Capitol Commentary

Bruce Craig, Director of the National Coalition for History

Senator Alexander's "American History and Civics Education" Bill Set to Move On 20 June 2003, the American History and Civics Education Act passed the Senate by a vote of 90-0. Introduced in March 2003 by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and (by the time the legislation passed) cosponsored by 36 of his colleagues, the bill (S.504) creates summer residential academies for teachers and students. The bill also establishes a new National Alliance of Teachers of American History and Civics.

The legislation reflects the underlying philosophies embodied in the National Endowment for the Humanities' (NEH) "We the People" initiative and the Department of Education's (DOE) "Teaching American History" grant program, in that it focuses on what Alexander characterizes as the teaching of "the traditional kind" of history--"the study of the key persons, the key events, the key ideas, and the key documents that shape the institutions and democratic heritage" of the United States.

The floor statements of Senate supporters, the legislation itself, and the accompanying Senate report (S. Rept. 108-71) collectively provide a pretty clear picture of what Congress hopes to accomplish by enacting this legislation. The bill authorizes $7 million in each fiscal year from 2004 to 2007 for pilot program grants to conduct up to twelve, two-week long summertime Presidential Academies for Teachers of American History and Civics. Some $14 million a year is also authorized to conduct up to twelve, four-week long summer Congressional Academies for Students of American History and Civics. The grants could span a two-year period, after which an educational institution could reapply for a second two-year grant. The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) would award the grants after being subjected to a peer-review process. The program would be approved for four years and it would require reauthorization should Congress opt to continue or expand it beyond 2008.

The legislation is designed "to inspire better teaching and more learning of the key events, documents, persons and ideas that shaped the institutions and democratic heritage of the United States" with educational programs that "will enhance students' and teachers' content knowledge." To this end, the sponsors want the grant administrator (the NEH) to "focus on content knowledge of American History" with a special emphasis on "the first motto of our Nation, E Pluribus Unum." Grantees would be expected to devise programs that emphasize the general theme of "unity amidst variety and diversity." Report language also states the NEH "should try to attain geographic diversity" in the selection of grantees.

It is interesting to note that governmental entities such as the Library of Congress, the National Park Service, and public libraries are specifically mentioned as "examples" of the types of entities that would be "considered eligible potential recipients of grants." While some federal grant programs prohibit monies being allocated to other federal agencies, this limitation does not exist in this legislation, raising some question whether the program conceivably could be used as a "pass-through" for existing ongoing history-related education programs being sponsored by other federal agencies. For the purposes of the legislation, however, in addition to the aforementioned federal agencies, an "educational institution" is also defined to mean "an institution of higher education . . . a nonprofit educational institution, library or research center" and also includes a "consortium of entities."

Alexander's legislation also establishes a National Alliance of Teachers of American History and Civics and authorizes up to $12 million over a three-year period to establish and operate the new alliance. Each year one or more national grants would be made to facilitate the sharing of ideas among teachers and encourage "best practices" in the teaching of American history and civics. The Alliance would be modeled after the National Geographic Society which was established during the 1880s to help put geography back into the American school curriculum.

The creation of such an alliance is by no means a new idea and several existing organizations and institutions already do much of what is envisioned in the Alexander bill. For example, the National Council for History Education, the National Council for the Social Sciences, and an H-Net listserv all focus to one degree or another on "facilitating the sharing of ideas among teachers of American history . . . and encourage best practices." Similar organizations exist and seek to attain comparable objectives for the teaching of civics. What is new in the Alexander bill is that the senator envisions bringing these two social studies disciplines together under the umbrella of a larger teacher alliance.

While the bill authorizes up to $25 million each year for the pilot program grants, the bill does not specify from which department or agency budget the appropriations would come. In theory, the funds could be new monies, though most insiders believe that given the tight fiscal environment and restricted budget allocations, the funding for the program would probably be drawn from existing education or history-related programs.

Privately, some history watchers are expressing concern about the funding options for the Alexander bill and the current effort by Republicans in the House to "fast-track" the passage of this bill. In the House, the legislation is being shepherded by Representative Roger Wicker (R-MS) whose legislation (HR 1078) is the House companion to the Alexander bill; Wicker's bill has over 160 cosponsors. The Republican leadership in the House hoped to bypass House hearings entirely and sought to place the Alexander bill on the Unanimous Consent calendar thus insuring rapid passage and thereby increasing the likelihood of starting the flow of funds out of the FY 2004 appropriation cycle. House Democrats objected and told the Republican leadership that they believed the bill, as currently drafted, has problems and it deserves more thoughtful consideration and closer scrutiny than it received in its Senate hearing.

In particular, concern has been raised that the bill creates a bad precedent for the NEH. Alexander's legislation in essence is a history program "earmark" and the NEH traditionally has not been subjected to such funding restrictions. Over the years, NEH supporters have shied away from such earmarks for fear that once a precedent is established, in the future other members of Congress may try to earmark funds thereby shortchanging the NEH's primary mission and programs.

Second, there is also some concern over the potential impact that the $25 million authorization could have on the FY 2004 NEH "We the People" program appropriation. With the Republican controlled House only appropriating $10 million of the President's $25 million request, and because the funding level for the NEH has not been addressed by the Senate, the question emerges: what impact would the funding for the Alexander program have on the "We the People" program in the Senate and/or when the bill comes to conference? Some fear that certain members of Congress may want to pull the $25 million from the "Teaching American History" (TAH) grant program currently funded by the DOE at $100 million and turn some of that money over to the NEH to use to administer the Alexander bill. Also, the House recently recommended an appropriation of only $50 million--half of what the Administration requested for the "Teaching American History" program--while the Senate recommended $120 million. The fear is that in conference the Senate may acquiesce to a lower funding level for the TAH program provided that the funds are made available for the Alexander bill. This, in turn, would impact the grant funding levels available for the LEAs (Local Education Agencies) that currently are the prime beneficiaries of the TAH grants. Senator Byrd, as the ranking minority member on the Senate Appropriations Committee and the key sponsor of the TAH grants, is not expected to be predisposed to this type of arrangement though he may welcome an additional $25 million being added to his $120 million for the TAH grants program to fund the Alexander bill. In this era of fiscal austerity it is doubtful the House would sign off on a $145 million authorization for the TAH grant program.

Florida Ballots From 2000 Election Saved

On 8 May 2003, Glenda Hood, the Florida Secretary of State, announced that she had instructed all sixty-seven Florida counties to forward more than six million ballots from the 2000 election to the Florida State Archives. Hood's action puts to rest concerns of historians, political scientists, and archivists who feared the 2000 presidential election records would be destroyed in accordance with Florida's records disposition schedules.

For well over two years, the National Coalition for History has played a leading role in advocating the preservation of the ballots and the related election records, such as instructions from supervisors to poll workers, records of canvassing board meetings, legal briefs, and paper and electronic communications between the Secretary of State's office and local election board officials.

Hood spokeswoman Jenny Nash said the 5,000 cubic feet of ballots (the equivalent of 450 large filing cabinets) will be stored in the climate-controlled archives building in Tallahassee. The ballots will be transported by truck at the expense of the state. The Secretary of State's office estimated that it will cost between $250,000 to move and store the documents, and $100,000 annually after that.

Normally, ballots are destroyed after twenty-two months, but the Department of State and the Division of Library and Information Services extended the deadline to 1 July 2003. However, at least one county had already destroyed its ballots. "Our ballots are gone," said Mark Andersen, elections supervisor for Bay County in the Panhandle, adding that he thought state officials had already given approval to get rid of them.

While the ballots were saved for the benefit of future historical research, some doubt their potential usefulness. "They're of no value at all except as a historic relic," said Barry Richard, Florida attorney for Al Gore. "They're just a curiosity at this point." Julian Pleasants, a history professor at the University of Florida in Gainesville disagrees: "For the most part, ballots don't have historical value, but obviously 2000 was a bit different. . . .This is the most controversial presidential election in modern history."

Bruce Craig is director of the National Coalition for History (NCH). He can be reached at: <rbcraig@historycoalition.org>. For the NCH, he edits the weekly electronic newsletter targeted to historians and archivists--the NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's web page at <http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~nch>. To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to <listserv@h-net.msu.edu> according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution.