Latest Debates in Congress

No Child Left Behind
The New Debate on Education Reform
Should Congress Make Fundamental Changes in the No Child Left Behind Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, May 2008)

The 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform is considered a landmark event in the history of American education. The product of President Ronald Reagan’s Commission on Excellence in Education Reform, the report concluded that America’s schools were failing miserably, with scores dropping steadily in all subject areas. Especially disturbing were study’s the unfavorable comparisons with the academic achievements of other nations.

The report touched off a wave of reform efforts at every level of government and led to the release of another manifesto during the Administration of President George H.W. Bush, who set forth a series of education goals to be achieved by the start of the twenty-first century. “Goals 2000,” as the policy later became known, was later enacted into law under President Bill Clinton.

With these mostly unrealistic goals still unmet, an even larger progeny sprang from the Administration of George W. Bush: No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), approved by Congress in 2001 and signed into law in early 2002.

NCLB was the result of a rare and short-lived bipartisan collaboration between the Bush White House and Democratic leaders in Congress.

In the six years since its passage, however, NCLB has drawn fire from many local school officials who say the law is too focused on standardized testing, forcing many teachers to spend excessive classroom time “teaching to the test.” For its part, the Bush Administration claims that the law’s systematic testing provides comprehensive data — for the first time ever — that shed light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that appropriate interventions can be taken.

With ESEA overdue for reauthorization, Democratic leaders in Congress are holding out for a major overhaul of No Child Left Behind that would shift the emphasis from standardized testing to other means of measuring yearly progress. The Administration, meanwhile, has proposed its own set of improvements — some controversial (such as awarding of merit pay for teachers) and others representing only a modest “tweaking” of the law.

Proponents of fundamental changes in NCLB are calling for greater flexibility for States in considering indicators of academic success; a broader, richer curriculum encompassing critical thinking and problem-solving; and an accountability system that distinguishes between different schools and their individual challenges.

The ESEA reauthorization debate has become entangled with the dynamics of election year politics and the Administration’s determination to protect this key component of the President’s legacy.

So far, it remains uncertain whether a compromise can be forged during the remaining months of the 110th Congress that will result in yet another bipartisan education reform effort.

Food Safety
Streamlining Federal Oversight in a New Era of Challenges
Are the Bush Administration's FDA Reforms Sufficient to Ensure the Safety of the Nation's Food Supply?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, April 2008)

Although the U.S. food supply is considered one of the safest in the world, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 76 million Americans get sick, more than 300,000 are hospitalized, and about 5,000 die each year because of something they ate. Recent food scares have involved such all-American staples as spinach, peanut butter, hamburger meat, and pet food.

A number of genetic, environmental, and behavioral factors contribute to the emergence of these outbreaks, along with centralized processing and broader distribution, which facilitate the spread of food-borne microorganisms. Also to blame, many believe, is an outdated, fragmented, and complex Federal oversight system that has evolved piecemeal over the years, usually in response to specific health threats.

The origins of the current food-safety system are in the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which — though it strengthened food-quality standards and authorized factory inspections — was enacted at a time when Americans had a much simpler diet and processed foods were almost unheard of. Congress has amended the law numerous times since then to account for changes in American tastes, including the growing popularity of seafood and other products imported from other countries, where diverse controls apply. As a result, 15 Federal agencies now administer at least 30 food-safety laws.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office has called for a “fundamental re-examination” of the current regulatory structure by Congress, and in 2007, listed food safety as one of 27 “high-risk” Federal program areas. Lawmakers and regulators generally agree that Federal food-safety oversight warrants an overhaul. The conflict lies in what approach to take.

The George W. Bush Administration has proposed a Food Protection Plan based on the identification of system vulnerabilities, targeted intervention of domestic and imported products, and an improved emergency response system.

On the congressional front, the most far-reaching proposal — introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro (CTD) and Senator Richard Durbin (IL-D) — would strip FDA and USDA of their disparate food safety and inspection duties and consolidate them within a new, freestanding Food Safety Administration with greater authority to take immediate and decisive action.

Those favoring the Administration’s strategy say significant progress can be made by augmenting existing programs and resources to meet risks.

Others argue that the patchwork nature of the current system can only be remedied through fundamental change — not incremental measures.

With Americans increasingly mistrustful of the food they eat, a rare consensus is developing among food industry representatives and consumer advocates in support of a streamlined regulatory process backed by adequate funding. Thus, while the debate continues over the specifics and degree of reform, all interests at least agree that there are few objectives as important as protecting the Nation’s food supply.

Foreign Intelligence Gathering
The Scope of Executive Branch Surveillance

Should the Senate Adopt the Judiciary Committee Substitute to S. 2248, the FISA Amendments Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, March 2008)

Government surveillance of private citizens has always been controversial in America, but especially as new technologies have made it easier to discover personal information without performing a traditional physical search of properties or possessions.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ...” When it comes to foreign surveillance during wartime, many have argued that the President is inherently free of constitutional restraints; however, in 1972, the Supreme Court determined that warrantless wiretaps of domestic groups for national security reasons violated the Constitution.

To create a legal process for authorizing foreign intelligence wiretaps, and to define the power of the Executive Branch in conducting such surveillance, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978.

FISA barred electronic eavesdropping on persons within the United States without the approval of a new foreign intelligence court, but also provided a grace period for retroactive warrants, when needed, and for warrantless wiretapping during times of war.

Soon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless surveillance of individuals who might be linked to the al Qaeda terrorist network or its affiliates without going through the FISA court. Some of these international communications involved U.S. citizens and others located within the United States.

In May 2006, it was revealed that the Administration had been compiling a database of telephone calls with the cooperation of three of the largest U.S. telephone carriers, who were paid to provide the information to the NSA. The companies now face some 40 lawsuits for obtaining personal information without warrants.

In the summer of 2007, the Bush Administration, pushed for changes in FISA to close what it termed a “surveillance gap” — the requirement that the government get court approval to capture communications between foreigners that go through computers inside the United States. In response, Congress hastily approved the Protect America Act (PAA), a temporary measure removing the prohibition on warrantless spying on Americans abroad and giving the government wide powers to order telecommunciations companies to make their networks available to government eavesdroppers.

With the PAA set to expire at the end of 2007, the House and Senate, after much partisan wrangling, passed differing bills to replace it. The Senate bill includes many of the broad new surveillance powers the White House wanted and gives retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. The House bill, similar in nature to a Senate Judiciary Committee substitute rejected on the Senate floor, does not include the immunity clause.

Supporters of the Senate bill argue that the new electronic surveillance authority is needed to identify terrorists and prevent future attacks in a timely manner.

Those who favor the House version say that it provides the intelligence community with the tools it needs to conduct surveillance on foreign targets while restoring constitutional checks and balances.

In mid-February, House Democrats — in their greatest challenge yet to the President on a national security issue — refused to capitulate to White House demands, allowing the Protect America Act to expire. Behind-thescene negotiations were underway to forge a compromise, but how or when that might occur remained uncertain.

The Torture Debate
Determining Limits on Interrogation Techniques

Should U.S. Intelligence Agents Be Required to Comply With U.S. Army Interrogation and Prisoner Treatment Standards?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, February 2008)

More than four years after images depicting of abuse of Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prisoners by U.S. military personnel came to public attention, America’s use — and definition — of torture remains controversial.

Internal memoranda within the George W. Bush Administration have led to ambiguities concerning whether U.S. intelligence agency personnel could legally use techniques such as waterboarding (simulated drowning) to illicit information from detainees at Guantánamo Bay and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, congressional investigations are underway into the Central Intelligence Agency’s destruction of videotapes that reportedly depicted the use of disputed interrogation tactics.

The primary source of international humanitarian law is the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit any form of torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners of war and detained civilians. Such individuals are also protected during both peacetime and wartime by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental” is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of someone acting in an “official capacity.”

There remain unanswered questions over the nation’s interrogation policies, however — namely, are they legal and humane, do they produce reliable intelligence, and is their damage to the U.S. image abroad outweighed by any demonstrated worth in keeping the country safe?

The U.S. Army Field Manual’s interrogation guide explicitly prohibits the use of waterboarding, electrocution, sensory deprivation, or the withholding of food, water, or medical care. It also specifics that the Geneva Conventions apply to all detainees, including prisoners of war and enemy combatants. Language inserted into the conference report on the 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill, approved by the House in December 2007, would apply these standards to all government agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

This provision contradicts an Executive Order signed by President Bush in July 2007 that bans cruel and inhuman treatment during the interrogation of terrorism suspects detained by the CIA, but allows “enhanced interrogation techniques,” classified as secret, and may exempt intelligence personnel from prohibitions contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Supporters of the conference report interrogation language contend that it is in the U.S. national interest to adhere to one clearly defined standard of treatment for prisoners of war and other detainees, and that the techniques used by military and law enforcement interrogators have worked successfully for decades. Opponents of the interrogation language in Congress and the Administration charge that the proposed restrictions would prevent the United States from obtaining intelligence needed to protect the country.

The White House has issued a policy statement to the effect that the President will veto the Intelligence Authorization bill because of the interrogation language and other provisions. A veto override is unlikely. Meanwhile, the debate over torture and the abstract and real-life consequences of the practice is certain to continue.

Affordable Housing
Addressing the Basic Needs of Low-Income Families

Should the House Approve H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, January 2008)

On January 2, 2006, an explosion ripped through the Sago mine in Upshur County, West Virginia, trapping 13 miners underground; only one person was brought up alive. Two weeks later, a fire at a mine in another West Virginia county killed two miners, and on May 20, 2006, five miners lost their lives in a mine explosion in Harlan Country, Kentucky. By the end of 2006, 47 miners had died on the job — a 10- year high and more than twice the number of deaths in 2005.

These accidents were a grim reminder that mining is still one of the most dangerous occupations in the United States. Mining fatalities occur at more than seven times the average rate for all private industries, according to the House Education and Labor Committee. Many thousands of miners are also injured. During the 1990s, an average of 21,351 mining injuries occurred each year.

The first Federal mine safety law was enacted in the late 1800s, with increasingly stronger measures passed thereafter.

The current prevailing law is the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which created the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), strengthened and expanded the rights of miners, required at least four yearly inspections of all underground mines, and toughened the penalty system for rules violators.

In the spring of 2006, in response to that year’s mine disasters, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act.

A year later, concerned that implementation of the MINER Act was proceeding too slowly and unevenly, Chairman George Miller (CA-D) of the House Education and Labor Committee introduced the Supplementary Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (S-MINER) Act and the Miner Health Enhancement Act. Tragically, a short time later, the Nation’s attention was riveted once again on a mine disaster, this time at the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah, where six trapped miners could not be freed and three rescue workers were killed while trying to reach them.

Supporters of the legislation contend that it is especially important to help prevent dangerous mining situations from occurring in the first place.

Opponents counter that the legislation fails to recognize the complexities of today’s mining environment.

The outlook for enactment of enhanced mine safety and health legislation is uncertain, but if the past is any guide, public concern about the toll of deaths and injuries will continue to intensify the demand for safer methods, improved technology, and stricter enforcement throughout the industry.

View 2007 Debates