The Reflecting Pool
In This Article
- Legislators, the White House and No Child Left Behind
- Legislators, Congress and No Child Left Behind
- NCSL President Testifies on Real ID
- House Ethics Panel Looks to State Experiences
Previous Editions
An eye on the state-federal relationship.
By Carl Tubbesing
March 29, 2007
Legislators, The White House and No Child Left Behind
Four state legislators had a private meeting last Friday with White House officials on the No Child Left Behind Act, which is scheduled for reauthorization this year. New York Senator Steve Saland, Kansas Senator John Vratil, Maryland Delegate Nancy King and Connecticut Senator Tom Gaffey—two Republicans and two Democrats—were members of an NCSL task force that conducted an exhaustive examination of the federal law during 2004. Representing the administration at the meeting were members of the domestic policy staff, Vice President Cheney’s education adviser, the head of the White House intergovernmental staff and a representative of the Department of Education.
The 90-minute meeting focused on several of the issues raised in the task force’s final report, including the law’s rigidity, flaws in its measurement of adequate yearly progress, and the mismatch in testing provisions between NCLB and the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The highlight came, though, when the legislators complained about how unevenly the Department of Education has applied its interpretation of NCLB from state to state. The sanitized way to describe their concerns is that the department’s rulings have suffered from a lack of transparency. The not-so-sanitized characterization involves the pejorative connotation of an otherwise respectable “P” word.
Legislators, Congress and No Child Left Behind
The final report of the NCSL’s No Child Left Behind task force had one overriding theme—that the federal law inserted the national government into a policy area historically and even constitutionally reserved to the states. Now, with Congress and the administration beginning their year-long dance over renewal of the law, 57 Republican U.S. Senate and House members have introduced legislation whose goal is to return control of education policy back to the states. What’s remarkable about the group is that it includes several prominent members who voted for passage of the law in 2001, including House Minority Leader Roy Blunt and Florida Senator Mel Martinez, chair of the Republican National Committee and a former cabinet member for President Bush. Although key Democrats and the Bush administration attacked the legislation, this development offers hope to NCSL and other state officials looking for significant changes in the philosophy and details of federal education law.
NCSL President Testifies on Real ID
Texas Senator Leticia Van de Putte, NCSL’s president, testified earlier this week on state concerns with the Real ID Act. Appearing before a subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Van de Putte reiterated NCSL’s position that the law should be repealed if it is not fixed and funded by the end of 2007.
She acknowledged that the rules recently proposed by the Department of Homeland Security address some of NCSL’s concerns. She noted, however, that the “draft regulations do not address several of the major recommendations” made in a September 2006 report of NCSL, the National Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. They include the need to have five national databases up and running by the May 11, 2008 compliance deadline, to allow states a 10-year reenrollment process, and to exempt certain populations from the Real ID process. Senator Van de Putte argued that several of the five databases won’t be ready in time and it will be impossible for states to comply if they aren’t. Extending the reenrollment period and exempting certain groups are ways of ameliorating the law’s $11 billion costs to states.
Reaction from members of the subcommittee was mixed. Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka, chair of the subcommittee, and Ohio Senator George Voinovich, its ranking member, offered assurances that Congress is serious about fixing the law. They were much less sanguine about prospects for significant funding help from the federal government.
House Ethics Panel Looks to State Experiences
Congress, with its unique rules, Byzantine budget process and thousands of staff, seldom looks to state legislatures for help with procedural or management questions, so today’s hearing of a special House ethics task force has a man-bites-dog quality about it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the panel to determine whether enforcement of House ethics rules should be turned over to an outside “investigative and enforcement body.” One of the task force’s instructions was to look to the experiences of state legislatures with independent ethics commissions.
The task force will carry through on that charge this afternoon when it hears from Anthony Wilhoit, executive director of the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission. The Kentucky commission, created by the Legislature in 1993, is known as a model for its approach to legislative ethics rulings and enforcement. Wilhoit joined the commission in 1997 and is a former chief judge of Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Carl Tubbesing is the deputy executive director of NCSL.