described in subparagraph (A) and estab-
9
lishing additional young child assistance
10
activities; and
11
"(ii) to improve results for young chil-
12
dren in the community;
13
"(D) how the local cooperative will use at
14
least 60 percent of the funds made available
15
through the grant to provide young child assist-
16
ance activities to young children and parents
17
described in subsection (f);
18
"(E) the comprehensive methods that the
19
collaborative will use to ensure that-
20
"(i) each entity carrying out young
21
child assistance activities through the col-
22
laborative will coordinate the activities with
23
such activities carried out by other entities
24
through the collaborative; and
.S 2518 IS
27
1
"(ii) the local collaborative will coordi-
2
nate the activities of the local collaborative
3
with-
4
"(I) other services provided to
5
young children, and the parents of
6
young children, in the community;
7
and
8
"(II) the activities of other local
9
collaboratives serving young children
10
and families in the community, if any;
11
and
12
"(F) the manner in which the collaborative
13
will, at such intervals as the State board may
14
require, submit information to the State board
15
to enable the State board to carry out monitor-
16
ing under section 481(g), including the manner
17
in which the collaborative will-
18
"(i) evaluate the results achieved by
19
the collaborative for young children and
20
parents of young children through activi-
21
ties carried out through the grant;
22
"(ii) evaluate how services can be
23
more effectively delivered to young children
24
and the parents of young children; and
.S 2518 IS
28
1
"(iii) prepare and submit to the State
2
board annual reports describing the re-
3
sults;
4
"(3) an assurance that the local collaborative
5
will comply with the requirements of subparagraphs
6
(D), (E), and (F) of paragraph (2), and subsection
7
(g); and
8
"(4) an assurance that the local collaborative
9
will hire an administrator to oversee the provision of
10
the activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)
11
of subsection (b).
12
"(f) DISTRIBUTION.-In making grants under this
13 section, the State board shall ensure that at least 60 per-
14 cent of the funds made available through each grant are
15 used to provide the young child assistance activities to
16 young children (and parents of young children) who reside
17 in school districts in which half or more of the students
18 receive free or reduced price lunches under the National
19 School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
20
"(g) LOCAL SHARE.-
21
"(1) IN GENERAL.-The local collaborative shall
22
contribute a percentage (referred to in this sub-
23
section as the 'local share') of the cost of carrying
24
out the young child assistance activities.
.S 2518 IS
29
1
"(2) PERCENTAGE.-The Secretary shall by
2
regulation specify the percentage referred to in para-
3
graph (1).
4
"(3) FORM.-The local share of the cost shall
5
be in cash.
6
"(4) SOURCE.-The local collaborative shall
7
provide for the local share of the cost through dona-
8
tions from private entities.
9
"(5) WAIVER.-The State board shall waive the
10
requirement of paragraph (1) for poor rural and
11
urban areas, as defined by the Secretary.
12
"(h) MONITORING.-The State board shall monitor
13 the activities of local collaboratives that receive grants
14 under this part to ensure compliance with the require-
15 ments of this part.
16 "SEC. 483. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.
17
"Funds appropriated under this part shall be used
18 to supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and
19 local public funds expended to provide services for young
20 children.
21 "SEC. 484. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
22
"There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
23 this part-
24
"(1) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
25
"(2) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
.S 2518 IS
30
1
"(3) $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2
2001 through 2003; and
3
"(4) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
4
year 2004 and each subsequent fiscal year.".
5
TITLE II-PARENT GRANTS
6 SEC. 201. PARENT GRANTS.
7
(a) PURPOSE.-It is the purpose of this section to
8 provide parents with grants for career development and
9 retraining after a period of child rearing.
10
(b) PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND METHOD OF DIS-
11 TRIBUTION.-
12
(1) IN GENERAL.-From amounts appropriated
13
under subsection (f), the Secretary of Education (in
14
this section referred to as the "Secretary") may pay
15
to each eligible institution such sums as may be nec-
16
essary to pay to each qualifying parent for each aca-
17
demic year that the qualifying parent is in attend-
18
ance at an institution of higher education, a parent
19
grant, in an amount determined in accordance with
20
subsection (c), for each child for which the qualify-
21
ing parent remains outside the labor force.
22
(2) QUALIFYING PARENT.-In this section, the
23
term "qualifying parent" means an individual who-
24
(A) is the custodial parent of a child under
25
the age of 6;
.S 2518 IS
31
1
(B) has no earned income as defined in
2
section 32(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code
3
of 1986; and
4
(C) is not receiving assistance under a
5
State program funded under part A of title IV
6
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
7
seq.) or supplemental security income benefits
8
under title XVI of the Social Security Act (42
9
U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).
10
(3) DISTRIBUTION.-Funds under this section
11
shall be disbursed and made available to qualifying
12
parents in the same manner as Federal Pell Grants
13
are disbursed and made available to institutions of
14
higher education and students under subpart 1 of
15
part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of
16
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.), except that in the
17
case of a parent grant awarded to a qualifying par-
18
ent for expenses incurred in obtaining a secondary
19
school diploma or its recognized equivalent, the Sec-
20
retary shall make the grant funds available to the
21
qualifying parent.
22
(c) AMOUNT.-
23
(1) IN GENERAL.-Subject to paragraph (2),
24
the amount of a parent grant for which a qualifying
.S 2518 IS
32
1
parent is eligible under this section for an academic
2
year is equal to—
3
(A) in the case of a qualifying parent with
4
an annual income of $50,000 or less, the maxi-
5
mum amount of the Federal Pell Grant award-
6
ed under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the
7
Higher Education Act of 1965 for such year;
8
and
9
(B) in the case of a qualifying parent with
10
an annual income of more than $50,000 but
11
not more than $75,000, ½ of the maximum
12
amount of the Federal Pell Grant SO awarded
13
for such year.
14
(2) SPECIAL RULES.-
15
(A) CALENDAR YEAR AWARDS.-A qualify-
16
ing parent is eligible for a parent grant under
17
this section for each complete calendar year the
18
parent is outside the labor force, except that
19
the Secretary shall prorate the amount for
20
which the qualifying parent is eligible for the
21
first year in which a child is born if the qualify-
22
ing parent is outside the labor force for at least
23
4 months of the calendar year in which the
24
child is born.
.S 2518 IS
33
1
(B) SIMULTANEOUS AWARDS.-A qualify-
2
ing parent is eligible for a parent grant simulta-
3
neously for each child for which the parent re-
4
mains outside the labor force.
5
(C) LIMITATION.-The Secretary shall not
6
award a qualifying parent a parent grant for
7
any period the parent remains outside the labor
8
force to pursue education with a parent grant
9
awarded under this section.
10
(d) USES.-
11
(1) IN GENERAL.-A parent grant awarded
12
under this section-
13
(A) shall be used not later than 15 years
14
after the year for which the grant is awarded;
15
and
16
(B) shall be used to pay-
17
(i) the cost of attendance (as deter-
18
mined in accordance with section 472 of
19
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
20
U.S.C. 1087II)) at an institution of higher
21
education (as defined in section 481 of
22
such Act (20 U.S.C. 1088)); or
23
(ii) for expenses incurred in obtaining
24
a secondary school diploma or its recog-
25
nized equivalent.
.S 2518 IS
34
1
(2) AGGREGATION OF AWARDS.-A qualifying
2
parent may aggregate parent grants awarded for
3
more than 1 year or more than 1 child for use in
4
a single academic year.
5
(3) ROLLOVER.-A qualifying parent may use
6
any grant funds awarded for an academic year that
7
are not used in the academic year, for use in a sub-
8
sequent academic year, subject to paragraph (1)(A).
9
(e) RESEARCH AND EVALUATION.-
10
(1) IN GENERAL.-From the amounts appro-
11
priated to carry out this section for each fiscal year,
12
the Secretary shall reserve 2 percent of such
13
amounts to pay for the costs of conducting, through
14
grant, contract, or interagency agreement, research
15
and evaluation projects regarding the parent grants
16
awarded in accordance with the requirements of this
17
section. In conducting such projects, the Secretary
18
shall give priority to projects that are undertaken by
19
independent and impartial organizations.
20
(2) REPORT.-Not later than 4 years after the
21
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
22
submit a report to Congress on the research and
23
evaluation projects conducted in accordance with
24
this subsection.
.S 2518 IS
35
1
(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There
2 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
3 such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1999 and
4 each succeeding fiscal year.
.S 2518 IS