Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5115 - Equity and Excellence in Education Act

(House Floor)
(Hawkins (D) CA and 23 others)

The Administration strongly opposes the enactment of H.R. 5115. The bill is a complex and costly amalgam of new program authorities and duplicative and burdensome amendments to existing programs. Its authorizations and student aid increases for FY 1991 alone are nearly $900 million above the President's Budget for comparable activities. H.R. 5115 makes undesirable changes to important provisions of the President's proposed Educational Excellence Act. The bill also would establish Federal funding goals for existing programs that call for increases of tens of billions of dollars, which is totally unrealistic in the current fiscal environment. If H.R. 5115 were presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend its disapproval.

In addition, the Administration has the following specific concerns about H.R. 5115 in its current form. The bill would:

—  Fail to authorize the President's Magnet Schools of Excellence proposal. Magnet Schools are an effective way to improve the quality of education and increase parental choice.

—  Authorize a Presidential Schools of Distinction program (in place of the Administration's Merit Schools) that restricts participation to schools participating in Chapter 1 programs. This would exclude thousands of schools that could benefit from these initiatives.

—  Establish a number of new, cumbersome and unjustified requirements for adult literacy programs. Some of these new requirements — establishment of an Interagency Task Force on Adult Literacy and a National Institute for Literacy — raise constitutional concerns. They also duplicate existing activities or authorized programs. For example, the requirements for "Gateway Grants" and State advisory boards on literacy are totally unnecessary for the improvement of literacy. The creation of a new grant program solely for commercial driver adult education is also unnecessary.

—  Authorize a number of poorly designed mechanisms to recruit and retain teachers. The proposal to provide a separate Perkins loan cancellation program for students who plan to teach is objectionable. Evidence from similar programs indicates that loan cancellation programs do not have a significant impact on students' career decisions.

—  Make major changes to the Higher Education Act. Consideration of these changes should await the upcoming reauthorization of the Act. The bill would restrict the Secretary's authority to address Pell grant funding shortfalls. It also would change the calculation of financial need for most student assistance programs to increase the cost of the Pell grant program alone by at least $166 million in the first year.

The Administration understands that a number of amendments to H.R. 5115 may be offered on the House floor. The Administration supports the goals of the Smith (VT) amendment (except for section 1007) which, on a demonstration basis, would allow local education agencies to combine specified programs' funds in exchange for enhanced achievement for students. The Administration also supports the goals of the Bartlett amendment which would promote educational choice.

The Administration strongly opposes two other amendments to be offered by Congressman Hawkins. The first amendment would bar the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from reviewing or approving any statutorily-required reports, research or evaluation plans, methodology, surveys, and findings. It also requires that OMB's final determinations regarding Education regulations be made in writing and included in the public rulemaking record. These are intrusions into the functions and prerogatives of the Executive Office of the President that limit the President's ability to oversee the functions of Executive branch agencies and jeopardize prudent administration of Federal education programs. Even if all other objections were remedied, if H.R. 5115 were presented to the President with this language, his senior advisers would recommend veto.

The second amendment would require the Department of Education to use negotiated rulemaking for all regulations. Education has used negotiated rulemaking in Chapter 1 programs. An independent study found that negotiated rulemaking is not an effective strategy in large Federal education grant programs. Negotiated rulemaking is expensive and time-consuming. This amendment would cripple the Department's ability to issue needed regulations in a timely basis.

The Administration reserves comment on the other proposed amendments.