Category: Kathleen D. Tobin
No Child Left Behind Three Years Later
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14- Despite repeated statements by Bush administration officials about how the “No Child Left Behind” education overhaul legislation is reducing the achievement gap in America, many researchers and educators are still critical of the law.
“I don’t think it has been effective and I don’t think it will be effective,” said Neal McCluskey, an education policy analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. “The problem is that the No Child Left Behind Act tries to force one model on all schools.”
The act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002, requires all schools that receive funding under Title I, which directs federal funds to schools and school districts with high percentages of low-income families, to develop and implement an accountability system of annual testing in reading and math through eighth grade and at least once during high school.
The crux of the problem, critics say, is the law’s requirement that schools must show “adequate yearly progress,” as defined by the state, in an effort to close the current racial and economic achievement gaps or they will be labeled “in need of improvement.” Under the law, also known as NCLB for short, all students must be considered “proficient,” according to the state definition, by the 2013-2014 school year.
“The focus of NCLB is really on improving student achievement and closing those achievement gaps” between low income and minority students, said Alexa Marrero, spokeswoman for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. “Overall achievement is going up and even more quickly we’re seeing achievement gains among those students who historically may have been allowed to fall between the cracks.”
According to July 2005 results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, elementary school student achievement is at an all time high in both reading and math while the achievement gap at this level continues to narrow. The report also revealed that reading and math scores for African-American and Hispanic nine-year-olds have reached an all time high and that 43 states either improved academically or remained steady with the previous year in fourth and eight grade reading and math.
Democrats and other critics, however, are not convinced that the results accurately reflect the effects of the law.
“We’re still pretty early into the law,” said Tom Kiley, spokesman for Rep. George Miller (D- Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. “But we’ve seen some encouraging results,” he said, adding that “there’s still a long way to go.”
Under the law, all students must be considered “proficient,” with each state deciding what that means, in both math and reading by the 2013-2014 school year. In addition, states must set annual goals for the number of students who will perform “proficiently” on the exams that year. If the state does not meet those goals, it is labeled as “in need of improvement.” After two years of not meeting the adequate yearly progress goals, the state must offer parents the choice to send their children to other public schools in the district.
“What do you do when you have a school that everyone wants to leave?” Rick Trombly, a spokesperson for the National Education Association in New Hampshire, asked. He and other critics worry that in such a scenario, neighboring districts would cherry-pick the best students from the failing school. “Is that what you want to do-take the ‘best’ students and then leave everyone else? That seems to me like a recipe for all children left behind.”
According to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Education, one school in New Hampshire offered parents public school choice during the 2003-2004 school year because of the law. During the 2004-2005 school year, 72 New Hampshire schools were designated as “in need of improvement,” according to the New Hampshire Department of Education.
As a result of the requirements, McCluskey and others argue, some states set lower standards so students will be able to more easily meet the annual goals.
For example the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a think tank that supports education reform, reported that the gains states made in their annual tests were not always matched in the national assessments.
According to the analysis, states like Alabama, California, Idaho, Arizona, Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky, each reported that an additional five to 11 percent of eighth grade students became proficient in reading between 2003 and 2005 in their state results. These gains disappeared, however, when results from the national test, known for short as the NAEP, were examined.
“The much-discussed ‘race to the bottom’ appears to have begun,” Fordham Foundation President Chester E. Finn Jr., a Reagan administration education official, said in a press release. “If states ease their standards, construct simple-minded tests, or set low passing scores, they can mislead their own citizens and educators into thinking that just about everyone is proficient. Congress had the wisdom to insist that NAEP function as an ‘external audit’ of state (and national) progress toward proficiency under NCLB. Now we see just how important this is.” Marrero said that while this is a concern that has been raised, it is “unfair and misleading to assume that states and teachers in schools would have incentives for their students not to do well.”
But according to the preliminary results of a study conducted by the Rockefeller Center for Public Policy and Social Sciences at Dartmouth College, superintendents in New Hampshire and Vermont believe that high stakes testing, such as that in the law, have prompted changes in curriculum.
“A majority of them have indicated that changes are occurring in the curriculum towards the tested subjects of math and reading and away from the non-tested subjects,” said Scott Carrell, research associate and director of the Policy Research Shop at Dartmouth College.
As a result of such curricular changes, McCluskey said, the law could remove flexibility from schools and administrators that is essential for districts to address the varying needs of their students.
“Individual schools have varied populations and varied needs and they should be able to tailor their curriculum to their school,” he said.
McCluskey and other critics argue that statewide standardized testing, as well as the teacher examinations that are required under the law, push states and individual school districts to “teach to the test,” focusing their time and attention on passing the mandated tests rather than on ensuring that all students are learning all of the material they will need to succeed in college and life.
Teaching to the test is not in itself a bad thing, McCluskey said, provided that the test in question is rigorous. But if the test has been watered down, it becomes a serious educational problem.
Others attribute teaching to the test to a lack of creativity.
“A lot of the requirements of No Child Left Behind can actually be integrated into extracurricular activities,” said Jo Ann Webb, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education, adding that “unless you have those fundamental skills, you’re going to have deficiencies in other areas.”
Michael Cohen, former assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education in the Clinton administration and current president of Achieve, a bipartisan, non-profit organization that helps to ensure all young people are prepared for postsecondary education, work and citizenship, said, “The best way to improve test scores is to teach kids a rigorous curriculum in interesting and engaging ways.”
When teachers are unable to teach such well-rounded curriculums, they then focus too heavily on the tested areas, Cohen said.
Student tests are not the only ones causing controversy.
Because teachers are required to pass exams that demonstrate their content-knowledge in the areas they teach, McCluskey said, districts are losing valuable potential teachers from the private sector who have extensive knowledge and the desire to teach but lack a degree or the time and money to take the necessary coursework and pass the exams.
“You get the teachers who have nothing else to do but teach,” he said. “There’s no incentives for people who might be really good teachers to go into teaching”
Under the law, teachers must be deemed a “highly qualified teacher” or the district is required to notify parents that their children are being taught by teachers who do not meet the requirements of the law. While states have flexibility to determine what qualifies a veteran teacher as “highly qualified,” the law requires that all new teachers must have a bachelor’s degree and pass a state developed teacher examination.
Trombly said these requirements are especially harmful in New Hampshire because they impede local involvement in schools.
“New Hampshire’s tradition of local involvement, community involvement, in public education really served us well in the past,” he said. “Individual districts could meet the needs of their particular students in a way that best fit their district. NCLB really sets a one size should fit all standards.”
Trombly added that “New Hampshire’s teacher certification process,” which he said is both “rigorous and strenuous,” is “what makes our teachers highly qualified.” In addition, Trombly said he believes labeling a teacher as “non-highly qualified” is “truly detrimental to what is really going on in the classroom.”
And on a national level, controversy remains about the level of funding the law is receiving. Practically since President Bush signed the legislation, critics have accused the administration and Congress of underfunding it.
The Democrats’ Kiley said the program is “woefully underfunded and it has been ever since its enactment,” adding that the program would require an additional $40 billion to be considered fully funded.
According to the GOP’s Marrero federal funding for education has increased by about 50 percent since 2001 and “the federal investment is specifically focused on these goals for No Child Left Behind and certainly there has been adequate funding to achieve those goals,” adding that “the primary source for education is state and local sources” with federal funding only accounting for between seven and nine percent.
But even some critics of the law say that full funding is not the answer.
“There’s plenty of money and there’s been plenty of spending in education,” McCluskey said, adding that while per pupil expenditures have increased dramatically, “achievement has flat-lined.”
Like McCluskey, Cohen said that though additional funding could be beneficial, it would not solve all of the law’s problems.
“More and better services can be provided for kids with more money and that’s important but, that doesn’t solve the most significant and thorny problems that are built into the design of NCLB,” Cohen said.
One of the biggest design problems with the law, according to Cohen, is that the accountability provisions treat a school that is progressing greatly, but not quite reaching its annual goal, the same as a school where little or no progress has been made. Under the law, both schools would be labeled “in need of improvement.”
Instead, many experts believe that a “growth model,” which would monitor the progress made by the same group of students from one year to the next, rather than comparing two different groups of children year after year as the law does now, would be more effective.
Last month, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced a pilot program that will allow up to ten interested and qualified states to submit proposals for the development of growth models for the 2005-2006 school year. States must show that they have the additional funding and the data processing to track all of the students.
Trombly said that “under the law, we had districts in New Hampshire that actually improved their performance on the measures, but because they didn’t improve enough, they were deemed failing.”
New Hampshire Case Considered by Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 -- With protesters from both sides assembled on the street outside, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday from New Hampshire's attorney general and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in the court's first abortion-rights case in five years.
At issue was New Hampshire's 2003 Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, which prohibits minors from obtaining an abortion until at least 48 hours after a parent or guardian has been notified.
The act waives that requirement if a judge determines that the minor is "mature and capable of giving confirmed consent" or if the minor's life is at risk. But-and this is the heart of the legal argument-it does not include an emergency health exemption if the minor's life is not at risk but she faces bodily injury if the pregnancy continues.
Justice Stephen Breyer almost immediately began firing questions about the clarity of the statute at New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who argued on behalf of the state.
What options would a physician have, Breyer asked, if a pregnant teen who faced injury from the pregnancy arrived at the medical office when a judge could not be reached and a parent had not been notified.
Ayotte said that an existing state law would protect physicians who performed abortions in this situation.
"It doesn't say that in this legislation," Breyer shot back. "It says the contrary."
According to the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, state abortion laws must provide an explicit "health exception." Ayotte said that the judicial bypass mechanism in the bill satisfies this requirement.
"The judicial bypass provision and the death exception are constitutionally sufficient and legal means of protecting the health of a minor," Ayotte said in a written statement the day before the court hearing. The act "does not present a substantial obstacle to any woman's right to choose an abortion; instead, the act provides pregnant minors with the benefit of parental guidance and assistance in exercising what is undoubtedly a difficult choice."
Other than questioning what Ayotte meant when she said that a doctor who performs an abortion without receiving a judicial approval and when the minor's parent had not been notified were "constitutionally protected," Justice David Souter, a former New Hampshire attorney general, was quiet during the hearing.
U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, joined Ayotte in defending the law, which has never been applied in the state because of an injunction imposed after its passage. Jennifer E. Dalven, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, spoke on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
"I don't think saving a statute is worth putting a teen's life at risk," Dalven said. "Delaying appropriate care can be catastrophic" and lead to injuries to the liver or kidneys, stroke and infertility, among other conditions.
Justice Antonin Scalia reminded Dalven that "it takes 30 seconds to make a phone call" to a judge to receive approval for an abortion, adding that the state could establish an "abortion judge" who would be available 24 hours a day to rule in such cases.
While Scalia's comment brought the courtroom to laughter, some members of New Hampshire's Legislature said afterwards that they were offended by the statement.
"I thought Justice Scalia made a mockery of the case," said Lou D'Allesandro, deputy Democratic leader of the state Senate.
Ayotte maintained that a physician would not be prosecuted for performing an abortion on a minor without parental notification or judicial authorization in the "rare emergency cases" and said that her office was prepared to offer an opinion to that effect. But her opponents said they were not convinced that this was appropriate, and some of the justices seemed similarly unpersuaded.
New Hampshire state Rep. Marjorie Smith questioned what would happen when Ayotte was no longer the attorney general. She said such decisions should be made according to law, not through an opinion issued by a government office.
In his first abortion-rights case, Chief Justice John Roberts avoided questions and statements that revealed his stance on the issue, at one point suggesting that the case possibly go back to a lower court as a "pre-enforcement" suit that "would be focused on the health exemption problem and not on the statute as a whole."By Kathleen D. Tobin
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 -- With protesters from both sides assembled on the street outside, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday from New Hampshire's attorney general and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in the court's first abortion-rights case in five years.
At issue was New Hampshire's 2003 Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, which prohibits minors from obtaining an abortion until at least 48 hours after a parent or guardian has been notified.
The act waives that requirement if a judge determines that the minor is "mature and capable of giving confirmed consent" or if the minor's life is at risk. But-and this is the heart of the legal argument-it does not include an emergency health exemption if the minor's life is not at risk but she faces bodily injury if the pregnancy continues.
Justice Stephen Breyer almost immediately began firing questions about the clarity of the statute at New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who argued on behalf of the state.
What options would a physician have, Breyer asked, if a pregnant teen who faced injury from the pregnancy arrived at the medical office when a judge could not be reached and a parent had not been notified.
Ayotte said that an existing state law would protect physicians who performed abortions in this situation.
"It doesn't say that in this legislation," Breyer shot back. "It says the contrary."
According to the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, state abortion laws must provide an explicit "health exception." Ayotte said that the judicial bypass mechanism in the bill satisfies this requirement.
"The judicial bypass provision and the death exception are constitutionally sufficient and legal means of protecting the health of a minor," Ayotte said in a written statement the day before the court hearing. The act "does not present a substantial obstacle to any woman's right to choose an abortion; instead, the act provides pregnant minors with the benefit of parental guidance and assistance in exercising what is undoubtedly a difficult choice."
Other than questioning what Ayotte meant when she said that a doctor who performs an abortion without receiving a judicial approval and when the minor's parent had not been notified were "constitutionally protected," Justice David Souter, a former New Hampshire attorney general, was quiet during the hearing.
U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, joined Ayotte in defending the law, which has never been applied in the state because of an injunction imposed after its passage. Jennifer E. Dalven, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, spoke on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
"I don't think saving a statute is worth putting a teen's life at risk," Dalven said. "Delaying appropriate care can be catastrophic" and lead to injuries to the liver or kidneys, stroke and infertility, among other conditions.
Justice Antonin Scalia reminded Dalven that "it takes 30 seconds to make a phone call" to a judge to receive approval for an abortion, adding that the state could establish an "abortion judge" who would be available 24 hours a day to rule in such cases.
While Scalia's comment brought the courtroom to laughter, some members of New Hampshire's Legislature said afterwards that they were offended by the statement.
"I thought Justice Scalia made a mockery of the case," said Lou D'Allesandro, deputy Democratic leader of the state Senate.
Ayotte maintained that a physician would not be prosecuted for performing an abortion on a minor without parental notification or judicial authorization in the "rare emergency cases" and said that her office was prepared to offer an opinion to that effect. But her opponents said they were not convinced that this was appropriate, and some of the justices seemed similarly unpersuaded.
New Hampshire state Rep. Marjorie Smith questioned what would happen when Ayotte was no longer the attorney general. She said such decisions should be made according to law, not through an opinion issued by a government office.
In his first abortion-rights case, Chief Justice John Roberts avoided questions and statements that revealed his stance on the issue, at one point suggesting that the case possibly go back to a lower court as a "pre-enforcement" suit that "would be focused on the health exemption problem and not on the statute as a whole."
A Split in the New Hampshire Delegation
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - The recent controversy in Congress over the deficit reduction bill and oil and natural gas drilling in the Alaska wilderness has not only clarified the division between moderate and conservative Republicans nationwide, it has also illuminated the ideological differences between New Hampshire's four Republican members of Congress. And it has left Rep. Jeb Bradley squarely in the middle.
Bradley joined with fellow Rep. Charles Bass in the successful effort to remove language in the House version of the bill that would allow drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
That puts the two of them at odds with their Senate colleagues, Judd Gregg and John Sununu, who both voted for the Senate version of the bill, which includes provisions for Alaska drilling
But Bradley, unlike Bass, has not pledged to reject the bill if, after House and Senate members meet to resolve the differences in the versions passed by each chamber, it returns to the House floor with Arctic drilling in it.
"I'm looking at it as a package," Bradley said in a telephone interview Wednesday, adding the he voted in favor of the bill when it was before the Budget Committee and included the drilling provisions.
"With each step of the way, I'm going to look at it with spending and how we reduce spending as a priority."
Bass, by contrast, said he would not endorse Alaska drilling even if it meant voting against the final version of the deficit reduction bill.
"Opening up ANWR to drilling would dramatically shift U.S. environmental policy," he said. "A change this significant necessitates an open, substantive policy debate that can only occur in a stand-alone measure. Attaching this language to the budget reconciliation bill is simply inappropriate."
Bass, a party moderate, created waves last week when he split with President Bush and his New Hampshire colleagues in the Senate by leading a group of 26 Republicans, including Bradley, in sending a letter to the GOP House leadership to remove the drilling provisions
"If we reverse the protection for ANWR, then the protection of the White Mountains in New Hampshire, Yellowstone National Park, the Grand Canyon and all other public spaces becomes meaningless," Bass said in a press release last week.
Bass is co-chairman of the House Tuesday Group, an organization of moderate Republicans.
While Bradley may have found himself caught between his traditional fiscal conservative ways as a member of the Budget Committee and his moderate tendencies on issues like Alaska oil drilling, Gregg and Sununu are voting and speaking as one would expect from conservative Republicans.
After passage of the Senate version of the bill, Gregg, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said, "There is much more to be done, but today is the first time in nearly a decade that we have succeeded in reviewing and reducing the federal rate of entitlement spending, which is rapidly outpacing the growth of our economy."
Repeal of Wright Amendment Could Expand Flights to Manchester
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - A Senate subcommittee considered Thursday if lifting restrictions on airline traffic from Love Field in Dallas, Texas, would promote competition and result in lower prices and better service for consumers.
At issue was a 1979 law, commonly called the Wright Amendment, which limited non-stop airline traffic from Love Field to points in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
"The 26-year-old Wright Amendment has outlived its usefulness and has no place in federal aviation law in the future," Sen. Kit Bond (R- Mo.) said.
With the passage of the Shelby Amendment in 1997, airlines operating out of Love Field were allowed to expand operations with flights to and from Alabama, Kansas and Mississippi. If repealed, airlines would be allowed to offer non-stop flights to and from all airports in the United States, including Manchester Airport.
Prior to the amendments, and before Southwest Airlines offered service in Texas, all airlines agreed to move their flights from Love Field to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. After the transition took place, Love Field, which is about 10 miles from Dallas/Fort Worth, and other local airports were to close. But Southwest did not sign the agreement and began operating out of Love Field in 1971. Southwest is the primary airline at Love Field, accounting for 97 percent of the flights in and out of the airport.
After a lengthy legal battle, Southwest Airlines and the airlines at Dallas/Forth Worth agreed to the Wright Amendment, which requires all commercial flights from Love Field to touch down at an airport in one of the designated states, unload passengers and re-board before continuing on to states further away.
Explaining that he believes the Wright Amendment has "outlived its usefulness," Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada) said repealing it and allowing airlines to offer non-stop flights from Love Field to other airports would result in "better deals at better prices and better service."
As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the subcommittee on aviation, which sponsored Thursday's hearing, Ensign introduced legislation in the Senate this summer calling for the repeal of the Wright Amendment.
Though he was not at the hearing, New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu, who also serves on the subcommittee, has co-sponsored Ensign's legislation.
"Fair, open markets deliver benefits to consumers in the form of low prices and maximum efficiency," Sununu said in a press release this week. "Airline carriers should operate within the demands of the marketplace."
Officials from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and American Airlines, which is responsible for 82 percent of flights into and out of there, said they believe repealing the Wright Amendment will hurt airlines at the airport, which is also known as DFW.
"Southwest refuses to compete with every other carrier at DFW," said Kevin Cox, chief operating officer and senior executive vice president of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, adding that his airport has offered Southwest a year of free rent, valued at $22 million, which would allow the airline to offer flights to all states, promote competition and benefit consumers.
Herbert Kelleher, executive chairman of Southwest Airlines, said repealing the Wright Amendment would allow 3.7 million more passengers to travel, increasing travelers at both airports, and saving consumers about $700 million annually in lower ticket costs. Overall, he said, it would boost the economy by about $4 billion each year.
"DFW has gotten so big that I'm surprised it hasn't been implicated of a steroid scandal," Kelleher said.
Despite concerns from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) that the Wright Amendment is "a very complicated issue" that should be dealt with at the local and state level, some members of Congress believe that since the amendment was passed in Washington, it should be repealed here as well.
"The Wright Amendment stifles options for travelers headed to Dallas's Love Field, including many New Hampshire passengers who fly from Manchester," Sununu said. "Removal of this out-dated provision is long overdue."
Two N.H. Communities Honored for Protecting Their Heritage
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - Hooksett and Keene were among 28 communities across the United States recognized at a ceremony here Wednesday for their dedication to protecting and celebrating their heritage.
"I have had the opportunity to visit Hooksett many times and see the progress the town has made in restoring several of its historic structures," Rep. Jeb Bradley said in a press release. "I commend [Hooksett] for its tireless efforts to promote historic preservation and economic development. The town is truly deserving of this honor, and I congratulate them on a job well done."
Bradley accepted the awards on behalf of both towns at the ceremony.
"Together I think we've made some good progress," said Kathleen Northrup, the chairwoman of Hooksett's Heritage Commission, in a telephone interview Wednesday. "[Hooksett] has changed a lot since I was younger, but it still has a nice personality."
Northrup completed the application for the town that was submitted to Preserve America, a White House initiative that encourages and supports community efforts to preserve local historical resources.
In addition to the Heritage Commission's oral history project and its efforts to refurbish Head Chapel, the town's first one-room, schoolhouse, Northrup said the dedication of the many volunteers who run Robie's Country Store Historic Preservation Corporation aided the city in earning this honor.
The awards, presented by Preserve America in conjunction with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the U.S. Department of the Interior, make the towns eligible for project grants that involve public-private partnerships and advance historic preservation, heritage tourism and education and related economic development.
"The city of Keene is steeped in history and tradition and has worked hard to preserve their many historic properties and to promote their treasured heritage," Rep. Charles Bass said in a press release. "Their successful designation as a Preserve America community will enhance the city's ability to promote their unique assets for the betterment of local businesses and community members."
In addition to grant eligibility, White House recognition and a recognition certificate, each town will also receive a Preserve America community road sign.
Anita McBride, deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff to Laura Bush, spoke at the ceremony on behalf of Mrs. Bush, the honorary chairwoman of Preserve America.
"Preservation is about revitalizing the spirit of a community," McBride said, adding that Mrs. Bush has long been a supporter of historic preservation because it has its roots in educating others.
Jeananne Farrar, chair of the Keene Heritage Commission, who completed the Preserve America application on behalf of the city, called the distinction a great honor and said she is exploring whether or not Keene will apply for grants this year.
In addition to the city's museums, historic landmarks and volunteerism, Farrar said, Keene's public school curriculum, which brings heritage preservation education into the schools at all grade levels, also played an important role in the application process and subsequent recognition.
"There's a lot of good stuff going on here," she said. "I was thrilled that we had been asked to apply and that we received this designation and I'm sure that the city of Keene will be equally pleased."
Farrar has lived in Keene for almost 70 years.
"If you have wonderful memories of your hometown it's pretty easy to sing its praises," she said. "I do think we have a particularly wonderful sense of community and a great quality of life."
New Hampshire’s Delegation Adds Up
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2- Congressional campaigning is a costly task and with an election only a year away New Hampshire's members of the House are raising thousands of dollars from various political action committees and individuals both in state and out of state.
With $157,513 in the bank after returning $15,000 to Tom Delay's political action committee, Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.) has more money than Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) who has $136,292 for his campaign, according campaign filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Overall, through Sept. 30, Bradley received $103,363 in contributions from individuals and an additional $99,975 from political action committees.
A member of the House Armed Services Committee, Bradley has received about $20,000 from political action committees in the defense industry, including $10,000 from BAE Systems USA PAC, which also contributed to Bass and New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu (R).
"The New Hampshire delegation have in the past, and I would expect in the future, supported strong national defense," said John Measell, spokesperson for BAE, adding that the company's political action committee donates money to both Democrats and Republicans.
Bradley also benefited from a $5,000 donation by Sen. Judd Gregg's White Mountain PAC.
"Congressman Bradley has done an outstanding job representing the people of the First District," Gregg said in a statement to the Union Leader. "From making a substantial contribution to the Save the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard effort, to environmental conservation efforts and representing New Hampshire's Veterans on the Veterans' Affairs and Armed Services Committees, Congressman Bradley is a valuable asset in Congress for New Hampshire."
Bradley's filing reports a $300,000 debt, which Debra Vanderbeek , Bradley 's chief of staff, said is the result of a $350,000 loan Bradley gave to his campaign during the 2002 primary. Since then, Bradley has paid off $50,000 but carries the remaining $300,000 of debt, Vanderbeek said.
Bass has received $91,500 from political action committees. As a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and vice-chair of the subcommittee on telecommunications and the internet, he drew $18,500 from political action committees in the communication and technology industry. Among his political actions committee contributors were Verizon Communications Inc. Good Government Club, Yahoo Inc. PAC, MCI Inc. Employee's PAC, Motorola Inc. PAC and Sprint Nextel Inc. PAC.
Explaining his group's decision to contribute to Bass and Bradley, David Fish, spokesperson for the Verizon PAC, said both of New Hampshire's representatives "seem to care about issues that affect our customers, shareholders and the industry."
Though he would not comment on why the Sprint Nextel PAC decided to contribute to Bass in particular, spokesperson Travis Sowders said the company's PAC generally "supports candidates who are supportive of our industry."
Among other PAC contributions, Bass also received $10,000 from Sununu's Daniel Webster PAC.
"New Hampshire's second congressional district is well served by the leadership of Congressman Charlie Bass and Senator Sununu and the Daniel Webster Political Action Committee are proud to support his reelection," said Paul Collins, treasurer of Team Sununu.
Second district Democratic candidate Paul Hodes also has been busy building his campaign fund in preparation for next year's election.
Hodes said he believes it is typical for challengers to raise funds through personal contributions and for incumbents to benefit from political action committee contributions because they have their Congressional experience and decisions to back them.
After spending $27,954 for various campaign expenses, Hodes has $56,499 cash-on-hand. Since he began campaigning, Hodes has received $79,203 from individual contributors, including $21,000 from the Dumont family of Wolfboro Falls, Center Ossipee and Center Tuftonboro.
In addition, Hodes has received $10,750 from employees of the New York law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, including from former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. Hodes' father, Robert B. Hodes, is a partner in the firm.
"It wasn't because I think his father is a great man, which he is," Cuomo said in a telephone interview, adding that he was impressed with Hodes' abilities, as well as his willingness to give up time as a successful trial and entertainment lawyer and time with his family to serve the people of New Hampshire. "He's not going to be my congressman," Cuomo said. "But he is going to be our congressman."
Though neither is up for re-election in 2006, New Hampshire's Republican senators also are adding to their campaign accounts.
Sen. Judd Gregg has $1.2 million in the bank, adding only $5,100 from individuals and $19,000 from political action committees this quarter, far less than any other New Hampshire member of Congress.
Of his six contributions from individuals, only one was from a New Hampshire resident, with another three were from employees of the Disney Company and one from an employee of the Motion Picture Association of America.
In addition, the Disney Employees Political Action Committee contributed $1,500 to Gregg, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. PAC donated $1,500 and the News America-Fox PAC contributed $1,000.
Jim Kennedy, spokesperson for Sony, said his company's PAC contributes on a bipartisan basis but declined to comment further.
Though Sen. John Sununu has less money in his campaign fund, with $286,638 in the bank, he raised more money than Gregg this quarter. In addition to the $90,466 Sununu had on hand at the beginning of last quarter he received $233,456 from individual contributions and $101,000 from political action committees.
As a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Sununu received more money from individuals in New York than New Hampshire, including $51,000 from various finance and insurance political action committees.
In addition to PAC contributions, Sununu received $30,250 from employees of Citigroup, $28,000 from employees of the Bank of New York and $14,500 from employees of Fidelity Investments.
Like the rest of New Hampshire's delegation, Sununu also received strong financial support from the communication and technology industries.
"The purpose of our political giving provides a means for our employees to join in the support of political candidates whose philosophies, and record or performance best represent their beliefs," said Teri Rucker, spokesperson for AT&T. "We strive to support office holders who recognize the importance of a strong telecommunications industry."
New Hampshire Delegation Reacts to Bush’s $7.1 Billion Plan
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 - Even before President George W. Bush announced Tuesday his $7.1 billion strategy to safeguard America against a flu pandemic, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg was working on his own plan to protect Americans from the avian flu and other potentially deadly pandemics.
"We must act now to protect Americans from a potential public health crisis and possibly prevent one," Gregg, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said in a press release. "Funding is only one part of a larger strategy, however."
On Monday, prior to Bush's speech, Gregg joined Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) in working to redirect $3.954 billion to protect and prepare Americans against avian flu and other possible pandemics. "We also must focus on enhancing applied research into pandemic and bioterror diseases and countermeasures; strengthen support of the vaccine industry; and provide the necessary liability protections to companies who manufacturer pandemic and bioterror countermeasure products," Gregg added. The money, which would come from budget savings, would be used to develop and stockpile antiviral medications and vaccines for influenza and other emerging pandemics, to intensify surveillance of these pandemics and to enhance local, state and federal preparedness against influenza and other newly emerging pandemics. "The funding included in this amendment is a major step towards ensuring America has the resources needed to detect, identify and contain the spread of avian flu in humans," Frist said in a press release, adding that Bush's "bold and decisive leadership today reflects his understanding of the urgency of confronting this issue." The amendment, which was offered to the 2005 budget bill , is pending. In his speech Tuesday, Bush outlined a three-part strategy to protect the United States against pandemic influenza: to detect outbreaks before they spread around the world, to protect Americans by stockpiling vaccines and antiviral medications while accelerating development of new vaccine technologies and finally to ensure that communities are ready to respond to pandemic outbreaks. Bush's $7.1 billion request consists of $2.8 billion for development of cell-culture technology, $1.519 billion for the Departments of Health and Human Services and Defense to buy flu vaccines, $1.029 billion to stockpile antiviral medications, $800 million for development of new treatments and vaccines, $644 million to ensure that all levels of government are prepared to respond to a pandemic outbreak and $251 million to detect and contain outbreaks.
"While there is no avian flu pandemic in the United States or any other location around the globe at this time, we must take critical steps to prepare and protect the nation in the event of a deadly influenza outbreak," New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu said in a press release. "By outlining a strategy that focuses on the development and stockpiling of vaccines and antiviral drugs and emergency plans, the President has put forth a policy that stands to save millions of lives."
As of Nov. 1, 122 humans have been infected by the avian flu in Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam , according to the World Health Organization. Of those infected, 62 have died.
"Undeniably, initiatives to head off legitimate threats to public health take precedence over less-immediate priorities," New Hampshire Rep. Charles Bass said in a press release. "Developing a proposal to confront a potential avian flu outbreak is a prudent response to the concerns of global health leaders, and I look forward to reviewing the President's plan."
New Hampshire Rep. Jeb Bradley said he thinks "we've got to address the situation with regard to vaccinations," adding that Bush's plan "makes a lot of sense."
"We've got to prioritize," Bass said, citing possible cuts in discretionary spending and budget reconciliation to offset the cost of Bush's proposed plan.
N.H. Primary in Question
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 - Come 2012, New Hampshire may not have exclusive bragging rights to the first primary in the United States.
As both parties wrestle with whether and how to reform their primary processes, the primacy of the Granite State's primary is open to debate. Party leaders from other states are angling to move ahead of New Hampshire, but what the final calendar will look like remains unclear.
"No deals have been made and no decisions have been finalized," Rep. David Price (N.C.- 4 th ), who co-chairs the Democratic National Committee's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling told a forum on the presidential nominating process sponsored by American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate and the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. The commission is scheduled to meet on December 1 st to consider revising the primary calendar.
Added David Norcross, chair of the Republican National Committee's Committee on the Rules: "This is a topic that is going to take a lot of discussion if we're actually going to make any changes. There appears to be no appetite in the [Republican] party to change."
During the forum on Monday, top officials of the Republican and Democratic parties met to discuss the problems with the timing of the current presidential primary process, as well as possible solutions.
A major problem with the current nominating system, according to Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, is that it causes "front-loading," or the grouping of most primaries into one month because states are trying to gain or maintain political relevance by moving into the start of the process. This means candidates must raise a minimum of $25 million before the first election, rather than having the opportunity to use early successes to gain funding that can be used to campaign in later primaries.
The current system also causes the primaries to be grouped into "mega-contests" immediately following the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses, which requires candidates to spend more money in the two states, Gans said, also noting that it creates earlier filing deadlines that make it difficult for late-entering candidates.
Gans argued that the system needs to be revised by spreading primaries out over a long time-span to ensure decisions are made rationally, by reducing the number of mega-primaries held on the same day and by changing filing deadlines so late-entering candidates can run on the ballot, rather than as write-ins.
"The front-loading has some perils and it would be nice to spread that out," Price agreed, adding he believes an effective solution to many of these problems might be moving the entire election process a few weeks, or even a month, later into the year.
"That's not feasible in this round," said Price, referring to the 2008 elections. "It will be hard to pull off, but it might very well be worth our bipartisan efforts."
Norcross, agreed that moving the election process later into the year might help solve some of these common problems, but added that as with the Democrats, no change could take place until 2012 because it would have to be voted on at the 2008 Republican National Convention.
Thomas Sansonetti, former General Counsel for the Republican National Committee, and Don Fowler, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, also participated in the forum.
Sununu Calls for Spending Offsets
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 - Seven Republican Senators, including New Hampshire's John Sununu, proposed Tuesday that $125 billion be cut from federal spending over the next two years to offset the billions of dollars being spent on hurricane relief efforts.
Among other cuts, the group proposed eliminating all earmarked funds, totaling about $24 billion, in the recently passed transportation bill.
"We ought to be willing to set priorities," Sununu said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "We ought to be willing to make some tough choices."
With $69 million, New Hampshire has fewer transportation earmarks-money included in the bill for specific projects in addition to the formula-driven general federal highway and transit aid-than any other state. The state would continue to get about $778 million over the next five years.
The earmarks include $20 million for construction, widening and structural improvements of Little Bay Bridge in Portsmouth, $5.2 million to improve Route 110 in Berlin, $3.6 million to realign an intersection in Claremont and $1.6 million to construct a park-and -ride facility on I-93 in Londonderry.
"Now is a time to do the difficult but imperative job of distinguishing between needs and wants," Sununu added in a press release. "Although many in Washington may think otherwise, the federal government's resources are finite."
The seven Republicans, who call themselves the Senate Fiscal Watch Team, also proposed a five percent reduction in all non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending, as well as the creation of a one percent contingency fund that could be used for programs that are cut and later deemed necessary.
Under the proposal, the senators also recommended a temporary delay in the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug program except for low-income senior citizens, requiring the other recipients to pay higher Medicare Part B premiums in 2006 rather than 2007 and a freeze in annual cost of living adjustments for all non-military, non-law enforcement federal employees and members of Congress.
"All of us feel that the people down in the Gulf Coast who were so severely affected by both Katrina and Rita, they deserve help," Sen. John Ensign of Nevada said at the press conference. "What we want to do is combine that compassion with responsibility for our children. We do not want to hand this debt off to the next generation."
The other members of the Senate Fiscal Watch Team are Sam Brownback of Kansas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona.
In addition to spending cuts, the senators voiced their support for Brownback's proposed legislation to create a bipartisan Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies that would seek to identify wasteful and outdated government programs. The commission, which would exist for a limited time and draft legislation for Congress' review, would be patterned after the Base Realignment and Closure Commission that reviews military bases.
While confident the proposed spending cuts would significantly offset Katrina relief, the group recognized that challenges lay ahead.
"This is going to be a long, hard, tough fight," McCain said at the press conference.
Sen. Gregg Wins Big in Powerball
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - A quick stop at a New York Avenue gas station to fill up on his way to the Capitol proved to be a lucky stop for New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg.
Gregg, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, was one of 47 Powerball lottery winners Wednesday to match five of the numbers, though not the Powerball number. His reward: $853,492 before taxes.
"I've always considered myself to be one of the luckiest people in the country just to be able to represent New Hampshire," Gregg said in conference call with reporters Thursday. "Now this has just sort of been confirmed."
Gregg, who does not frequently play the lottery and has no intention of doing so again soon, spent $20 on Powerball tickets, allowing the machine to select all of his numbers randomly.
"I think everybody in America believes in good fortune and little luck," Gregg said. "I'm no different than everybody else."
Gregg said he and his wife, Kathleen, will donate "a fair amount of money into the [Hugh Gregg] Family Foundation," which assists charities in New Hampshire, adding that he will "await instructions from my wife" about what to do with the remainder of the money.
After taxes, Gregg will receive about $500,000.
Gregg said his wife was initially hesitant, questioning whether he had read the numbers correctly. "I do tend to be a little dyslexic," he added.
When asked what signal it sent to the public for a "budget hawk" to win the lottery, Gregg replied, "I guess it means I'm good with numbers."
Gregg said he deposited his winnings Thursday. "I figured I didn't want to lose it," he explained.
