The School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STW), signed by President Clinton in 1994, is an attempt to use federal mandates and funding to browbeat the public schools into changing their mission. STW is being implemented nationwide by STW state laws, federal and state regulations, and the federal mandates that control the granting of federal STW funds.
School-to-Work is the implementation of Marc Tucker's "cradle to grave" plan outlined in his "Dear Hillary" letter, and it is moving rapidly through the schools. Tucker boasts that he has written the "restructuring" plans for more than 50% of public school children. Designed on the German system, it is a plan to train children in specific jobs to serve the workforce and the global economy instead of educate them so they can make their own life choices.
The traditional function of education was to teach basic knowledge and skills: reading, writing, math, science, history, etc. School-to-Work de-emphasizes or eliminates academic work and substitutes mandated vocational training to serve the workforce. Instead of the focus being on developing the child, the focus is on serving the labor force.
There's a big difference between educating a child and training him to serve the workforce. According to the dictionary, to educate means to develop the faculties and powers of a person by teaching. Becoming skilled at reading, writing and calculating is essential to developing as a student and as a person and being able to fulfill the American dream. To train means to cause a person or animal to be efficient in the performance of tasks by responding to discipline, instruction, and repeated practice. That's what you do to your dog.
That's what School-to-Work is: "performance-based" training of students to move into predetermined jobs. Those predetermined jobs will not be selected by the student or his family. New bodies called workforce development boards, appointed not elected, will determine what jobs are needed in the coming years. The schools will then design the curriculum to meet these governmentally determined workforce needs, and use counselors and computers to do "job matching" of the students.
After you complete your vocational training, you will get a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) or Smart Card -- not a high school diploma -- and you won't be able to get a job unless you have one. This will function much like the green card that must be presented by resident aliens in order to get a job.
STW laws and regulations require vocational training to start "at the earliest possible age, but beginning no later than middle school grades." The federal STW statute even says that "career awareness" should "begin as early as the elementary grades." How many elementary or even middle school children do you know who are capable of choosing their lifetime career? Obviously, these decisions will be made by the school, not by the individual or his parents.
The goal is not to graduate highly-literate individuals but to turn out team workers to produce for the global economy. In the STW scheme, individual grades are inflated or detached from academic achievement, individual honors and competition are eliminated or de-emphasized, and instead we have such "team" techniques as group grading, cooperative learning, peer tutoring, horizontal enrichment, job shadowing, mentoring, and job site visits. It is obvious that Outcome-Based Education was preparation for the STW system in which children are taught to be "team workers" instead of achievers.
A computer profile will be inputed for every student, and it will contain an awesome array of personal and private family information. These data will be available to the school, the government, and prospective employers. That doesn't sound like a free America! It sounds like George Orwell's 1984.
Vocational courses in high school for illiterate or semi-literate students will train young Americans to compete in the global economy with people in the third world willing to work for 25 and 50 cents an hour. That's why a lot of big businesses have entered into partnerships with Governors and school districts to promote School-to-Work. They think the schools will do some of their job training for them.
But it's not the job of the taxpayers to do job training; that's the job of the corporations that hire them. It is the job of the schools to teach children to read, write and calculate.
School-to-Work is a direct threat to the individual student, his privacy, his goals, and his acquisition of an education that can help him reach them. Furthermore, a planned economy, with bureaucrats trying to predict what jobs will be needed in the next five years and training students for specific jobs, is a failure all over the world. All those who value freedom must defeat and defund School-to-Work.
Robert Reich, Ira Magaziner, and Marc Tucker are the social engineers driving the School-to-Work concept. They dream of using the schools to implement industrial policy, a.k.a. national economic planning, following the German and East European models.
Robert Reich's and Ira Magaziner's 1982 book entitled Minding America's Business bemoans America's "irrational and uncoordinated industrial policy" and that we lack a single agency to monitor our domestic economy and adjust it to changes in the world markets. They think we need an economic czar.
Robert Reich, in his 1983 book The Next American Frontier, wrote enthusiastically about Germany and Japan, where government-managed industrial policy uses loans and subsidies to shift resources into favored industries, and "induces" disfavored firms to exit from the industry. He praised the high percentage of their national economies that is poured into numerous, generous, tax-financed social benefits and "elaborate programs of job training," which he claimed resulted in low unemployment.
Marc Tucker, in his 1992 book Thinking for a Living, expressed admiration for the Soviet bloc countries. He wrote that they "have done a better job than we of building human-resource development programs."
The alleged economic efficiency of the German and Eastern bloc countries, so highly praised by Reich, Magaziner and Tucker, is now on the rocks. Germany's unemployment rate is 12% and the extravagances of the welfare state are heading that nation into economic decline.
School-to-Work is the "human-resource development" segment of the Reich-Magaziner-Tucker strategy to inflict America with a national industrial policy dictated by government economic czars. These elitists have convinced themselves that they possess "extraordinary insights" to restructure our economy. But central planning is a failure everywhere in the world!
Bearing in mind that 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151 grants the FCC "authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication," the rest of the law begins to fall in place and make sense, in particular Sec. 303, Powers and duties of Commission.
47 U.S.C. Sec. 303 describes various rule-making and regulation-making powers of the FCC, and certain provisions of this section are often quoted by the FCC in attempting to inspect, fine, seize, or otherwise shut down "violators." However, the very first sentence of this section should leap off of the page to the broadcaster who knows and understand his rights and legal standing:
47 U.S.C. Sec. 303 Powers and duties of Commission Except as otherwise provided in this chapter...
That sentence sets everything that follows into the context of "interstate and foreign commerce," including the dreaded Section 303(n), which the FCC, operating under "color of law," uses as its alleged authority to conduct warrantless searches.
47 U.S.C. Sec. 303
(n) Have authority to inspect all radio stations associated with stations REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED.... [emphasis added]
What stations are required to be licensed? Those engaged in "interstate and foreign commerce"!
The FCC has no authority to inspect any other facility, PERIOD!
It is important to examine other statutory provisions adding to the FCC's limited authority, found as follows:
47 CFR Sec. 0.405(b)
The Commission exercises authority under the Submarine Cable Landing Act, 42 Stat. 8.... 47 U.S.C. 34-39....
The Submarine Cable Landing Act and 47 U.S.C. Sections 34-39 deal with submarine (i.e., underwater) cables:
...directly or indirectly connecting the United States with any foreign country....
Note the definition given in Sec. 38:
47 U.S.C. Sec. 38 "United States" defined
The term "United States" as used in Sections 34-39 of this title includes the "Canal Zone and all territory continental or insular, SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." [emphasis added]
According to Black's:
Territory. A portion of the United States, not within the limits of any state, which has not yet been admitted as a state of the Union, but is organized, with a separate legislature, and with executive and judicial officers appointed by the president.
It is also interesting to note that 47 U.S.C. Sections 34-39 are not listed in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Index. We will cover the significance of that omission later!
Another area where the FCC exercises authority is listed as follows:
47 CFR Sec. 0.405(c)
The Commission exercises authority under the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, 76 Stat. 419, August 31, 1962, 47 U.S.C. 701-744.
The Communications Satellite Act of 1962 and 47 U.S.C. Section 701-744 describe participation of the United States (in the form of a private corporation!) in a vast "commercial communications satellite system, as part of an improved global communications network." However, this Act, along with the Submarine Cable Act, appears to contain nothing applicable to low-power, intrastate broadcasting. Of note is the fact that Sec. 721, Implementation of Policy, which contains FCC functions, including rule- and regulation-making, is not listed in the CFR Parallel Tables of Authorities and Rules.
47 CFR Sec. 0.405(d)
The Commission operates under the Administrative Procedure Act....
This section lists sections of 5 U.S.C. which cover definitions, publication in the Federal Register, the Freedom of Information Act, rule-making, adjudications, court proceedings, hearings, sanctions, licenses, judicial review, relief, administrative law judges, government employees, and other administrative procedure matters which all federal agencies must observe. None of these sections shed any additional light on the authority and jurisdiction of the FCC relating to low-power intrastate broadcasting.
Other sections of 47 U.S.C. are pertinent to FCC jurisdiction.
47 U.S.C. Sec. 401 Enforcement provisions
(a) Jurisdiction. The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction...to issue a writ or writs of mandamus commanding such person to comply with the provisions of this chapter.
(b) If any person fails or neglects to obey any order of the Commission...the Commission...may apply to the appropriate district court of the United States for the enforcement of such order...the COURT shall enforce obedience.... [emphasis added]
The FCC has no authority whatsoever to command compliance or enforce obedience! That authority lies solely with the district courts of the United States.
47 U.S.C. Sec. 401 Enforcement provisions
(c) Duty to prosecute. Upon the request of the Commission IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ANY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY to whom the Commission may apply to institute in the proper court and to prosecute under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States all necessary proceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter.... [emphasis added]
The FCC has no authority to institute court proceedings! That duty lies with "any United States attorney...under the direction of the Attorney General" to whom "the Commission may apply." It is a little-known fact that you, too, may apply to any United States attorney to institute court proceedings.
CONCLUSION OF PART TWO
The authority and/or jurisdiction of the FCC is limited to regulating "interstate and foreign commerce." The FCC only has authority to inspect radio installations which are "required to be licensed," i.e., those engaged in "interstate and foreign commerce." The FCC has no authority to institute court proceedings, or to command compliance with or enforce the law in any way whatsoever.
PART THREE: THE PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES
To quote Patrick E. Kehoe, Professor of Law, Director of the Law Library at The American University in Washington, D.C., in the Foreword to the Code of Federal Regulations Index:
In 1936 Congress passed legislation setting up the Federal Register and decreeing that any regulation issued by a federal agency, authorized either by Congress or the President, must appear in it in order for the regulation to have binding legal effect.... In 1937, Congress, recognizing the obvious need for a subject-based codification of current regulations, enacted further legislation establishing the Code of Federal Regulations.... The CFR is a specialized publication which is meant to include only those regulations which are considered to be of general effect.... The CFR is by law...considered to be prima facie correct statement of any regulation which it includes....
According to the "CFR Index and Finding Aids," Revised as of January 1, 1996 as a special edition of the Federal Register:
The PTAR of the CFR lists the rule-making authority (except for 5 U.S.C. 301) for regulations codified in the CFR. Entries in the table are taken directly from the rule-making authority citation provided by Federal Agencies in their regulations.
To quote legal researcher Dan Meador:
Congress, as the legislative body for the United States, operates in at least two distinct capacities. First, Congress legislates for the state republics party to the Constitution within the framework of Constitutionally delegated authorities. Second, Congress legislates for the self-interested United States -- the geographical United States, exclusive of the state republics. Any given law Congress enacts vests administrative authority in a cabinet officer or board or commission in charge of whatever the legislation applies to. The officer or entity vested with original authority must then facilitate legislation with regulations. If regulations are published in the Federal Register, the statute or statutes the regulations facilitate can or do apply to the population at large and/or the states party to the Constitution. IF ANY GIVEN REGULATION IS NOT PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, THE NATION'S LEGAL NEWSPAPER, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE POPULATION AT LARGE OR THE STATE REPUBLICS. It applies only to federal agencies and officers, agents and employees of federal agencies, allowing for other applications within exclusively United States jurisdiction (District of Columbia, U.S.-owned territories and insular possessions and federal enclaves).
Authorities Confirming Necessity of Regulations
Application determined by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552, et seq. and 44 U.S.C. Sec. 1501, et seq.; 44 U.S.C. Sec. 1505(a) specifies that when regulations are not published in the Federal Register, application is to federal agencies and officers, agents and employees of federal agencies....
SECTIONS THAT HAVE NO REGULATIONS ARE MANDATORY AND/OR ENFORCEABLE ONLY IN THE FEDERAL UNITED STATES, INCLUSIVE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND U.S.-OWNED TERRITORIES....
The necessity for regulations was emphasized by the U.S. Supreme Court in California Bankers Ass'n. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1500, 39 L.Ed. 2d 812 (1974): "Because it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone...."
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the [federal] United States unless a contrary intent appears." -- Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)....
In other words, where the several States and the general population are concerned, a statute created by Act of Congress is somewhat like a hot air balloon that won't get off the ground until someone pumps in hot air. Regulations are to statutes as hot air is to the balloon. As stated in 44 U.S.C.S. Sec. 1505(a)(1), if regulations for any given statute aren't published in the Federal Register, application is limited to Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees of Federal agencies....
Fortunately, there is a reasonably easy way to discern what statutes in the United States Code have general application to the several States and the population at large. This is through the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules....
Its authority is located at 1 CFR Sec. 8.5(a): "(a) Parallel tables of statutory authorities and rules. In the Code of Federal Regulations Index or at some other place as the Director of the Federal Register considers appropriate, numerical lists of all sections of the current edition of the United States Code (except Section 301 of title 5) which are cited by issuing agencies as rule-making authority for currently effective regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations. The lists shall be arranged in the order of the titles and sections of the United States Code with parallel citations to the pertinent titles and parts of the Code of Federal Regulations."
This handy finding aid lists United States Code statutes by title and section in the left column, if implementing regulations have been published in the Federal Register, and applicable regulations by title and part in the right. If the statute does not appear, it does not have implementing regulations which have been published in the Federal Register, signifying that, in accordance with 44 U.S.C.S. Sec. 1505(a)(1) provisions, the statute is applicable only to Federal agencies or the officers, agents, and employees of Federal agencies. If the statute number does appear and a regulation is cited, the regulation must be consulted to determine application.... [emphasis added]
What does all of this mean? It means that statutes from the United States Code which do not have implementing regulations have NO LEGAL EFFECT ON THE POPULATION AT LARGE!
All of the sections from 47 U.S.C. Chapter 5 - wire or radio communication - which have no implementing regulations that appear in the PTAR are:
Sec. 157 - New technologies and services
Sec. 159 - Regulatory fees
Sec. 213 - Valuation of property of carrier
Sec. 214 - Extension of lines or discontinuance of service...
Sec. 216 - Receivers and trustees; application of chapter
Sec. 217 - Agents' acts and omissions; liability of carrier
Sec. 222 - Competition among record carriers
Sec. 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls
Sec. 224 - Pole attachments
Sec. 226 - Telephone operator services
Sec. 228 - Regulation of carrier offering pay-per-call services
Sec. 306 - Foreign ships; application of section 301
Sec. 320 - Stations liable to interfere with distress signals...
Sec. 321 - Distress signals and communications...
Sec. 322 - Exchanging radio communications...
Sec. 323 - Interference between Government and commercial stations
Sec. 324 - Use of minimum power
Sec. 326 - Censorship
Sec. 327 - Naval stations...
Sec. 328 - Canal Zone; representation by Secretary of State
Sec. 329 - Administration of radio laws in Territories and possessions
Sec. 331 - Allocation of very high frequency television stations and AM radio stations
Sec. 333 - Willful or malicious interference
Sec. 335 - Direct broadcast satellite service obligations
Sec. 351 - Ship radio stations and operations
Sec. 353 - Radio equipment and operators
Sec. 353a - Operators and watches on radiotelephone
Sec. 354 - Technical requirements...
Sec. 354a - Technical requirements...
Sec. 355 - Survival craft
Sec. 356 - Approval of installations by Commission
Sec. 357 - Safety information
Sec. 358 - Master's control over operations
Sec. 359 - Certificates of compliance...
Sec. 361 - Control by Commission...
Sec. 362 - Forfeitures; recovery
Sec. 381 - Vessels transporting more than six passengers...
Sec. 382 - Vessels excepted...
Sec. 384 - Authority of Commission
Sec. 386 - Forfeitures
Sec. 395 - Assistance...
Sec. 401 - Enforcement provisions
Sec. 402 - Judicial review...
Sec. 406 - Compelling furnishing of facilities
Sec. 407 - Order for payment of money; petition for enforcement; procedure; order of Commission as prima facie evidence; costs; attorneys' fees
Sec. 408 - Order not for payment of money...
Sec. 411 - Joinder of parties
Sec. 413 - Designation of agent for service...
Sec. 414 - Exclusiveness of chapter
Sec. 415 - Limitations of actions
Sec. 416 - Orders of Commission
Sec. 501 - General penalty
Sec. 502 - Violation of rules, regulations, etc.
Sec. 503 - Forfeitures
Sec. 504 - Forfeitures
Sec. 505 - Venue of trials
Sec. 506 - Repealed
Sec. 507 - Violation of Great Lakes Agreement
Sec. 508 - Disclosure of payments to individuals connected with broadcasts
Sec. 509 - Prohibited practices...
Sec. 510 - Forfeiture of communications devices
Sec. 521 - Purposes
Sec. 522 - Definitions
Sec. 534 - Carriage of local commercial television signals
Sec. 537 - Sales of cable systems
Sec. 541 - General franchise requirements
Sec. 545 - Modification of franchise obligations
Sec. 546 - Renewal
Sec. 547 - Conditions of sale
Sec. 551 - Protection of subscriber privacy
Sec. 553 - Unauthorized reception of cable service
Sec. 555 - Judicial proceedings
Sec. 555a - Limitation of franchising authority liability
Sec. 556 - Coordination of Federal, State, and local authority
Sec. 557 - Existing franchises
Sec. 558 - Criminal and civil liability
Sec. 559 - Obscene programming
Sec. 601 - Interstate Commerce Commission and Postmaster General; duties, powers and functions transferred to Commission
Sec. 603 - Transfers from Federal Radio Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission, and Postmaster General
Sec. 604 - Effect of transfer
Sec. 605 - Unauthorized publication or use of communications
Sec. 607 - Effective date of chapter
Sec. 608 - Separability
Sec. 609 - Short title
Sec. 610 - Telephone service for disabled
Sec. 611 - Closed-captioning of public service announcements
Sec. 612 - Syndicated exclusivity
Sec. 613 - Discrimination
The astute researcher, however, will notice from the PTAR that all sections from 301 to 609 ARE covered with a blanket of regulations found in 47 CFR Parts 80, 87 and 97. However, 47 CFR 80, 87 and 97 deal only with "the conditions under which radio may be licensed and used in the maritime services," "the conditions under which radio stations may be licensed and used in the aviation services," and "to provide an amateur radio service," NONE of which extend any FCC authority or jurisdiction over intrastate broadcasters!
("Amateur" or as they are commonly known, "ham" operators, may be particularly chagrined to learn that they VOLUNTEER to be regulated by the FCC by submitting to "examination." According to 47 CFR 97.5, titled "Station license required": "Any person who qualifies by examination" is "qualified to be an amateur operator," and therefore "must have been granted a station license of the type listed in paragraph (b)...before the station may transmit on any amateur service frequency...." A person qualifies by examination, is granted a license, and therefore submits to being regulated. Those who do not submit to examination are not required to be licensed, and, unless engaged in "interstate and foreign commerce," are not subject to regulation!)
CONCLUSION OF PART THREE
If any given regulation is not published in the Federal Register it does not apply to the population at large or the state republics. Sections that have no regulations are mandatory and/or enforceable only in the federal United States, inclusive of the District of Columbia and U.S.-owned territories. No implementing regulations exist for sections of 47 U.S.C. relating to, among other items, enforcement provisions, orders for payment of money, penal provisions, penalties, violation of rules or regulations, forfeitures, or trials which apply to broadcasters not engaged in "interstate and foreign commerce." Those statutes apply only to those involved in "interstate and foreign commerce," Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents or employees thereof, those in the maritime or aviation services, or those who have volunteered to be regulated by submitting to FCC examination and qualification.
PART FOUR: THE CASE AGAINST STEPHEN DUNIFER
A much popularized situation exists in Berkeley, California in which the FCC is attempting to prosecute Stephen Dunifer, a low-power broadcaster operating a station called Free Radio Berkeley (FRB). In the numerous legal documents posted on FRB's World Wide Web site, it can be learned that the FCC served Dunifer with a "Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL)" which cited, among other items, 47 CFR Sec. 15.29(a), 47 CFR Sec. 73.201, and 47 U.S.C. Sec. 503(b). The FCC also claimed that Dunifer had violated 47 U.S.C. Sec. 301, and claimed authority under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 303(n).
Attorneys for Dunifer, after making a rather weak challenge to the FCC's jurisdiction in the matter, based the bulk of his defense on a well-documented, passionate and eloquently stated claim that the FCC had violated Dunifer's First Amendment rights by refusing to grant licenses to his low-power station. This persuasive Constitutional defense led to the FCC, and much of the broadcasting community, being stunned when Judge Claudia Wilken, on January 30, 1995, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, refused to grant any injunction requested by the FCC against Dunifer.
While the case still awaits final disposition, and Judge Wilken's decision has been hailed as a victory for low-power broadcasters, Dunifer's Constitutional arguments become moot in light of the facts that:
(a) Dunifer was not involved in "interstate and foreign commerce".
(b) 47 CFR Sec. 15.29(a) deals with licensing of devices pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 301 ("interstate and foreign commerce"), and states that devices not in compliance with 47 CFR 15 are prohibited under 47 U.S.C. 302. However, Sec. 302 was REPEALED in 1936!
(c) 47 CFR Sec. 73.201 deals with FM broadcast channels assigned to stations engaged in "interstate and foreign commerce."
(d) 47 U.S.C. Sec. 503(b) has no implementing regulations published in the CFR relating to those involved in "intrastate" broadcasting or commerce.
While Dunifer's persuasive Constitutional arguments may allow him to eventually prevail in his case, they are actually quite unnecessary in light of the fact that the FCC had no authority or jurisdiction over him to begin with!
As reported on William Cooper's international broadcast, "The Hour of the Time" of 03/31/97, a letter was sent to Reed Hunt, FCC Chairman, which read:
Dear Mr. Hunt:
I notice that you personally introduce your agency as being charged with regulating interstate and international communications consisting of almost all electronic methods. This leads me to ask you, does your agency, the Federal Communications Commission, have any jurisdiction over intrastate radio communications, meaning "within the state"?
If you do have jurisdiction, where may I find the implementing regulation in the Federal Register, and specifically, what section and paragraphs would pertain to radio transmissions that do not cross state borders?
Thank you very much in advance for your answer to me.
The answer was as follows:
March 3, 1997
I've been asked to respond to your letter regarding intrastate radio communications, meaning "within the state." The FCC only regulates interstate and foreign commerce in radio communications. For your reference, I have enclosed a copy of Title 1, Section 2, 47 United States Code 152. Also enclosed are copies of other sections and titles referred to in Title 1. Respectively, they are Sections 223 through 227, Section 332, Section 301 Title 6, and Sections 201 through 205 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended.
Intrastate, meaning "within the state," radio communications may be regulated by individual states, and I would recommend contacting your state utility commission for further information.
Martha E. Conti
Chief, Public Service Division
Office of Public Affairs
PART FIVE: CONCLUSION
It seems that the FCC clearly understands its authority and jurisdiction but, because of fear, ignorance, and apathy on the part of the population at large, has engaged in unauthorized actions under the "color of law." Such actions are OUTSIDE of the law, and as such, are ILLEGAL. Such actions can and have been vigorously and successfully opposed by those who understand the law and their rights as citizens. When confronted by an informed and unafraid citizenry, the FCC has no choice but to obey the laws under which it was created.
2. You, as a teacher, do not have to pay dues or fees to support NEA activities that are unrelated to collective bargaining and contract administration. You may not be aware of this right, but it has been established and sustained, respectively, in the Abood (1977) and Beck (1988) U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Many teachers have exercised their rights and the savings have often been significant. A recent out-of-court settlement in Washington state, for example, provided teachers who objected to the union's political activities with a 50% reduction in all dues for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years, including a 100% reduction in local dues for 1994-95.
3. The public policy agenda being advocated by the NEA would lead to either a massive tax hike on America's families or bequeath monstrous deficits to our children. All told, if everything proposed in the NEA's Legislative Program for the 104th Congress were enacted into law, federal spending would increase by at least $702 billion per year. This agenda is bigger than that of any Member of the House or Senate in the 104th Congress. Much of the financing burden for this would fall upon America's children. If the NEA's spending agenda were paid for through taxes, it would translate into an added burden of $10,554 per year for a family of four. Given the political difficulty of enacting taxes of this magnitude, the far more likely outcome is an increase in the deficit, which again places an added financial burden on America's children.
4. Besides being outlandishly expensive, the NEA's agenda contains many fringe propositions and items that have nothing to do with education. Items advocated by the NEA in its resolutions and legislative agenda include: a) a nuclear freeze, b) opposition to creation of English as the official language, c) policies that would increase Social Security spending by at least $126.8 billion per year, d) statehood for the city of Washington, D.C., and e) reparation of Native American Remains.
5. Your NEA-PAC dollars are not representative of teachers' partisan beliefs. During the 1996 campaigns, in contributing to Congressional races, the NEA gave 99 percent of its Political Action Committee (PAC) funds to Democratic candidates and less than 1 percent to Republicans. This partisanship contrasts sharply with recent figures about public school teacher party identification. A survey by the National Center for Education Information found 42 percent of teachers identify themselves as Democrats, 30 percent identify themselves as Republicans, and 28 percent as Independents. This survey data confirms the statement of NEA President Bob Chase who recently observed, "Our membership breaks down very similar to the general public as far as percentage being Democrat, Republican, and Independent." The bottom line is that NEA-PAC contributions are grossly unrepresentative of the NEA membership.
6. Your NEA-PAC dollars are not only unrepresentative, but were relatively unsuccessful in 1996. In the races in which it funded challengers, the NEA only won 25 percent of the races in the Senate and 18.4 percent in the House. In the all-important open seats, NEA- backed candidates won 33 percent of Senate races and 40.7 percent of House races (the incumbents the NEA backed in each chamber did very well, as did all incumbents).
7. The NEA has a sweet-heart tax deal on its national office in Washington, D.C., thereby avoiding paying its fair share of taxes. Recently renovated, the NEA's headquarters has an assessed value of $65 million. However, because of effective lobbying of Congress, the NEA has been able to maintain an archaic law freeing it from having to pay its $1.6 million in annual property taxes. Consequently all D.C. residents -- including teachers -- must pay higher property taxes because the NEA is not paying its fair share.
8. While the NEA leadership claims to be supportive of reforms such as charter schools, in reality, it throws up roadblocks. The NEA opposes charter schools that would allow groups of teachers to form schools that are mostly independent of the typical bureaucracy and union rules. While professing support for the idea, the NEA routinely seeks to block any real independence for proposed charter schools. And oftentimes, it flat out opposes charter school proposals such as Initiative 177 in Washington state in 1996.
9. By opposing vouchers and other school reform initiatives, the NEA leadership is focusing basically on just a quantitative strategy for reform -- more dollars -- rather than important qualitative reforms. Vouchers for kids, especially in troubled systems like Washington, D.C., would immediately enable some children to go to a better school and create competition which will lead all schools to improve. More school choice options for kids would mean more and better career paths for teachers. But rather than exploring options for real reform of our educational system, the NEA continues to advocate throwing more dollars into the current system. This is despite the fact that in inflation-adjusted terms, America spent 88% more per pupil in 1995 than we did in 1970.
10. Beyond the NEA, there are alternative teacher organizations that focus only on issues related to teaching -- not politics. These alternative organizations typically charge much less in dues than the NEA. Combined federal, state, and local dues for NEA members range from $300 to $700 per year. Alternative education associations often charge one-third this amount. There are currently over 20 states that have alternative organizations and these groups have approximately 300,000 members.
1. S.428: -- A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to improve the safety of handguns. Sponsor: Sen Kohl.
2. H.R.814: -- A bill to prevent children from injuring themselves with firearms. Sponsor: Rep Blumenauer.
3. H.CON.RES.28: -- A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of life or . . . . Sponsor: Rep Crane.
4. H.R.624: -- A bill to amend the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act of 1993 to clarify certain requirements and to improve the flow of interstate commerce. Sponsor: Rep Whitfield. - LATEST ACTION: 02/27/97 Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
5. H.R.844: -- A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the disposition of a firearm to, and the possession of a firearm by, non-permanent resident . . . . Sponsor: Rep Hastings, A..
6. H.CON.RES.2: -- A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the threat to the security of American citizens and the United States . . . . Sponsor: Rep Jackson-Lee.
7. S.137: -- A bill to tax 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets. Sponsor: Sen Moynihan.
8. H.R.949: -- A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the disposition of a firearm to, and the possession of a firearm by, non-permanent resident . . . . Sponsor: Rep Lowey.
9. S.466: -- A bill to reduce gun trafficking by prohibiting bulk purchases of handguns. Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg.
10. S.191: -- A bill to throttle criminal use of guns. Sponsor: Sen Helms.
11. S.168: -- A bill to reform criminal procedure, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen DeWine.
12. S.380: -- A bill to prohibit foreign nationals admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa from possessing a firearm. Sponsor: Sen Durbin.
13. S.132: -- A bill to prohibit the use of certain ammunition, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Moynihan.
14. H.R.115: -- A bill to prohibit the transfer of a firearm to, and the possession of a firearm by, a person who is intoxicated. Sponsor: Rep Conyers.
15. H.R.361: -- A bill to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns. Sponsor: Rep Towns.
16. H.R.445: -- A bill to provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply to government entities. Sponsor: Rep Stupak.
17. H.R.102: -- A bill to require the national instant criminal background check system to be established and used in connection with firearms transfers by November 28, . . . . Sponsor: Rep Barr.
18. S.262: -- A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the prospective application of certain prohibitions relating to firearms. Sponsor: Sen Wellstone.
19. H.R.218: -- A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying . . . . Sponsor: Rep Cunningham.
20. H.R.116: -- A bill to apply equal standards to certain foreign made and domestically produced handguns. Sponsor: Rep Conyers.
21. S.70: -- A bill to apply the same quality and safety standards to domestically manufactured handguns that are currently applied to imported handguns. Sponsor: Sen Boxer.
22. S.133: -- A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the tax on handgun ammunition, to impose the special occupational tax and registration . . . . Sponsor: Sen Moynihan.
23. H.R.424: -- A bill to provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals possessing firearms, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Myrick.
24. H.R.492: -- A bill to apply the same quality and safety standards to domestically manufactured handguns that are currently applied to imported handguns. Sponsor: Rep Schumer.
25. H.R.810: -- A bill to deter and punish serious gang and violent crime, promote accountability in the juvenile justice system, prevent juvenile and youth crime, and . . . . Sponsor: Rep Schumer.
26. S.43: -- A bill to throttle criminal use of guns. Sponsor: Sen Helms.
27. H.R.339: -- A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain . . . . Sponsor: Rep Stearns.
28. S.CON.RES.9: -- A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding cooperation between the United States and Mexico on counter-drug activities. Sponsor: Sen Hutchison.
29. H.R.826: -- A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide specific penalties for taking a firearm from a Federal law enforcement officer. Sponsor: Rep Ney.
30. S.CON.RES.10: -- A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding certification of Mexico pursuant to section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of . . . . Sponsor: Sen Grassley.
31. H.R.26: -- A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor . . . . Sponsor: Rep Barr.
32. S.135: -- A bill to provide for the collection and dissemination of information on injuries, death, and family dissolution due to bullet-related violence, to . . . . Sponsor: Sen Moynihan.
33. S.134: -- A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the licensing of ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Moynihan.
34. H.R.787: -- A bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun . . . . Sponsor: Rep Owens.
35. S.362: -- A bill to deter and punish serious gang and violent crime, promote accountability in the juvenile justice system, prevent juvenile and youth crime, and . . . . Sponsor: Sen Leahy.
36. S.136: -- A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or importation of .25 caliber and .32 caliber and 9 . . . . Sponsor: Sen Moynihan.
37. S.112: -- A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the manufacture, importation, and sale of ammunition capable of piercing police body armor. Sponsor: Sen Moynihan.
38. S.173: -- A bill to expedite State reviews of criminal records of applicants for private security officer employment, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen DeWine.
39. H.R.103: -- A bill to expedite State reviews of criminal records of applicants for private security officer employment, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Barr.
40. H.R.186: -- A bill to provide for the mandatory registration of handguns. Sponsor: Rep Hastings, A..
41. S.54: -- A bill to reduce interstate street gang and organized crime activity, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Hatch.
42. H.R.454: -- A bill to amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to provide enhanced penalties for crimes against elderly and child victims. Sponsor: Rep Ackerman.
43. H.R.27: -- A bill to protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement . . . . Sponsor: Rep Bartlett.
44. H.R.788: -- A bill to expand the powers of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to regulate the manufacture, distribution, . . . . Sponsor: Rep Owens.
45. H.R.12: -- A bill to prevent handgun violence and illegal commerce in handguns. Sponsor: Rep Schumer.
46. H.R.85: -- A bill to improve the regulation of explosives and explosive materials, and to prevent the use of explosives against persons and the unlawful use of . . . . Sponsor: Rep Slaughter.
47. H.J.RES.58: -- A joint resolution disapproving the certification of the President under section 490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign . . . . Sponsor: Rep Shaw. - LATEST ACTION: 03/20/97 Measure passed Senate, amended
48. H.R.476: -- A bill to prohibit the possession or transfer of non sporting handguns. Sponsor: Rep Gutierrez.
49. H.R.278: -- A bill to make changes in Federal juvenile justice proceedings, and to foster youth development and prevent juvenile crime and delinquency. Sponsor: Rep Schumer.
50. S.10: -- A bill to reduce violent juvenile crime, promote accountability by juvenile criminals, punish and deter violent gang crime, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Hatch.
51. H.R.3: -- A bill to combat violent youth crime and increase accountability for juvenile criminal offenses. Sponsor: Rep McCollum.
52. S.1: -- A bill to provide for safe and affordable schools. Sponsor: Sen Coverdell.
53. S.15: -- A bill to control youth violence, crime, and drug abuse, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Daschle.
54. H.R.22: -- A bill to reform the postal laws of the United States. Sponsor: Rep McHugh.
55. S.3: -- A bill to provide for fair and accurate criminal trials, reduce violent juvenile crime, promote accountability by juvenile criminals, punish and deter . . . . Sponsor: Sen Hatch.