Here is the latest from Joel/CEF. Mostly budget/appropriations. I can’t wait to ask the representative from the Trump campaign about adult education at the CEF Presidential Forum. Jeff P.S. If anyone has been frustrated trying to reach me lately, I apologize — I’ve been battling the flu and then a painful ear infection for the past several weeks. I am back at work this week for the first time in a while, slowly digging through my pile of old emails and to-do's... Jeff Carter — President, National Coalition for Literacy http://national-coalition-literacy.org General Contact Info — jcarter@literacypolicy.org or jeffcrtr@gmail.org Personal Twitter: @jeffcrtr | literacypolicy.org Cell: (202) 374-4387 > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Joel Packer <jpacker@cef.org> > Subject: Wednesday Update > Date: March 2, 2016 at 1:22:58 PM EST > To: Joel Packer <jpacker@cef.org> > > > > Save the Date for the 2016 CEF Presidential Forum: This event will take place on May 26th, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the Newseum in Washington DC. The forum is designed as an opportunity for presidential candidates to highlight and discuss their education policy agendas––including, but not limited to, education funding––and highlight education as a critical domestic policy. Details regarding sponsorship opportunities to follow in the coming weeks. Please contact Ally Bernstein at ally@jbernsteinstrategy.com <mailto:ally@jbernsteinstrategy.com> with any questions. See attached flyer. > > 1. CEF Meeting: This Friday, March 4, we will hold a quarterly working meeting. Instead of an outside speaker, we will have time for CEF committees to meet. The meeting will be at the University of California, 1608 Rhode Island Ave., NW, First floor Auditorium. As usual, we’ll start at 9 AM with social time/breakfast, with the meeting starting at 9:30 AM. Please click here for the agenda <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19p6j32JwToYUdvLWJ6RVRMMHM/view?usp=sharing> and here for the latest meeting schedule <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19p6j32JwToa3NMSG1tc3ZTckk/view?usp=sharing>. If you can’t attend in person: Call-in #: 1-877-885-3221 PIN: 247-4788# (note, we’ll have the speaker phone active for the general session part of the meeting and for the committee meetings in the Auditorium, but we will not have speaker phone capability for the other meetings). > > 2. FY 2017 Budget Resolution: House Republicans continue to try to reach agreement on their FY 2017 Budget Resolution. Budget Committee Chairman Price will present a proposed budget to the Republican Conference tomorrow morning at 9 AM. The Republican Study Committee has joined the Freedom Caucus in opposing the current spending caps as set in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. They want them cut or at a minimum offset with new mandatory spending cuts of $30 billion. In fact, the RSC would like to keep the defense cap as is, but cut the entire $30 billion by which the BBA raised the FY 2017 caps from NDD, meaning NDD would end up $30 billion (-5.7%) below FY 2016! > > One approach under consideration is for the House to pass a free-standing bill that cuts $30 billion in mandatory spending. Majority Leader McCarthy has instructed House committee chairs to come up with lists of possible cuts. > > Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader McConnell met with the House Republican Conference and urged them to pass a Budget (though there doesn't seem to be any action planned as of now on a Senate Budget Resolution) and pledged that he would devote three months of floor time to Appropriations bills. > > If the House can’t pass a Budget Resolution, they will need to pass a Deeming Resolution that sets the 302(a) levels for the Appropriations committee. House Minority Whip Hoyer said if that deemer is at the BBA levels, Democrats would support it. So, such a deeming resolution would likely pass with most, if not all, Dems voting for it and a chunk of Republicans as well (but not the conservatives). However, that creates the potential of when appropriations bills reach the House floor, many conservative Republicans voting against them due to the higher spending levels they oppose, and Democrats voting against them due to likely conservative policy riders, meaning passage of appropriations bills could be iffy. > > See: > · Non-Defense Appropriations Falling Even Without Proposed New Cuts <http://www.cbpp.org/blog/non-defense-appropriations-falling-even-without-proposed-new-cuts> (CBPP) > “The proposal, by the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), would reverse the $30 billion in 2017 sequestration relief provided by the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. Although that act divided the relief evenly between defense and non-defense appropriations, the RSC proposal would cut the entire $30 billion from non-defense programs. Thus, non-defense programs would lose all $15 billion in sequestration relief and then fall an additional $15 billion. The resulting non-defense funding level for 2017 would be $30 billion below the 2016 enacted level.” > > · McConnell Pitches Senate Debate on Spending Bills to House GOP <http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4844231?9> (CQ) > “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell paid a visit to the House Republican conference on Tuesday, eliciting mixed reactions from lawmakers when he promised to allot generous floor time to spending bills in the Senate. > > “Some top Republican appropriators praised the Kentucky Republican's commitment as a positive development. But hardline conservatives in the GOP met the message with suspicion, making it unclear whether McConnell's comments helped move forward a House budget resolution.” > > · McConnell tries to sway House conservatives on budget deal <http://thehill.com/policy/finance/271276-mcconnell-looks-to-break-up-budget-impasse> (The Hill) > “McConnell’s argument didn’t appear to sway the party’s fiscal hawks, who have opposed those spending levels unless GOP leaders have a firm commitment to cut $30 billion in spending elsewhere.” > > · McConnell to House GOP: You need to take the lead on spending bills <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/03/01/mcconnell-to-house-gop-you-need-to-take-the-lead-on-spending-bills/> (Washington Post) > “McConnell told House Republicans at a conference meeting Tuesday morning, according to aides and lawmakers, that he plans to dedicate three months this year to moving spending bills. Members said McConnell also believes he has the support of Senate Democratic leaders, who last year blocked appropriations measures in a push for additional funding, a message that was welcomed but met with some skepticism. > > “We’ll see,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.). “Trust but verify.” > > · Top House conservatives call to abandon 2015 budget deal <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rsc-budget-deal-219800> (Politico) > “The leadership of the Republican Study Committee privately decided Thursday they would push top House lawmakers to abandon the 2015 budget deal and push for steep cuts, the group's chairman wrote in an email to colleagues. > > “The decision by the prominent conservative caucus casts serious doubt on whether the House will be able to pass a 2017 budget.” > > · Hoyer: Democrats Would Back a 'Deemer' to Set Spending Levels <http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4844303?10> (CQ) > When Hoyer, D-Md., was asked by reporters if Democrats would vote to deem spending levels at the $1.07 trillion overall discretionary cap as raised in the budget deal, he said, “If you mean the deal that was incorporated in December, I think the answer to that is yes.” > > “Hoyer added that the deemed spending limit would have to maintain the equal treatment of defense and nondefense programs, which each were raised by $15 billion over sequester levels in the budget deal (PL 114-74). He went on to imply that Democrats might use a deeming resolution to restrict the GOP to the $59 billion limit on war funding for fiscal 2017 as specified in the budget deal. Republican defense hawks are beginning to push for as much as $18 billion more for defense in the form of Overseas Contingency Operations funds.” > > · Caught in House's Anti-Spending Zeal, Rogers Seeks Middle Ground <http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4842439?11> (CQ) > “House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers might just have the toughest assignment in Congress this year. > > “In his final round atop the once-heralded spending committee, the Kentucky Republican faces the unenviable task of crafting spending bills amid an anti-spending fervor that has gridlocked the House GOP conference as members wrestle over a budget resolution for fiscal 2017.” > > · Republican Study Committee’s Recommended Guidelines for House Budget <http://rsc.flores.house.gov/#Guidelines> > · RSC Adopts Positon  Requiring House Budget at Lower Numbers <http://rsc.flores.house.gov/#LowerNumbers> > > 3. FY 2017 Education Appropriations: > · Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the FY 2017 Education Budget with Acting Secretary King is scheduled for 10 AM , March 10 in 138 Dirksen. > > · House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the FY 2017 Education Budget with Acting Secretary King is scheduled for 10 AM , March 22 in 2358 Rayburn. > > · ED Table: The Department of Education has posted a slightly revised Summary of ED Discretionary Funds in PDF [29KB] <http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/summary/appendix1.pdf> and MS Excel [240KB] <http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/summary/appendix1.xlsx>. > > · Title I and Title IV Runs: Please click here for a table <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19p6j32JwToYUw0c1JRald2U2c/view?usp=sharing> that shows for Title I estimated state allocations based on the president's proposed FY 2017 funding level of $15.4 billion. The table shows which states would have less Title I funds for grants to LEAs after their required reservation for school improvement (due largely to ESSA increasing the school improvement set-aside from 4% to 7% and eliminating for FY 2017 the LEA hold harmless). Two things to note about these tables – first, they do not include the President's budget proposal that $174 million of Title I funds would be allocated to states for school improvement, not through the regular Title I formula. Second, they assume that all states have set aside 4% for school improvement in FY 2016. But many states may not be able to do that because of the current LEA hold harmless. Thus, the shortfall in many states for funds available for grants to LEAs may actually be greater than it appears on this table. > > Also see: Analysis: Districts in Most States May Lose Title I Money Under Obama Budget <http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2016/03/report_districts_in_most_state.html> (Politics K12) > > Also see these state <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19p6j32JwToazlyWHdSTlRiclU/view?usp=sharing> and local <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19p6j32JwToekRlTUZ4VTY1R3M/view?usp=sharing> runs for the new Title IV, Part A block grant, assuming an appropriation of $1.65 billion. > > 4. Updated CEF Budget Materials: We’ve updated and corrected two CEF FY 2017 Budget analyses. Please discard any previous versions. All of our FY 2017 Budget Analyses are on the CEF website <http://cef.org/how-we-help/fiscal-year-2017-budget-resources-and-analyses/>. > · FY 2017 Funding Table <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19p6j32JwToVWowQmF3RmhjM2c/view?usp=sharing> (corrects funding levels for Library State Grants > > · ESSA funding <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19p6j32JwToQ1hEYjdRV0tsRHM/view?usp=sharing> (corrects FY 2017 funding level for ESSA) > > 5. ESSA: > · Negotiated Rulemaking: ED has announced that “Individuals who are selected to participate as a primary or alternate negotiator will be notified later this week. On Friday, March 4, the Department will post the full list of negotiators on the ESSA website at www.ed.gov/ESSA <http://www.ed.gov/ESSA>. Also on Friday, March 4, the Department will post a series of issue papers to inform committee discussion, corresponding to the topics identified in the Federal Register notice establishing the committee. The committee will convene March 21-23 and April 6-8, with an optional session April 18-19 at the discretion of the negotiating committee. These meetings are open to the public. Information on the time, location, and other logistics for the meetings will be distributed at a later date.” > > · New FAQs: ED posted last Friday, Transitioning to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Frequently Asked Questions <http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/faq/essa-faqs.pdf>. > > 6. GAO Report on Federal Loans: The Government Accountability Office released CREDIT REFORM: Current Method to Estimate Credit Subsidy Costs Is More Appropriate for Budget Estimates Than a Fair Value Approach <http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-41?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery>. The federal student loan programs are discussed in detail in the report. The report concludes that, > “The additional market risk recognized under the fair value approach does not reflect additional cash costs beyond those already recognized by FCRA. The introduction of market risk into subsidy costs under the fair value approach would (1) be inconsistent with long-standing federal budgeting practices primarily based on cash outlays; (2) be inconsistent with the budgetary treatment of similarly risky programs; (3) introduce transparency and verification issues with respect to inclusion of a noncash cost in budget totals; and (4) involve significant implementation issues, such as the need for additional agency resources. Consequently, GAO does not support the use of the fair value approach to estimate subsidy costs for the budget and believes the current FCRA methodology is more appropriate for this purpose as it represents the best estimate of the direct cost to the government and is consistent with current budgetary practices.” > > It discusses why costs for student loans have been reestimated upwards in recent years: > “According to Education, this program experienced generally upward reestimates over the years mainly driven by discount rate changes; revised assumptions related to income-driven repayment plans and public service loan forgiveness; and rising borrower default rates. After fiscal year 2014, the Direct Student Loan Program reported an upward reestimate of $21.0 billion, which, according to Education officials, was primarily related to newly implemented income-driven repayment plans for borrowers. This reestimate had a significant effect not only on the reestimates in the education category but also on direct loan program reestimates government-wide. The size of the Direct Student Loan Program also contributes to the magnitude of its reestimates. For example, for the fiscal years 2001 through 2014 cohorts, Education has reported loan disbursements totaling about $825 billion. With this loan volume, a 1 percentage point change in the subsidy rate for all cohorts would result in an $8.25 billion reestimate. In comparison, a 1 percentage point change in the subsidy rate of a loan program with less loan volume would have a smaller reestimate amount.” > > 7. Gala Award Nominations: The Gala Committee is initiating the process for nominations for CEF award at the Gala (to be held this year on September 21). To nominate someone, please complete this form <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19p6j32JwToUERWakZ2ZGlQMEE/view?usp=sharing>, which is due back on June 1. Here is a list of previous CEF awardees <https://drive.google.com/a/rabengroup.com/file/d/0B19p6j32JwToU2t3bjZwTWh0UVU/view?usp=sharing> for background information. > > > Joel Packer > CEF Executive Director > JPacker@cef.org <mailto:JPacker@cef.org> > 202-383-0083 > 202-255-0915 (cell) > www.cef.org <http://www.cef.org/> > www.Twitter.com/edfunding <http://www.twitter.com/edfunding> > NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS > 1341 G Street, NW > Fifth Floor > Washington, DC 20005 > >